Utah raised NR fees.

[Big Fin]

These discussion usually have the same points made as to why change is needed. I've always been an advocate that residents should pay more. That said, unless someone can convince Congress to change the Constitution and modify or eliminate the 10th Amendment, the current situation is the legal reality under the framework of the US Constitution.

This thread is about Utah raising fees. It is their right under the 10th Amendment. If they wanted to exclude all non-residents, as SD does for elk applications and some of the states listed above, that would be the right of Utah to do such under the 10th Amendment. Not necessarily what I support, but given I am a non-resident hunting Utah at the pleasure of whatever residents are willing to share and at whatever price they want to charge non-residents, I accept the reality and adjust accordingly.

 

[brownbear932008]

I agree with the above and if we just don't like it or things go out of the park for us we simply don't apply. I've made that decision in a few states already. The cost to me just doesn't meet what I feel is worth my time or money when you look at the quality of the hunt. Or it's simply more than I'm willing to pay for the low odds.

 

[seeth07]

Appreciate you writing a letter to the Wisconsin DNR arguing that I, a NR, should be allowed to participate in the Wisconsin elk hunt.

You are a funny guy thinking you know what I did. I did complete a survey and mentioned that the allocation of the tags isn't fair in the way they are doing it.

 

[seeth07]

This thread is about Utah raising fees. It is their right under the 10th Amendment.

Yes, I agree and fully understand that and I really have no opinion on tag prices, NR or R. I'll pay it no matter what because hunting is my life and the experiences to me don't have a price tag.

If they wanted to exclude all non-residents, as SD does for elk applications and some of the states listed above, that would be the right of Utah to do such under the 10th Amendment.

While courts have ruled this true in the past for literally only recreational fees and tuition (that I know of) my point was just to state that it is wrong because of the North American model for conservation. Meaning that if the model is to exist and move into generations to follow us, it needs to be followed in all regards.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

You are a funny guy thinking you know what I did. I did complete a survey and mentioned that the allocation of the tags isn't fair in the way they are doing it.

Kudos for standing on your principles. The main point most of us were making was that we don't like the quotas/prices/ etc on a personal level, but we recognize states are well within their rights to set up the seasons and cost structures as they see fit.

That it is wrong because of the North American model for conservation. Meaning that if the model is to exist and move into generations to follow us, it needs to be followed in all regards.

You do have the freedom to move, as @Big Fin alluded to with his $25,000 elk tag comment.

At the end of the day the west is arid, there are orders of magnitude more people who want these tags then there are tags, and it's hard to get more critters on the mountain.

A lot of these restrictions and pricing models are just capitalism at work. A lot of wildlife agencies get most of their budgets from license dollars makes sense they would maximizes their revenue.

 

[publichunter1]

It doesn't necessarily list spike bull tags as being increased but I'm assuming it will go up just like the General bull? I was going to grab an archery spike tag this year but not for $593.

I can't buy one before July 1 right?