The Salt Lake Tribune ran a story last week largely praising Utah’s Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit (CWMU) program. Run since the mid-1990s, the program allows landowners to obtain and sell hunting permits in exchange for opening their land to public hunters.

CWMUs are run much like traditional wildlife management units, with state biologists determining the number of tags that will be issued for each unit, and public hunters using accumulated bonus points to apply for and draw tags to hunt a specific CWMU.

In exchange for that public access, landowners are allotted hunting permits for mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, moose and antelope, which they can then use on their own or sell to other hunters, sometimes for as much as $15,000 per tag.

The revenue generated from the sale of hunting tags has made landowners more cognizant of managing their properties for wildlife. It’s also kept them afloat when they could no longer support themselves via farming and livestock alone. Profits from hunting have allowed families to keep their ranches, which in turn has preserved open space. And countless residents make their livings on CWMUs as property managers, guides, meat packers, and camp cooks.

All of this is good for wildlife, not to mention the state’s economy.

But while the CWMU program has opened more than 2 million acres of private land to the public that likely would not have been made available otherwise, there are drawbacks to the program.

Some people have been critical of allowing private individuals to profit from the sale of hunting tags. Their argument is grounded in the concept that wildlife, as a public resource, is owned by all citizens of Utah. 

There have also been concerns about landowners treating public hunters as second-class citizens compared to their paying customers, and in some cases those concerns have been justified. But, per CWMU rules, public hunters who draw tags must be given the same access to a unit as those hunters who bought their tag from the landowner. There’s even a complaint process for public hunters who feel they’ve been snubbed by landowners in favor of their paying clients. 

Others have noted that public lands have been added to some CWMUs, meaning that the average hunter can no longer hunt that land without paying exorbitant fees or drawing a CWMU tag, while landowners in those CWMUs have profited. The success rate for drawing an elk tag for the state’s largest CWMU, the 215,477-acre Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch, is 1 in 75, for example. By law, only a minimum of 10 percent of CWMU tags must be reserved for resident hunters.

And what about those hunters who would have been given permission to hunt private property before the CWMU program came into existence and are left out in the cold now that hunting on private land has become big business? Why would a private landowner let you come and hunt for free, as he may have before, if he can sell a tag to a paying customer for thousands of dollars?

As a commenter to the Salk Lake Tribune article noted, “CWMUs may be a good thing for the land owners however the deck is stacked against the average sportsman. … Our family has traditionally hunted in [northern Utah]. 60% of our public lands that we’ve hunted have been ‘added’ to a CWMU. To hunt those areas that are still public I would need to pay the CWMU manager $10,000 per permit. My family would too. For this year that would be $180,000 just to hunt the areas we did 7 years ago. Keeping in mind the areas are still public land.”

When it comes to the average hunter who doesn’t have loads of money to spend on a hunt, or like the hunter above who has been locked out of public land that is now part of a CWMU and doesn’t want to wait years to draw a tag, the program does appear to have its drawbacks.

Perhaps a better option for Utah hunters looking for a place to hunt are the 60,000 acres enrolled in the state’s walk-in access program, which gives landowners financial incentives to open their land to all sportsmen. Utah is also home to millions of acres of federal land that can be used by hunters.

That’s not to say there’s no value in the CWMU program, or that it’s a bad idea. It’s certainly good for wildlife and wildlife habitat, not to mention landowners and hunters with deep pockets. But when it comes to the average hunter, access to those 2 million acres is no sure thing, especially when you consider that only 14 percent of the state’s 3,200 CWMU big game tags were awarded to Utah residents in the 2009 permit drawing.

What’s your take on this program?

I saw a story today on foxnews.com called, “Rude: The New Norm.” The article focused on recent headlines grabbed by Kanye West and Serena Williams.

But if Fox really wants to see “rude,” they should take a look at the comments made by almost any animal rightist when talking about hunters. Take this article about animal rights’ groups protesting Florida’s alligator hunt, which began in August.

Florida has more than one million alligators (and apparently pythons aren’t far behind) and the state’s management plan allows for a hunter harvest of about 7,000 animals. Residents have found alligators in their swimming pools, driveways, front and back porches, local swimming lakes and ponds. Last year, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission got 14,000 complaints about nuisance alligators. They even have criteria on what constitutes a “nuisance” gator—generally, it needs to be at least four feet long before it even qualifies. The state record gator is just over 14 feet long.

You’d think the residents would throw a party for the hunters who are willing to pay a fee and go after such a formidable quarry.

 But, no. Here are just a few of the comments about hunters from that story:

“They (hunters) need to find a new hobby. Totally outrageous. Taking their children (hunting) should be considered child abuse.”

 “They don't need the crocodile meat “ (Remember, this is an alligator hunt.) – “they can always live of (sic) plants. This is a hunt for the sake of boosting neanderthal instincts - wonder what the average IQ of the hunters/family members/authorities are? Bravo to the protesters.”

 “I wonder if redneck tastes like chicken.”

“What gets me is these slovenly morons are allowed to breed.”

“…Well, there ain't near a brain cell 'tween 'em all...and yes, it is amazing they are allowed to breed. Frightening, isn't it!”

Frightening indeed, that the citizens who oppose alligator hunting realize they cannot come up with one rational argument, and are left with nothing but insults and confusion over what animal they are talking about.

Every year in schools all across the country, students are told what they can and cannot wear to school based on a dress code policy. No short shorts. No hats. No revealing tops. No shirts depicting obscene or illegal activities.

That last item is often left up to interpretation, and at times has included shirts that depict perfectly legal and legitimate objects or activities, like firearms and hunting.

Above is a photo of a T-shirt from outdoor retailer Cabela’s depicting a crossed fishing rod and muzzleloading rifle, emblazoned with the company name, the date of its founding, and its moniker as the “World’s Foremost Outfitter.” Innocuous enough, right?

Well when a 15-year-old student at Millennium High School in Goodyear, Ariz., wore that shirt to school last month, she was told by a teacher not to wear it again, although she was not disciplined in any way. Earlier that day, another teacher had also informed her that she could get in trouble for wearing that shirt.

The girl’s father immediately notified Cabela’s, and Cabela’s brought the incident to NRA’s attention. We contacted the school to find out if such a shirt would indeed violate its dress code policy. After all, depictions of muzzleloaders can be found in photos from the Civil War or paintings from the American Revolution in any standard high school history text.

Thankfully, it looks like common sense has prevailed in this case, as the school’s interim superintendent informed me that the T-shirt in question does not represent an inappropriate image and does not violate the school’s dress code policy, thus the reason why no disciplinary action was taken. Ultimately, the school got it right.

Still, it’s troublesome that two teachers would question a shirt that obviously alludes to Cabela’s reputable hunting and fishing business in the first place. But attacks on hunting and firearms at school are nothing new. Have you or your child ever experienced a case like this where a teacher objected to a hunting or shooting-related shirt? How about a conversation about hunting or firearms in school? What about a paper on the topic?