Utah charges non-consumptive users (HB309)

[SAJ-99]

Someone sent me an article and somehow Utah HB309 slipped through the HT cracks while we were all busy with other fights. At least I missed it, if it was discussed. Apparently non-consumptive users have to buy a hunting/fishing license to use some of the wildlife management areas around SLC.

HB0309

le.utah.gov

Thoughts? I have suggested this idea before as a way to generate revenue from more than just hunters and fishermen. @Treeshark should be all for it , LOL.

Salt Lake Trib says there is some confusion in communication and they are looking to walk it back.

A license just to enjoy public lands? After stunning Utahns, lawmakers want to rework new law

Hunting or fishing licenses are now required for access to the Wildlife Management Areas in four most populous Utah counties. Here's why and where you'll need them.

www.sltrib.com

 

[Treeshark]

From the article:

“Though Wildlife Management Areas are run by the state, the lands are purchased and managed solely with funds generated by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.”

If this is true, then requiring a hunting or fishing license to access this land seems entirely fair.

 

[sclancy27]

Someone sent me an article and somehow Utah HB309 slipped through the HT cracks while we were all busy with other fights. At least I missed it, if it was discussed. Apparently non-consumptive users have to buy a hunting/fishing license to use some of the wildlife management areas around SLC.

HB0309

le.utah.gov

Thoughts? I have suggested this idea before as a way to generate revenue from more than just hunters and fishermen. @Treeshark should be all for it , LOL.

Salt Lake Trib says there is some confusion in communication and they are looking to walk it back.

A license just to enjoy public lands? After stunning Utahns, lawmakers want to rework new law

Hunting or fishing licenses are now required for access to the Wildlife Management Areas in four most populous Utah counties. Here's why and where you'll need them.

www.sltrib.com

You have to hold a state land stamp (or whatever they call it) in Montana to recreate on State of MT lands for quite a while now. I have seen folks ticketed for it.

 

[Oak]

Thoughts?

Yes, many.

Colorado requires the purchase of a hunting or fishing license, or a SWA Pass, to enter a State Wildlife Area. I don't think what UT is doing is unreasonable. I actually think it's a good idea. I would like to launch the term "nonconsuptive user" straight into the sun. They don't exist when it comes to lands managed for wildlife habitat.

Another thought I had is that, boy, a whole lot of Utahns are going to be very upset if Mike Lee gets his way.....

 

[Oak]

I actually think it's a good idea. I would like to launch the term "nonconsuptive user" straight into the sun. They don't exist when it comes to lands managed for wildlife habitat.

Need to create a "noncontributing consumers" pass.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes, many.

Colorado requires the purchase of a hunting or fishing license, or a SWA Pass, to enter a State Wildlife Area. I don't think what UT is doing is unreasonable. I actually think it's a good idea. I would like to launch the term "nonconsuptive user" straight into the sun. They don't exist when it comes to lands managed for wildlife habitat.

Another thought I had is that, boy, a whole lot of Utahns are going to be very upset if Mike Lee gets his way.....

Completely agree. Washington has a "discover pass" for state land, but that is for the vehicle, and the price is going up to $45 annually. I'm not sure if the idea would fly in all states. I thought it was interesting that the permit could be a hunting/fishing license. Those numbers have been tracked by USFWS and it might distort those numbers if mountain bikers, hikers and birdwatchers have to buy one. Good or bad I don't know. I would certainly like to see the money going to help the place being used, but I don't know if it creates unintended effects.

Add that I would like to see anyone who uses Federal land have to buy a duck stamp.

 

[Treeshark]

Add that I would like to see anyone who uses Federal land have to buy a duck stamp.

You lose me there. That would only be fair if federal land was funded exclusively by duck stamps, which it is not.

 

[SAJ-99]

You lose me there. That would only be fair if federal land was funded exclusively by duck stamps, which it is not.

Fair? Life isn't fair. Campers, hikers, mountain bikers, etc on NFS land can often pay nothing. The cost of a duck stamp is something. You claim "lots of levers to pull" but somehow it isn't fair if the money goes to DC instead of a state capital.

 

[Treeshark]

Campers, hikers, mountain bikers, etc on NFS land can often pay nothing.

How is NFS land funded?

 

[SAJ-99]

How is NFS land funded?

Do I have to track every dollar like a radioactive isotope?
From the top of my head.
1) timber sales
2) Mining royalty
3) grazing fees
4) Recreation fees (from some sites but not all)

Anything needed to cover the difference comes from Congress.

 

[Treeshark]

Taxes right?

So those users are paying for that land.

 

[Elktrack]

Fair? Life isn't fair. Campers, hikers, mountain bikers, etc on NFS land can often pay nothing. The cost of a duck stamp is something. You claim "lots of levers to pull" but somehow it isn't fair if the money goes to DC instead of a state capital.

Meh. I’m not sure what to think of it. I’m kinda tired of having to buy all the passes and things. I’ve bought all the required items from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana this year. Some of them give me heartburn. Montana forcing you to buy the AIS on top of the conservation license gets me. I understand the pay to play thing but it’s getting to be more and more every year.

Don’t we all pay for NFS through federal taxes? I honestly don’t know how federal lands are funded.
Randy has pointed out how the mining industry doesn’t pay diddly squat for the minerals they extract off our lands.

Definitely not something that’s going away anytime soon. Interesting topic

 

[seeth07]

Add that I would like to see anyone who uses Federal land have to buy a duck stamp.

You lose me there. That would only be fair if federal land was funded exclusively by duck stamps, which it is not.

SAJ isn't that far off there. He should correct his statement to be "anyone who uses national wildlife refuges for enjoyment have to buy a duck stamp" and he would be right inline with following the concept of the states charging all users of the state wildlife areas a fee.

The duck stamp dollars go directly to supporting the refuge system so it would only be fair that more than just migratory bird hunters are required to purchase it. Just about any waterfowl hunter I know will tell you - whether or not they actually hunt on any refuge - is dollars well spent given the vast amount of habitat the refuge system provides for waterfowl and other wildlife

Federal Duck Stamp | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Since 1934, sales from Federal Duck Stamps have raised more than $1.2 billion to conserve more than 6 million acres of wetlands habitat. That makes the Federal Duck Stamp one of the most successful conservation revenue programs in history! Over 98% of the money raised from the sale of Duck...

www.fws.gov

 

[Treeshark]

He should correct his statement to be "anyone who uses national wildlife refuges for enjoyment have to buy a duck stamp" and he would be right inline with following the concept of the states charging all users of the state wildlife areas a fee.

Yep agreed. That would be a more logical comparison.

Also, for the sake of discussion- I would love it if everyone did buy a duck stamp.

 

[SAJ-99]

Taxes right?

So those users are paying for that land.

Sometimes I feel all twisted into a pretzel when having a convo with you. We have to live in the system that exists. We all pay to get into Yellowstone or Glacier, but not all National parks. You have to pay to get into Fords theater but the Smithsonian’s free. It’s isn’t always logical. All I can say is that there is a concerted effort to sell off a lot of USFS and BLM land to “productive” users. So my view is you better find a way to make it productive as it is used today.

 

[Treeshark]

Sometimes I feel all twisted into a pretzel when having a convo with you.

I don’t do that on purpose- I find value in challenging my own world views in these discussions more than anything.

 

[marksjeep]

Are these wildlife areas truly "public" lands? These are not state land board parcels. PA State Game Lands are closed to public use most of the year. When they are open, they are open to licensed wildlife-related activities. No grazing, no ultra running, no camping. They are managed for the benefit of the wildlife.

I'm not a fan of the SWA pass in Colorado. It leads to additional recreational pressures on wildlife, on the very lands we have paid for to provide food, water, and shelter for their benefit.

Maybe the PA model is better. Seems like it is, at least for the critters.

 

[SAJ-99]

Taxes right?

So those users are paying for that land.

So are the non-users. Should the users pay more than the non-users, in the interest of fairness? Your view eventually leads to arguments of “I want my tax dollars spent on x but not y”. As we can see from our current perch, that leads to a horrible place.

 

[Treeshark]

Should the users pay more than the non-users, in the interest of fairness?

I don’t have a firm opinion formed on that, I can see both sides. It speaks to the “non-consumptive user” subject I suppose, and what/how you define use.

 

[El Jason]

I’m all for it. I don’t very often say this, but good job Utah.