I have had fishing licenses in several different states, and Utah is the only one I have had that expires on December 31st regardless of when it's purchased. In South Carolina, your license expires exactly one year from the date you purchase it. Is there any particular reason behind the way Utah does this other than more money? Do you think the state would sell more licenses every year if people knew it would be good for a full year from the date of purchase?
[signature]
I buy annual licenses every year in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas. They all expire December 31.
[signature]
Starting 2005, (or is that 2006?)Utah will do away with Dec.31 expiration date, and go to the expire one year from the date of purchase mode.
[signature]
The new law goes in effect on 12/1/05. Here is a thread discussing the change in the law:
[url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=119510;search_string=Expire;#119510"]http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=119510;search_string=Expire;#119510[/url]
[signature]
I hadn't heard anything on the new policy, but I can see a lot of arguments for the Dec. 31 expiration. Most of them are about cost and administration.
For example, when writing up any changes in the regulation it would be a lot easier to administer those changes based on an annual basis, especially when it comes to changes in the cost of the license.
Another argument would be making the licenses and enforcement by fish and game officers. It would be a lot easier for them to look at a licence, see what color paper it was printed on, and easily recognize if it was the current year. This is much easier than reading through the print on the license to see when it was issued. Also, the annual license would be a lot harder to forge or change the date on it to give you a couple of months free.
Just some ideas.......I really don't care which way it goes as long as the change doesn't end up costing us more in the long run.
[signature]