I am never against license increase hunting or fishing as long as the money is going back into the resource that it should be benefiting from. With that being said if the money just goes into the general fund then I am absolutely 100% against any increase as it does no good to the resource!
Absolutely! UTA is looking for a pay increase, After all the big guys only make 200,000+ a year. News even pointed out they make way too much.
I have no problem with this raise but echo the cause.
I think there should be 2 types of licenses, 1 C&R and one for the harvesters. The C&R should only be a small percentage of the other, the guys that consume the resource should carry the brunt of the cost.
Oh great it’s just another movement to raise prices what’snext. Let’s raise this let’s raise that and lets just take all the money outfrom every person who is going to retire too pay off the world wide debt.
I just love how everything is rising up just to make other things fall intouncle Sams hand with a big huge U turn misshapen to make life just BETTER. HAHA HA.
And I just love how we have to put up with idiotic, ignorant posts from people that don’t have a clue about real world infrastructures (the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions) – why they are needed, how they work, how much they cost, and how they benefit society. The cost of a license to fish is absolutely the cheapest component in the overall cost associated with the pursuit of the activity. Compared to the cost of travel, gear, bait, lodging, and food utilized in connection with the sport, the license cost is mere pocket change for 99.9% of the population. Suck it up, get real, and stop badgering the rest of us with useless, idle gibberish. Stick to posting reports and leave the real discussions to the grown-ups.
That’d be interesting to see. Doubt it would happen but interesting.
Burn!! [pirate]
Sounds like a good idea to me. Even though I hardly fish with my two pole permit.
I would actually prefer them to keep the two licenses seperate and just raise the prices on both. If everyone who has a license is fishing with two poles it’s going to make combat fishing even worse.
I think one of the problems with having a separate two-pole permit is enforcement. How do you enforce it? Consider today’s state of ice fishing – anglers don’t sit outside anymore. They all hide in a tent. So, the only way to see what anglers are doing is to enter each tent to see who’s using two poles, then check for a permit. For me, that’s a waste of time and resources. Just allow anyone that wants to fish with two poles with their annual fishing license. Eliminate the need to monitor and enforce something that’s truly insignificant.
As for combat fishing – if you’re fishing somewhere that it’s that crowded, then I suggest you go somewhere else. Utah has plenty of places with great fishing to get away from the crowds. Allowing two poles won’t change any of that.
They’d hafta charge ya more. Think of the enforcement issues. Really officer. I’m just a C&R fisherman. This one swallowed the hook and was gonna die. This one wouldn’t revive when I tried to release him. This one fell out of my hand and landed on the rocks. This one …
Burn!! [pirate]LOL! Another intelligent, insightful response from the younger generation.
I think he agrees with you Dubob 
I think there should be 2 types of licenses, 1 C&R and one for the harvesters. The C&R should only be a small percentage of the other, the guys that consume the resource should carry the brunt of the cost.
I think this would backfire.
Honestly, look at your stereotypical “catch and release” crowd – like you mentioned, they aren’t necessarily “consumers”. Why? Different mentality. They want to conserve. They also typically don’t mind spending extra money for conservation.
I’m pretty much a fly-fishing C&R guy. I’ll gladly accept a license increase, because I feel it is worth it to continue to maintain fishing in this great state. Heck, I’d be willing to go the other direction than what you proposed: As a C&R angler, I’ll pay extra – a higher fee than those “consumers” in order to continue to conserve our resources.
Whether we harvest fish or not, we’re still “consumers”.
Wouldn’t be that hard. You have a C&R license and you have a fish chained up, you get a ticket. Not much different than all the bait chuckers killing slot cutts with treble hooks and power bait at The Berry. If you have to let them go and they die, oh well, that’s the law, its a waste but its the law.
A better idea would be make The Berry artificials only and C&R for all trout, could you imagine the size of fish we would get out of there. ( the preceding statement is a pipe dream, not to be taken seriously by bait chuckers).[:)]
I think there should be 2 types of licenses, 1 C&R and one for the harvesters. The C&R should only be a small percentage of the other, the guys that consume the resource should carry the brunt of the cost.
I think this would backfire.
Honestly, look at your stereotypical “catch and release” crowd – like you mentioned, they aren’t necessarily “consumers”. Why? Different mentality. They want to conserve. They also typically don’t mind spending extra money for conservation.
I’m pretty much a fly-fishing C&R guy. I’ll gladly accept a license increase, because I feel it is worth it to continue to maintain fishing in this great state. Heck, I’d be willing to go the other direction than what you proposed: As a C&R angler, I’ll pay extra – a higher fee than those “consumers” in order to continue to conserve our resources.
Whether we harvest fish or not, we’re still “consumers”.
I agree with you on this, I wouldn’t mind paying more either, the “consumer” mentioned was the guys that take a limit every time for every member of the family, there is a lot of expense in stocking fish.
Thank you very much sir! [;)]
Please Read this Salt Lake Tribune Story - it gives a great overview of current trends in Fishing & hunting:
http://www.sltrib.com/…ng-wildlife.html.csp
From the article there are
413,568 » Licensed anglers in Utah
$26 * 413,568 = $10.75 MILLION
$34 * 413,568 = $14 MILIION
$489.7 million » Retail sales generated by anglers
7,208 » Jobs created by fishing industry
$49.7 million » State and local sales tax generated by anglers
Checking surrounding states Fishing license prices:
WY: $24 NV: $29 ID: $25.75 AZ. $23.50 CO: $26
Comparing Apple’s to Apple’s I believe this increase isn’t to much to ask… BUT
TELL US WHERE THE $3.25 MILLION WILL BE SPENT!!!
Everytime I go to the DNR Building off of Temple the parking lot is FULL of employee cars - get these people out in the field and out of the building. The interent & phones should allow resouces to get out from desks.
Accounting, IT, a few counter people and limited mangement should the only resouces needed in the office.
More of a presents in the field is needed !!!
Please Use the extra $$ this purpose!!!
It is not just anglers that remove stocked fish from our waters. There are birds, otters, other fish, etc. that pick off our stocked fish as well.
I would pay more. I like the stocking we have here. Goldens, Tiger Muskie, Wiper, Splake, Tiger Trout, etc are worth paying a bit more.
It is not just anglers that remove stocked fish from our waters. There are birds, otters, other fish, etc. that pick off our stocked fish as well.
I would pay more. I like the stocking we have here. Goldens, Tiger Muskie, Wiper, Splake, Tiger Trout, etc are worth paying a bit more.
I guess we could send them a bill if they would be kind enough to leave a forwarding address.
It is not just anglers that remove stocked fish from our waters. There are birds, otters, other fish, etc. that pick off our stocked fish as well.
I would pay more. I like the stocking we have here. Goldens, Tiger Muskie, Wiper, Splake, Tiger Trout, etc are worth paying a bit more.
I guess we could send them a bill if they would be kind enough to leave a forwarding address.
Some of them already have “bills”!
$200 is way too much (don’t know if you are being sarcastic)…My whole family loves to fish and I have a family of five…That much of a hike rate would only hurt the law abiding citizens and discouraging them from fishing…This wouldn’t effect the law breakers at all and might encourage more people to not by licenses…FWIW I don’t mind paying the increase especially if it includes the second pole permit.
I think there should be 2 types of licenses, 1 C&R and one for the harvesters. The C&R should only be a small percentage of the other, the guys that consume the resource should carry the brunt of the cost.
Since there are abundant examples in the state where, according to the DWR, the resource would be enhanced by increased harvest of fish, shouldn’t the harvesters get a discount instead? (spoken only half in jest)
Variations of this have been tried before. There used to be a “trout” stamp, (Nevada did this too) where you weren’t allowed to harvest trout unless you had the stamp. It wasn’t popular. Also, it may backfire in the “wasting fish department”. A person with a regular license that is C&R fishing, but has one go belly up on it will probably take the fish home. if he cannot by law do that due to his license, then it will just be left. Finally, the brunt of the increased cost would be on folks bringing their kids for family outings. Very few of these folks are polished C&R anglers and most occasional anglers take a few home, but from this pool is where most of us hard core guys come from. I would be worried about angler recruitment if we “punish” grandpa for taking the kids up to the lake to catch a few planters.
PBH is right. We are all consumers of the resource, whether we keep no fish, or a full limit.