# Threading the needle



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Does anybody on the forum support the proposed changes for 2011? This is not posted in order to call anyone out in the open for a knife fight. I just want to understand how necessary it is to reduce the opportunity for success. The eye of the general season needle is getting smaller and smaller. Not only are we a lotted smaller seasons but now we will be a lotted smaller areas. 

In hunter education we teach that the future of hunting depends on the recruitment of new generations of hunters. Even though the 5 day season may not apply to youth hunters recruitment also occurs with individuals above the age of 18. I believe that these changes will be harmful to participation. 

I'd like to hear some rational as to how such limitations can contribute to the well being of our sport. Are 3 more bucks to every 100 does worth discouraging our existing an new participants? Lets hear some pro's for the 2011 changes.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

I am against the proposed changes.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> how do I delete one of these things?


got it


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Against it!
Screw Don Peay and those trophy hunters that believe it is their way or the highway. Not everyone is in it for the antlers and i believe 90% of us don't fall in that category. I see these changes as the beginning of the end. I think that within 6 years big game hunting will not be an option for tens of thousands of hunters.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> Against it!
> Screw Don Peay and those trophy hunters that believe it is their way or the highway. Not everyone is in it for the antlers and i believe 90% of us don't fall in that category. I see these changes as the beginning of the end. I think that within 6 years big game hunting will not be an option for tens of thousands of hunters.


+1 I wonder if it will even last 6 years... :shock:


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I am in full support of it (depending on details). I fully believe in opportunity and wish everyone could hunt but..............IMO the Buck to doe ratio needs to be raised, (I do not believe units up in true northern Utah are anywhere near 10-100 like the UDWR says, they are in much worse shape) and I don't care what anyone says, it is impossible to manage deer/hunters effectively without sub-units. IMO Utah's population is to high for everyone to get a tag, as crappy is it is......at least with the overall numbers of deer that we have!!

I truly would like to see us land in a happy median between opportunity and QUALITY. 

Furthermore I believe the majority of the people should have it the way they want it, and like it or not, I will support it as this is a democracy and the wildlife board, RAC, UDWR has the most screwed up system in regards to this.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> I see these changes as the beginning of the end. I think that within 6 years big game hunting will not be an option for tens of thousands of hunters.


20 years ago when all this horsesh*t started was the beginning of the end. We're almost to the finish line.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I mean the real end, not just getting worse.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The heath of Utah's deer herds has been in decline for quite some time now,
Something has to be done. I would have like to have seen antler restriction tried
again but too much negative input will not let that option even be considered...

So here we are,,,,
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/
I'm in favor of the 29 deer unit proposal because I believe it will work better.

The bottom line is there will be less deer hunting opportunity either way. But on the other hand a lot of
family options exist. For those of you that want to keep family hunt "traditions" alive its actually much
easier than it appears..Dual and multiple applications are key,,Groups up to ten could still hunt together.

Hunting is changing as fast as everything else in this high tech world, 
For those that want to continue, They will have to adapted and keep up.....That's just how it is.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> I mean the real end, not just getting worse.


TEX had it right.

15-20 years ago the noose was placed around our neck. We removed 60% of our deer hunting and even more if you include the pick your weapon. And what have we got? A hand full of those 110,000 hunters removed get to hunt


> Trophy


 hunts. The remaining general hunts are still only 15-20% success. 60% more animals left on the mountain and we still only have 15-20% success.

Get rid of the LE hunts. With only three types of hunts to plan, it will be easier to plan the hunts. It will remove weeks of hunting pressure in the mountains. Open up the entire state and people will spread out. Then spend your time fixing the land (winter range) and habitat and we will have great hunting for all.

I know it won t happen, because of the dollar.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

I agree goofy elk! 

Hunting is changing as fast as everything else in this high tech world, 
For those that want to continue, They will have to adapted and keep up.....That's just how it is.

Everything changes, its up to you to stay positive and make the best of what you have.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> For those that want to continue, They will have to adapted and keep up.....That's just how it is.
> 
> Everything changes, its up to you to stay positive and make the best of what you have.


So I have to accept mediocre? Nope I will not.

I will and continue to make the best of it, but I will not accept hunting every 10years because of the greed of others.


----------



## BIG (Nov 12, 2009)

I support the micromanaging.


----------



## D-rake (May 22, 2009)

Here is my spill. I'm all for the 29 unit proposal. It is the only way that they can "manage" the deer from mountain to mountain because every range is different. Some areas see a whole lot more pressure than others and this is the only way to spread the hunters out. Or you can still have some mountains be 3 day hunts that is obiously not working to well. I actually think that we as hunters have actually been part of the problem. Ten years ago were archery tags selling out? Who has started hunting with a bow or muzzleloader in the last ten years? The deer are getting more pressure, equipment is getting better, and more deer are dying earlier in the year then ever before. Now I have no facts to back all this up but thats just what I think. I just know that all my family has picked up muzzleloaders and bows hunting all seasons and really becoming more successfull. But where I hunt you can see the decline in deer as the year goese. We see deer everywhere before the archery hunt and even for the first week or so and as pressure increases you see less and less until the rifle hunt rolls around and everyone complains that there is not deer. I saw 18 mature bucks on the muzzleload opener but I doubt I'll see that many on the riflr opener. Let me know what you think.


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

I think that if we get rid of the cwmu program would help let them hunt when we hunt. I remember before cwmu the hunting was better now they kill them from sept to january how does that help the herds most of the cwmu don't do anything for habitat I just don't see how giveing them tags helps let them cater to the guys with the tags if they charge to much then nobody would hunt there property and the herds would grow. I think we need to start there more than on the little bit of public ground


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

eyecrazy said:


> I think that if we get rid of the cwmu program would help let them hunt when we hunt. I remember before cwmu the hunting was better now they kill them from sept to january how does that help the herds most of the cwmu don't do anything for habitat I just don't see how giving them tags helps let them cater to the guys with the tags if they charge to much then nobody would hunt there property and the herds would grow. I think we need to start there more than on the little bit of public ground


I think you speak of a total coincidence and secondly, what percentage of deer habitat is private vs. public? I am not certain of the ratio, but I do believe Utah has the overall highest ratio (or top 3?) of federal land as a % of the whole state. CWMU doesn't do anything for habitat?? I think you have caught that entitlement bug that is going around; I hope you can find the cure.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -hunt.html


> Under a proposal the Division is formulating, general deer hunting would likely continue in the five deer hunting regions Utah currently has. If the number of bucks per 100 does fell below preset levels on units or subunits within the regions, however, hunting on those specific units would be allowed only on a limited basis.
> A second idea that's been proposed would likely result in the regions being divided into smaller units. All hunters-archery, muzzleloader and rifle-would be allowed to hunt on only one of up to 29 smaller units in the state.


Hard to argue with the first option and the second one just sounds ridiculous to me at first glance until I consider what can happen if things continue with the same trend we currently have. Just like I would have laughed at you if you told me 3 years ago that Scofield would not be worth a turd in 3-4 years, well it is a major turd. In just a matter of two years it has gone from gangbusters to absolute poopyness with chubs making up half of our catches in August, jack squat all winter and decent fishing last night. Point being, the management needs to be proactive, reactive (through the rear view window) does not work. The micromanaging could be decent I guess, but I sure don't like it, as it is, the northern boundary line cuts right through a spot we want to hunt, but we could go way the other way and be ok, but if the northern were divided 5 more times -)O(- . It is tough to find the perfect solution to solve the hoof hunters who shoot the first thing that has anything between the ears and the trophy hunters. Seems like the LE program half way solves the horn hunters wants and don't the antlerless tags solve the other guy's wants too?
One other opportunity issue-two adult friends who would like to take up hunting; I describe the process to them and their reaction is, as you would expect, very discouraged. I don't think we need another special program, but it is hard to recruit when I tell them that we can apply in 4 months so that we can hunt in another 13 months.


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

yes there is alot of blm land in utah but if you look it is not habitat for big game most of the good habitat is on private or surounded by private or it is LE at least in the northern part of the state. lets look at where the deer and elk are then tell me we have alot of public land to hunt sure I can go out on the salt flats and hunt on all that blm land but what would be the point can even kill a bunny on that dead ground. so we only have certain places where big game are and we give the land owners tags to kill 5 months out of the year just don't see how that helps the herds. I don't know how old you are but when I was young we had deer and elk and you didn't have to have a special tag to hunt. I think a deer tag was under 30 bucks which was included in your combination the only thing extra was your duck stamp. we pay more and more and get less


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

I'd say I'm against the bits and pieces I've read. From what I understand they want to increase the opportunity for larger deer. I'm one of those hunters that really don't care what size the antlers are. Sure if I was presented with a shot on a monster buck I'd be elated. But at the same time if all I saw was a spike that would be good too. As long as I am seeing bucks and having fun I honestly don't care what size they are. 

That being said, if they do make the hunts into smaller units, they need to be LOGICAL boundaries. As it is now, the Vernal south slope unit boundary is a joke to me. Driving up the paradise road you can hunt only the one side of the road in the longer season. Move the Boundaries to the summits of drainages instead of the only main road on a mountain. That's about what I have to say on the matter...


----------



## Truelife (Feb 6, 2009)

Lots of good comments here. However if we are going to look back 20 years we can't do it without looking at the changes technology has brought as well. Wheeler trails are EVERYWHERE, at least in the areas you can ride them. 

Long range rifles
range finders
spotting scopes
trail cameras

it all adds up against the deer population. Then you throw in the big one that we all want to live in the winter range of these animals and it gets pretty hard for the DWR to come up with a plan that will work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm generally as unhappy with the DWR as the next guy, but I sure am glad I don't have their job.

As a taxidermist I hear more than my share of stories each year. I can't tell you how many times I've heard guys say they would be willing to only hunt every other year if it would improve the hunting. Then someone proposes something like that and everyone throws a fit. Lets be honest, if we were really worried about the deer population / hunting getting better we would stop shooting every little spike or two point around and we would be thrilled if the number of hunters were cut in half each year. As Rebel said, there just isn't enough deer for everyone to get a tag. We would all love it, but it's not a possability so lets just move past that point.

I know plenty of guys do their part each year with service hours, and letting little bucks run to grow bigger. More than plenty don't.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I am against the 29 units and here are a few of the reasons...

1.- Deer move too much for them to be effectively managed by smaller units. I think that what needs to be managed is the land/habitat. The management of the animals is a side effect.

2.- This 29 unit idea came from the WLB (aka Don Peay's puppets). Their interest is to make hunting a trophy sport, a rich man's sport. I refuse to allow a few to manage what is a people's heritage and tradition.

3.- I have said this before....Managing to increase the buck/doe ratio doesn't do anyone any good. If all we have is 200 does then all we have is 36 bucks @ 18/100. We need to increae the overall herd numbers and this can only be done by managing the number of tags/habitat.

4.- Yes hunting is changing and it's changing fast. I think we need to adapt but I am hoping we adapt for the good of the deer herds not for the good of the hunters. If the deer herds are doing good the side effect is that hunters will also do good.

5.- I think that the UDWR is being driven by the dollar and not by sound biology.


But then again..... that is just my point of view. Regardless of of what your point of view is the objective should be the same for all of us. More Deer for more opportunity


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> I am against the 29 units and here are a few of the reasons...
> 
> 1.- Deer move too much for them to be effectively managed by smaller units. I think that what needs to be managed is the land/habitat. The management of the animals is a side effect.
> 
> ...


Nice post, I agree.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I lived in Nevada for 10 years until moving back to Utah in 2003. Nevada has the micromanaged units as many of you know. Yes, there did seem to be more quality bucks in their herds compared to Utah. The trade off was that it was harder than heck to get a tag. I unsuccessfully tried a few times but finally stopped trying. Instead, I came up to Utah and hunted as a nonresident with my family and friends. (when I could draw a nonres Utah, which I usually did)

The danger with what seems to be proposed is that of hunters losing interest. I have seen this in my own life after my father got sick and passed away and our mutual hunting friends got too old or moved on in their lives. I used to be an avid hunter that looked forward to the general deer hunt the entire year round. The friends and family "deer camp" was a big part of it. However, as it has become harder to draw and the family connections for hunting were lost, my own interest lagged and I'd often rather just go fishing. A high school hunting buddy has been bugging me to get back into it and I have to some degree. Nevertheless, I don't think that my experience is that unusual. I would especially think that the effect with younger potential hunters would be the greatest. 


So the choice we may have with these new regs is having nominally better odds for a big buck vs. losing a sizable segment of hunters permanently, and with it a fair amount of DWR money and probably more importantly, political clout.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

I have a few questions before I can agree with going to 29 units, total LE for deer because we all know how often we get to hunt the LE elk units.

1) Are 5% of these tags going to be auction tags? If so the conservation groups are going to get a huge increase of auction tags. :shock: 

2) Is age class going to be considered in the future? :shock: 

3) Are the current LE deer units going to be in the same drawing as the new units? :shock: 

4) If the whole state is LE deer you burn you bonus points if you draw a tag? :shock:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Catherder said:


> The danger with what seems to be proposed is that of *hunters losing interest.*


That is exactly what groups like SFW are trying to do. They are pushing the trophy mentality as hard as they can. They buy/lobby polititians to get their will. They infiltrate the WLB with all sorts of bribes and donations. They hoard permits from the DWR and raffle them as conservation/expo tags. All of this to dominate and controll hunting for their elite members.

By doing all of this they are making people feel accustomed to the idea that they have to trophy hunt and that it is a priviledge to be able to hunt a trophy. That way drawing a tag for a trophy every 10 to 20 years is a great thing at the expense of a general tag for a meat animal every year.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

This is a must read for all of us. It's a parable on how changes are pushed on us and we don't even realize it. Tex-O-Bob stated that these changes started 20 years ago and we are now seeing the tail end of it&#8230;&#8230; read and decide for yourself. This also applies to all other issues in our great USA. We need to wake up and stop this.
_
Catching the wild pig!
A chemistry professor at a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government. 
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?' The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. 
You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. 
Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity. 
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.
_


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I have stayed quiet on this mostly because I am truly torn on it. I have always enjoyed hunting deer and I have a youngster that has taken a liking to hunting and will be old enough to hunt big game in a couple years. I am at a place with deer where I want a nice rack to hang on the wall.For my own selfish reasons I like the proposed idea.I am also of the opinion that if the number of trophy class bucks are increased to an inordinate number it diminishes the value of a trophy buck.On the other hand I want my kid to have as many chances as possible to shoot a deer when she is old enough. I also have friends that don't really care what size of buck they take they just want the opportunity to hunt every year. That said we common folks probably ought to just start preparing to adapt to these changes because if Don Peay is behind this he seems to get whatever he wants. I have attended RACS and it was very obvious the only reason they have them is to conform with the law and what the people say has no bearing on the actions the wildlife board takes. We can scream and holler and protest all we want but the DWR and the wildlife board have demonstrated repeatedly the only thing they care about is the almighty dollar.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I agree that somethings need to change. It is very hard to find a good buck in Northern Utah. I know there are good bucks on the wasatch front, but look at Cache Valley...it sucks. That being said, I don't feel like 29 micro LE units is going to do any good. 29 units is way too many, it would isolate the best hunting areas in the larger regions and these better areas are going to be impossible to draw, so instead of fighting the crowds (at least you have a chance), you won't be able to get a tag. There will be a huge percentage of hunters in this state who will be opposed to this because they won't be able to hunt the area they have hunter with their families for the last 20 years...isn't that what hunting is really about? 

I get caught up in trophy hunting as much as the next guy, but when it really comes down to it, I would rather hunt with my family and friends and have minimal chance at harvesting a trophy buck. What I would like is the opportunity to do so. 

Of the proposed changes I like the first one. Leave the 5 general units, and manage them specific to small habitat based units by changing season dates, antler limitations, etc. Whatever works for the area.

I'm all for having trophy units, but I don't want the whole state to be one.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm torn right now. Obviously what they are doing now isn't working. 

Taking a step back though the problem seems rather simple. There are more people but less habitat. Logic says that once we have a certain number of hunters the resource can't take any more and I don't care how good the management plan is. I think this is why they started stocking fish. Too many fisherman for the natural resource. The reason why I'm torn is that I honestly can't think of one solution that means everyone gets to hunt and the resource is sustainable. In every scenario one or the other suffers. 

To make the problem worse the hunting community is shrinking as a percentage. That means there is less and less emphasis on keeping the resource strong. I had a cattleman tell me the other day that the elk are ruining his business and he told me to gut shoot every elk I saw. You have people running elk over big drop offs in the winter with their luxury SUV's because they are in "their" road. Farmers hate wildlife. People complain that the wildlife eats their gardens. If humans by and large aren't concerned with habitat how do we ever expect the resource to survive? 

One thing is for sure though. As the human population continues to grow, hunters will continue to be a smaller percentage of that population or there will be less opportunity. It's simple math.

I will say though I like the idea of the LE units but if push comes to shove I would rather hunt general units every year the rest of my life than hunt for a trophy once every 10 to 20 years.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Let them micro manage. Breaking it into smaller pieces is better, but will not fix a thing. The only thing it will do is make hunters more frustrated.


Everyone talks about hunter recruitment. Hunting opportunity. Yet we have a hard time getting coveted tags. I say let people get discouraged. Maybe I will have more opportunity when everyone quits hunting. 

It has and always will be about the money. Pull out your wallet if you want opportunity. Private hunting is where it is. Save your money and hunt every 10 years on a private ranch. :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Any way you slice it, we can't harvest deer at the current rate and grow deer numbers, much less keep them the same. Tag reductions are inevitable, it's just a matter of which evil you prefer.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> I will say though I like the idea of the LE units but if push comes to shove I would rather hunt general units every year the rest of my life than hunt for a trophy once every 10 to 20 years.


+1 !

-DallanC


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Any way you slice it, we can't harvest deer at the current rate and grow deer numbers, much less keep them the same. Tag reductions are inevitable, it's just a matter of which evil you prefer.


I'm having a hard time following you here Tree. If killing bucks has no effect on the positive growth of a herd, then why can't we continue harvesting at the "current rate"? And....take out 500 big cats and you nearly have the annual deer harvest... This subject is giving me a headache. -)O(-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

500 BIG CATS,, :shock: :shock: I wish..
If that were the case, I'd still be guiding lions for a living.

In the lion hunting world, in the last few years, Utah has gone from one
of the best spots to the very last place to go when it comes to Non-res
guide hunts..The word is out nation wide Utah's big cats are gone..

While there's more lion hunting opportunity than ever before,, now,,
Fewer cats will be harvested over the next few years, Utah hounds men
are making a stand and will refuse to kill females...

The non-res clientele is how to kill Utah lions,,,,,,And its GONE!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> We can scream and holler and protest all we want but the DWR and the wildlife board have demonstrated repeatedly the only thing they care about is the almighty dollar.


If this is the case, why is the wildlife board promoting a plan that will cut tags, reduce hunting opportunity and discourage hunter recruitment and retention? This isn't about money for the UDWR, it's about the trophy hunting lobby pushing through a plan that it hopes will produce bigger bucks for their well-heeled higher ups to hunt.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > We can scream and holler and protest all we want but the DWR and the wildlife board have demonstrated repeatedly the only thing they care about is the almighty dollar.
> ...


1 tag= $20,000.00 or 445 tags=$45.00.

Much easier to manage 1 verus 445. Same dollars in the coffer.

When you have 45 people competing for one tag you can loose 44 people and still sale the tag. Hence LE hunts and what will soon be called micro-management (LE for the whole state).


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> Taking a step back though the problem seems rather simple. There are more people but less habitat.


I am not sure how you came up with this. There is a cap on hunter numbers and if anything they have reduced the numbers. Physical ground has not changed all that much in the last 20 years. We have loss some critical habitat which does have a big impact, but most of the mountain habitat has not been lost. What has been lost is the type of habitat. Go back and looks at history and you will find how to fix the problem, if you want more and better deer. 


bullsnot said:


> Logic says that once we have a certain number of hunters the resource can't take any more and I don't care how good the management plan is. I think this is why they started stocking fish. Too many fisherman for the natural resource.


This philosophy would be true if we had unlimited number of tags, but we don't. 


bullsnot said:


> The reason why I'm torn is that I honestly can't think of one solution that means everyone gets to hunt and the resource is sustainable. In every scenario one or the other suffers.


How about the scenario of fixing the Habitat?

History shows us how to make things better, but as long as we accept mediocre our goverment will give us mediocre. It is just easier for them.

And I don't know of any business where a boss that micro-manages that is very successful in the end.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This post oughta stir up some trouble!

Maybe I'm too simplistic, but as I see it the basic solution to all of this banter, maneuvering, manipulation, planning, scheduling, etc. is right under our noses, but we don't see it because our perspective of deer hunting has only to do with antlers. and I don't necessarily mean trophy bucks.

Did you notice in the planning meeting discussion, as well as the discussions on this forum, that when they/we talk about deer hunting, permits, seasons, etc., they/we really mean BUCK DEER hunting, BUCK DEER permits, BUCK DEER seasons, etc!

The last time I checked, it takes a good buck AND A GOOD DOE to produce a good/trophy buck fawn. Also the last time I checked, a doe impacts deer habitat about the same as a buck. And again, the last time I checked, a doe tastes as good as a buck (maybe better). Doe are also deer and doe hunting is also deer hunting and we need to utilize that resource more! SHIFT SOME OF THE BUCK TAGS TO DOE TAGS so that the opportunities and the revenue remain the same!

There are certainly differences between the two genders in the way they react to humans and hunting, but I suspect that if does are hunted as much as the bucks, they'll react like the bucks. Besides, we can take advantage of their naivete by issuing doe permits primarily to the youth, so that our new hunters have a good experience right off the bat. And the doe hunts could run simultaneously with the buck hunts in the current separate seasons so that families could still hunt together and traditions could continue.

It would probably require mandatory reporting in order to crunch the numbers and work out the details to meet whatever is the objective, ie: buck to doe ratio, buck age class, total number of deer, fawn survival, etc. but I believe such a system would work.

And it might indeed have to go to a unit by unit system, at least for the does, but it will more likely keep families, hunting camps, and friends together and wouldn't require cutting down permit numbers.

And the depredation antlerless hunts could continue, but would have to be adjusted per the mandatory reporting.

This would require a major change in our thinking about what deer hunting really is, but we're being forced into making a change anyway, one way or another.

I'm opposed to the proposed plan and think this is a better solution!

Fire away at the idea! (Not at me, thank you!!!)


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > We can scream and holler and protest all we want but the DWR and the wildlife board have demonstrated repeatedly the only thing they care about is the almighty dollar.
> ...


Wait for it! Lets see the solution just might be to raise the cost of tags........... Huh!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> 1 tag= $20,000.00 or 445 tags=$45.00.
> 
> Much easier to manage 1 verus 445. Same dollars in the coffer.


Unless the amount in the coffer increases, where's the monetary incentive for the UDWR? Also, let's define whose coffers might be affected? I'm guessing that you're talking about conservation permits, and the UDWR only get's what, 30 percent of the money from them. Again, it's a loser for the UDWR, and again, another possible reason for the trophy-hunting, special-interest crowd to be pushing it. Another thing to consider, the pay for those at the UDWR stays the same, no matter how much cash they bring in, so doing things for money holds a lot less interest for a government agency than it does a private business. If a government agency runs low on money, they just up fees and go begging to the legislator for a bigger cut of the tax pie. Again, from my point of view, this whole unit-by-unit thing smacks of special interest, trophy hunter group influence.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > luv2fsh&hnt said:
> ...


Thank-you huntaholic saved me a bunch of typing. Follow the money. Don Peay and his kind own the wildlife board and obviously are beginning to wield an influence on lawmakers as well.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

The following is SOLELY MY OPINION! So take out of it what you want.

The UDWR is completely reliant on tag revenue and donations (usually made by, you guessed it, Don Peay type individuals). Until that changes you aren't going to change anything the UDWR does. If you want to make changes you need to get those two things changed. I have no idea how you would go about that. Until their not getting paid only when they sale tags you will deal with what we're dealing with. In other states the DWR is part of the state police. So their funds come out of the state police budget. In Utah the DWR and its CO's are on their own. DWR CO's are poorly paid, few officers, and get no overtime. I see huge problems with that. Get the money problem figured out and you can start getting other things figured out. 

As far as deer go. I think a few things need to change. We need to start managing more areas for general deer than for LE elk. The whole f-ing state is managed for LE elk. It will never happen but I'd like to see atleast 5 LE units turned back into general any bull elk units. Start managing those units for better general deer herds. I am not a biologist but I have been seeing more and more elk show up in my deer hunting areas. Then I've been seeing less and less deer. The only places left that I see decent deer numbers I see few or no elk. Now if you want more trophy bucks in the areas use antler point restrictions. If you just want to hunt you have to increase the overall herd numbers. Which means you have to stop killing them for a while. We're in a crappy position now. How are we gonna find our way out of it?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > 1 tag= $20,000.00 or 445 tags=$45.00.
> ...


You are missing the point. Even with your number of only receiving 30% of the conservation tags equates to 133 less regular tags that would be needed to be sold. The numbers I used where examples to show how they can keep the tag numbers low and still recieve the same money coming in. I disagree with your statment about incentive for more money. There is a lot of reasons to have more money in a coffer. Some good and some bad. Like new trucks, equipment, new officers, training and so on. None of which has anything to do with pay raises.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> Again, from my point of view, this whole unit-by-unit thing smacks of special interest, trophy hunter group influence.


+1
This is exactly what this plan reeks of!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Any way you slice it, we can't harvest deer at the current rate and grow deer numbers, much less keep them the same. Tag reductions are inevitable, it's just a matter of which evil you prefer.


Why not? Buck hunting has very little if any impact on deer numbers as a whole...


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> You are missing the point. Even with your number of only receiving 30% of the conservation tags equates to 133 less regular tags that would be needed to be sold.


Maybe you could clarify because I might be a little slow today and not understanding what you said there.

The UDWR's annual budget floats somewhere around $70 million per year. This total unit-by-unit revamp of their entire deer hunting operation isn't going to be a huge revenue issue for them, even considering the removal of the 7,000 to 14,000 tags per year that I've heard floated. And as far as I know, nobody from the UDWR or the wildlife board are discussing increasing the number of high-dollar conservation permits, which would be another big political mess on top of it all (and most of that money wouldn't go to the UDWR anyway). We're talking about the DWR losing a few hundred thousand on this new plan, and even given your scenario of of selling high-priced tags, it's still more or less revenue neutral unless they decide to do something that's really politically untenable.

If they were in it for the money (chump change given their budget), it would be a whole lot easier to tack an extra buck or two onto permit fees than resort to a convoluted scheme of restructuring the entire state's deer hunting system, then making up the difference in a scheme to sell more high-priced permits through conservation tags -- the profits from which wouldn't even mostly go to the UDWR. And let's not forget that this unit-by-unit thing would gut their dedicated hunter program unless they made radical revisions to it, and that program gets them over a million dollar's worth of free labor every year.

Add that to what comes across loud and clear in the audio recording of the wildlife board meeting that this unit-by-unit thing is a wildlife board idea, not something the UDWR wants to do.

Finally, I'm standing by my statement that government agencies, unlike private companies, aren't primarily profit driven (which is why they're so **** inefficient and wasteful). Sure, the DWR is self-financed to a degree, and they care about revenue, but unlike private enterprise, they don't live or die by profits. If they fall short, they up license fees or ask the legislature for more money.

Again, this isn't about making more money for the state (which is what I responded to and challenged), it's more about increasing buck-to-doe ratios, trophy hunting and pressure from special interest groups whose cronies make up most of the wildlife board.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I didn't read the whole thread but based upon the initial question of do you support the changes coming in 2011. 

I do. I think that deer hunting as a family pass time is gone. Especially for those families who experienced hunting pre 90s. As land owners and just folks who like to be on the mtn. After 30 yrs of disparaging about the deer herd. I am really the only one who still cares enough to still buy a tag. Now as a whole we would rather see bigger bucks and not get to hunt them (like the elk) than see nothing at all. 

From a game management standpoint it only makes sense to manage in smaller units. 

This will do many things beneficial IMO. The one thing I am most optimistic about is the future opportunity for a unit specific group being able to sway management the way they see fit rather than on a statewide basis. 

This could be the best thing that ever happened to deer hunting in Utah since the introduction of poison to predators. However not likely at all the general trend seems to take away from the hunter to alleviate pressure. So yes as we know it LE means less opportunity. It doesn't have to be that way. Basically the my entire being here is based around getting folks to understand that. I would use LE to prevent over hunting and maximize hunter opportunity. 

As the deer herd is in such bad shape. Cutting hunter opportunity wont result in more deer. But it will have an effect on buck size overtime that may result in marginally more deer. As a I believe mature bucks breed better than yearlings. But if the predator population is allowed to increase as the deer herd increases then we wont see a net gain in deer. And that's if we don't get a bad winter. If we do you will continue to see a decline.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

horsesma said:


> Everyone talks about hunter recruitment. Hunting opportunity. Yet we have a hard time getting coveted tags. I say let people get discouraged. Maybe I will have more opportunity when everyone quits hunting.


There may be truth to what you say that fewer people interested in hunting will lead to easier tag acquisition, but like everything else, there are trade offs.

Having fewer hunters means having less support for pro hunting legislation and less support in fending off the attacks to hunting that will continue to come from the animal rights crowd. It seems short sided to me that Don Peay and his gang is pushing for fewer hunting opportunities, and as a result, less hunter recruitment in the next generations, by his actions. Perhaps, because he can work the "cowboy caucus " in the Utah legislature fairly well, he thinks he and people like him can hold sway with Nancy Pelosi and Obama on the national stage. It won't happen. From my work perspective, I can tell you assuredly that one group that is having phenomenal recruitment and retention, not to mention loads of cash and political clout, is PETA.

Maybe this is indeed the beginning of the end after all.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I didn't read the whole thread but based upon the initial question of do you support the changes coming in 2011.


I think there might be some merit in a unit-by-unit approach, but I think the effects won't be as significant as some expect except in isolated areas. What I'm opposed to is the reason that the wildlife board seems to be pushing it -- to increase buck-to-doe ratios for the purpose of producing bigger bucks. I don't think anyone here's against bigger bucks, but getting them at the expense of decent hunting opportunity isn't a good tradeoff.

Now if I thought this micro-managing approach was really going to help the deer herds, I'd be all for it, but I have serious doubts about that. Hunting pressure really isn't the huge, overriding factor that's keeping the deer herds down. Yes, it plays a part, but add them up and winter range carrying capacity, predators, habitat encroachment, poaching, road kill, migration route interference, weather, etc., are bigger herd-limiting issues than hunting pressure. My gut feeling is that if we eliminated deer hunting altogether we still wouldn't see the huge herd increases that some people might suspect.

The current buck-to-doe ratios are plenty good to ensure that does are bred. Upping that number won't result in more fawns, it will just mean an average higher age for bucks which means bigger antlers. And bigger antlers for the few at the expense of hunting opportunity frequency for the many is what this is all about, and that's why I'm opposed to it.


----------



## lifeisgood (Aug 31, 2010)

I have hunted the Nothern Unit for years and I don't see many bucks let alone big ones. I know something needs to be done, but I lack information on what I think are critical items to make a decision.

Can anyone answer these questions?
1) How many does will a mature buck service in a season?

I have no idea what it is, but I think this should be the buck to doe ratio we need to keep. If the ratio is too great then we should reduce tags in an area until we reach that target ratio. If we exceed that target then add more tags.

2) If the ratio is too doe heavy (8:100), will the buck give up and not service any, or will he service all he can?

If he thows in the towel and does not service any, then open up more doe tags to bring it inline so more offsring are created. The weather's impact on the herd can be great at times, so we dont need to cripple procreation by having an out of wack buck to doe ratio.

If these items matter in managing a growing herd, then small management units maybe useful and reduction of tags although unwanted maybe necessary in some of them. But when the ratios get back inline open them back up.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Taking a step back though the problem seems rather simple. There are more people but less habitat.
> ...


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Catherder said:


> horsesma said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone talks about hunter recruitment. Hunting opportunity. Yet we have a hard time getting coveted tags. I say let people get discouraged. Maybe I will have more opportunity when everyone quits hunting.
> ...


 I'll tell you what, if I had lots of money, I for one would be buying up all the private hunting land I could. From the state, from individuals. What ever means I could. It would be money well spent. For the future of hunting will be relegated, to this type of hunting. Its going to be like Europe. The rich mans sport. Only for the wealthy, Nobles and Kings. :roll:

Some of you may laugh, but look what has happened in just the last 15 years. Some of the biggest states are already there. Mostly privately owned. Utah is lagging, but I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

My whole point is that hunter recruitment is the biggest problem we face today with the deer herds. The problem isn't that we have 200,000 deer hunters in Utah. The problem is that 30 years ago 200,000 deer hunters represented 40% of our population. Today 200,000 deer hunters represent less than 10% of our population. (These humbers are somewhat arbitrary to demonstrate a point)

Sure we can pick apart the management plans, change the details, and argue about the best way to issue tags. We can fight about the DWR having our best interests at heart with the LE hunts. But the bigger issue that nearly everyone on these boards misses is that we are only thinking as hunters. We aren't understanding what the rest of the world is doing around us and how that is effecting our herds. Our hunting policies are affected greatly by outside influences. How about farmers complaing about crops being eaten? Cattlemen complaining about the grasses being eaten by wild game that their cows eat? What about pristine wintering grounds being worth millions to housing developers? How about the bunny huggers freaking out when they see a moose being hauled out of a popular canyon? East siders moving into the benches then complaing about lions chasing deer in their backyard? Or complaining the deer are eating their gardens? How about the fact that you can hardly hunt now on the Wasatch without someone looking at you like you are a space alien? You don't think the DWR cringes when another branch of the government tells them they have to reduce antelope herd numbers in a unit because farmers have complained? You don't think the DWR cringes when they realize they have to auction off tags just to keep financially afloat when the state legislature tells them they can't give them any money and they have to be self sufficient? Many of you are right that money does drive the DWR and some of their decisions. But without that money they go away altogether or shrink to the point they are completely ineffective. What the heck can they do for us with no money? 

It's the same thing with wolves. The biggest issue with the wolves right now is not the mouths full of teeth that wolves carry, it's the gavles in the courtrooms, and the laws being made in fancy looking building that are killing us. 

This is a politics issue. And thinking the problem only lies with the DWR and hunting regs is like only worrying about the 10% of the iceberg you can see above the surface.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

With Micro-Units and limited entry hunting a simple problem occurs: The quality is NEVER good enough. Guys came to the RACs complaining about the "slipping quality" on the Henry Mtns. We see all kinds of complaints about the "quality" of the Book Cliffs-- even though the unit has 40+ bucks for every 100 doe. The elk herd is "declining in quality" or so the lobbyists say at the RAC and Board meetings and the Board cuts recommended permits. 

The current Regional format is producing buck ratios within the objective. That is not good enough for the vocal minority. What do you think will happen if Micro-Management is implemented? Those same lobbyists will be lobbying the Board to CUT permits even more because the quality and numbers will never be good enough.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> With Micro-Units and limited entry hunting a simple problem occurs: The quality is NEVER good enough. Guys came to the RACs complaining about the "slipping quality" on the Henry Mtns. We see all kinds of complaints about the "quality" of the Book Cliffs-- even though the unit has 40+ bucks for every 100 doe. The elk herd is "declining in quality" or so the lobbyists say at the RAC and Board meetings and the Board cuts recommended permits.
> 
> The current Regional format is producing buck ratios within the objective. That is not good enough for the vocal minority. What do you think will happen if Micro-Management is implemented? Those same lobbyists will be lobbying the Board to CUT permits even more because the quality and numbers will never be good enough.


WELL STATED!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Packout said:


> The current Regional format is producing buck ratios within the objective. That is not good enough for the vocal minority. What do you think will happen if Micro-Management is implemented? Those same lobbyists will be lobbying the Board to CUT permits even more because the []bquality and numbers will never be good enough.[/b]


I just never get tired of saying it. Buck/doe ratios mean pig pizz to everyone. The trophy hunters are never satisfied with the quality and the general hunters are never satisfied with the herd numbers. Sadly the trophy hunters (who are the ones that need to stop the complaining) are the ones that get heard because of the green backs they wave in their hand.

I have asked this several times and have not gotten an answer from anyone yet.... I have not had a lot of time to research it either. *How are WLB members appointed? and How do we get them replaced?* This could put us closer to a solution.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> .I have asked this several times and have not gotten an answer from anyone yet.... I have not had a lot of time to research it either. *How are WLB members appointed? and How do we get them replaced?* This could put us closer to a solution.


The Wildlife Board members are appointed by the Governor, who gets recommendations from various sources. SFW founder Don Peay has a HUGE influence on who gets appointed to the Board.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> The Wildlife Board members are appointed by the Governor, who gets recommendations from various sources. SFW founder Don Peay has a HUGE influence on who gets appointed to the Board.


Speaking hypothetically, wouldn't it be easier to get WB members appointed that would be less connected to SFW, the Farm Bureau, and other specieal interests, if we could vote out Governor Sherbert? :?:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > The Wildlife Board members are appointed by the Governor, who gets recommendations from various sources. SFW founder Don Peay has a HUGE influence on who gets appointed to the Board.
> ...


Only if you were assured that Caroon was immune to being influenced by special interest groups. I KNOW that Peter has been swayed by special interest groups in the past, so I have NO confidence in Peter being any better than Gary/Jon/Mike were/are.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

horsesma said:


> I'll tell you what, if I had lots of money, I for one would be buying up all the private hunting land I could. From the state, from individuals. What ever means I could. It would be money well spent. For the future of hunting will be relegated, to this type of hunting. Its going to be like Europe. The rich mans sport. Only for the wealthy, Nobles and Kings. :roll:
> 
> Some of you may laugh, but look what has happened in just the last 15 years. Some of the biggest states are already there. Mostly privately owned. Utah is lagging, but I wouldn't hold your breath.


I fully agree with this. I am still furious with myself I found and passed on a 320 acre piece north of ceder city for only $249k. It looked like great property with deer, elk and a spring.

How dumb am I to have let that slip though. :evil:

-DallanC


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I had to laugh, because it is probably me that is the slow one.

At first glance I had to agree that the 4 mill out of 70 mill is probably chump change in the over all picture of general deer hunting. But its also not just about conservation tags. They could remove 80,000 tags from the general system and charge $405.00 for the remaining 10,000 tags and sale every one of them and not loose a dime in tag sales. It is easier to manage 10,000 vs 90,000 from their point. Which means they then can spend less of their budget on that area and free up money to be used in other areas.

Your last statement was true. They are not looking to increase the state coffers, but they will increase the DWR coffers at anytime they can. They can remove a huge number of hunters from the field which will give the special interest groups exactly what you indicated and not loose one dime in the process. That is really what I was trying to say, but most likely did a piss poor job.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why doesn't Utah's outdoor retailers and manufacturers have a lobby in this matter? They stand to make or loose more money in this whole game than anyone by a long shot. I figure mainstream hunters and the outdoor industry (mostly hunting) interest are directly aligned.

The kind of money I have read about Herbert taking for favors has been not all that much. I wonder what a new director of the DWR would cost? Or a substantial presence on the WB. I bet Denny Austed could buy it. :mrgreen: Heck for a half a million Walmart could very well increase sporting good sales by 10 million over 10 yrs alone. Is it possible the stock holders and board members of the corporations that stand to make or loose money with these decisions have no idea the situation exists?


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> They could remove 80,000 tags from the general system and charge $405.00 for the remaining 10,000 tags and sale every one of them and not loose a dime in tag sales.


Now don't go giving them any more ideas. 

This reminds me of the points that Bullsnot has been making. Hunters, especially big game hunters, have become a distinct minority in this state. Our numbers are still high, but as a percentage of the population, we just don't have the political clout that we once did.

Really, there are far more people in the state whose interest in wildlife has more to do with bird feeders than hunting. These people pay taxes and they vote like-minded legislator into office who ultimately make the decisions and set budgets that trickle down to hunter management policy. Off-the-wall hunt management decisions that once would have been politically unthinkable are now more plausible given that the general public just isn't as focused on hunting a they once were. Combine this with the well-funded and politically savvy special interest groups that are pushing their own agendas, and we've got a situation where what's best for hunting isn't necessarily what will happen.

At some point down the road, who knows, they just might decide to cut deer permits by 90-plus percent, then auction off the remaining tags for a small fortune to fund a UDWR that has evolved to be more concerned with urban fishing, native species reintroductions and backyard birdwatching than they are with hunting.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> This reminds me of the points that Bullsnot has been making. Hunters, especially big game hunters, have become a distinct minority in this state. Our numbers are still high, but as a percentage of the population, we just don't have the political clout that we once did.
> 
> Really, there are far more people in the state whose interest in wildlife has more to do with bird feeders than hunting. These people pay taxes and they vote like-minded legislator into office who ultimately make the decisions and set budgets that trickle down to hunter management policy. Off-the-wall hunt management decisions that once would have been politically unthinkable are now more plausible given that the general public just isn't as focused on hunting a they once were. Combine this with the well-funded and politically savvy special interest groups that are pushing their own agendas, and we've got a situation where what's best for hunting isn't necessarily what will happen.
> 
> At some point down the road, who knows, they just might decide to cut deer permits by 90-plus percent, then auction off the remaining tags for a small fortune to fund a UDWR that has evolved to be more concerned with urban fishing, native species reintroductions and backyard birdwatching than they are with hunting.


The thing that bugs me is that this whole political direction started taking a major turn for the worse when the good Gov. Michael Leavitt was in office. He brought it upon Utah, and we're still paying for it. It goes back to the merit system.

The merit system is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections.

In Utah, state professionals (biologists, etc.) cannot be fired for political reasons. This is to protect our state professionals from political bozos -- and to assure that our professionals are able to do their job without fear from political repercussions.

So, when Whirling Disease was found, and the state went after the Leavitt family about 2 decades ago, and Mike Leavitt was voted in, what happened? He tried to fire a bunch of people. He didn't even know he couldn't do it -- he didn't know anything about the merit system. So he took another step in the wrong direction and he reassigned people to new positions (vs. firing, because he couldn't fire them).

It was that moment that Utah went downhill. It was at that time that "professionals" were no longer running departments. It was at that time that the heads of UDOT, DNR, etc. became political positions vs. professional positions. And it was with him that the Wildlife Board and Regional Advisory Councils were created.

Now look at where we are today. We have a mess with Herbert and UDOT because the head of UDOT was paying too much attention to campaign contributions, and too little attention to his "real" job. And, we have political savvy sportsmen groups and WB members who wish to push certain agendas that may or may not be good for wildlife.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> MadHunter said:
> 
> 
> > .I have asked this several times and have not gotten an answer from anyone yet.... I have not had a lot of time to research it either. *How are WLB members appointed? and How do we get them replaced?* This could put us closer to a solution.
> ...


Thanks for the info on that Pro. I guess now we just have to choose from the lesser of 2 evils.. Sherbert of Cocoon.. ay ay ay!


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The thing that bugs me is that this whole political direction started taking a major turn for the worse when the good Gov. Michael Leavitt was in office. He brought it upon Utah, and we're still paying for it. It goes back to the merit system.
> 
> The merit system is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

I have not read through the specific details of the proposed changes. Having said that, I, speaking just for myself, would be willing to draw my general archery deer tag 3 out of 4 years instead of 4 out of 4 years IF IF IF it meant a noticeable change in in buck to dow ratio as well as well as buck quality. 

I LOVE hunting more than anything. But the part I love the most about it is being in the outdoors, scouting, hiking, exploring, and hanging with my best friends. If I had to sit out a year every few years and help a buddy hunt I would be willing to sacrifice a bit. 

I personally am a bowhunter and I dont shoot a deer unless it is a decent mature deer. I pass spikes and little 2 points several times a season. My first 2 years bowhunting (2004 and 2005) I shot small 2 points but now I dont. I also have been very successful hunting cows/spikes with my bow. 

I am not a wildlife biologist. I am a landowner. This is what I have seen the last 12 years: Not enough big bucks, a lot of hunter pressure, and a decrease in the overall deer herd. 

I dont know what I would suggest doing, but I would be interested in at least seeing some research as to what would happen if we only allowed GENERAL tags to be drawn 3 out of 4 years. For instance, as a bowhunter if I draw out 3 years in a row the 4th year I would have to sit out of the general hunt, unless I drew a LE tag. If i hunt the general rifle hunt and i draw out 3 years in a row the 4th year I would have to sit out of the general hunt.

I just wonder if we decreased the number of tags given out by maybe 10% compared to what they are now if that would help things. Yes, it would mean less opportunity for 1 out of 10 of us each year but we would all take turns in having to sit a year and we could still get out with friends and family and participate with them.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

UtahMountainMan said:


> I have not read through the specific details of the proposed changes. Having said that, I, speaking just for myself, would be willing to draw my general archery deer tag 3 out of 4 years instead of 4 out of 4 years IF IF IF it meant a noticeable change in in buck to dow ratio as well as well as buck quality.
> 
> I LOVE hunting more than anything. But the part I love the most about it is being in the outdoors, scouting, hiking, exploring, and hanging with my best friends. If I had to sit out a year every few years and help a buddy hunt I would be willing to sacrifice a bit.
> 
> ...


Responding to your last paragraph, that theory sounds a lot like the Dedicated Hunter program, in a way. Also I know Southern Utah Deer Rifle hunters would be tickeled pink to draw 3 out of 4 years, I have a buddy who drew once out of 4 years, so in reality that would actually put more pressure on the animals. Also the way archery hunting is going it is going to start getting to the point that it is going to be a every other year thing soon, IMO. This was the first year that some people didn't draw an archery tag that put in for them. If tags are cut it is only going to get worse.

I don't have a good answer, but the reason I don't like micromanaging is that it will turn into very limited opportunities when special interest groups get their hands on it. There needs to be a good mix of units that have trophy's, but plenty of units for people wanting opportunity rather than quality. To me weapon choice is about one of the last best ways to affect tag numbers without affecting the health of a herd. We need to do what is best for the deer herds and cut out the political BS.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I had the pleasure of meeting one of the DNR biologists last night and discussing these issues. He explained quite a bit of information and helped me understand some things. So now my opinion is this. The WB is bought and payed for by Don Peay. The 5 day hunt is a feel good lets act liking we're doing something fix. The 29 units is pretty much the same thing. The big problem is getting the herd #'s in general up. The bucks that are currently in the herd are sufficient to "service" the does. The biggest problem with the herds right now is road kill. In the area he covers on 3 of the however many hunred state roads they reporte 8000 deer killed over the past year. 90 % of those were does. A majority of the car deer accidents occur in the winter, when the does would be carrying fawns after the rut. Most of the does are carrying twins because of the low herd numbers. So you just killed 21600 deer out of next years herd numbers (rough estimate numbers) and thats just in one of the areas in the state. Theres other areas in the state I know of that kill a lot more deer on the roads than this area. He also said that although elk do not eat the same things herd cows will push deer out of an area. He said bulls don't bother them but herd cows will push them out of an area. The other critical problem is winter range. The season change proposal is more to allow people to hunt deer and elk at the same time than anything else. Anyways I thought this was some pretty interesting information.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> I had the pleasure of meeting one of the DNR biologists last night and discussing these issues. He explained quite a bit of information and helped me understand some things. So now my opinion is this. The WB is bought and payed for by Don Peay. The 5 day hunt is a feel good lets act liking we're doing something fix. The 29 units is pretty much the same thing. The big problem is getting the herd #'s in general up. The bucks that are currently in the herd are sufficient to "service" the does. The biggest problem with the herds right now is road kill. In the area he covers on 3 of the however many hunred state roads they reporte 8000 deer killed over the past year. 90 % of those were does. A majority of the car deer accidents occur in the winter, when the does would be carrying fawns after the rut. Most of the does are carrying twins because of the low herd numbers. So you just killed 21600 deer out of next years herd numbers (rough estimate numbers) and thats just in one of the areas in the state. Theres other areas in the state I know of that kill a lot more deer on the roads than this area. He also said that although elk do not eat the same things herd cows will push deer out of an area. He said bulls don't bother them but herd cows will push them out of an area. The other critical problem is winter range. The season change proposal is more to allow people to hunt deer and elk at the same time than anything else. Anyways I thought this was some pretty interesting information.


Very interesting information. I figured the roadkill numbers were high and that most were does. That most happen in the winter would lead you to believe they were carrying fawns. 
The problem with that is what is there to do? I know the DWR and other agencies have been putting in deer fences in the major trouble areas but is that enough? Deer are going to cross the road even if there is a fence there, they will just walk down the fence until they find a spot.
I don't like limiting hunting as I don't think it is the major cause of the decline in the deer herds. But I guess it is the easiest thing to regulate.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> I had the pleasure of meeting one of the DNR biologists last night and discussing these issues. He explained quite a bit of information and helped me understand some things. So now my opinion is this. The WB is bought and payed for by Don Peay. The 5 day hunt is a feel good lets act liking we're doing something fix. The 29 units is pretty much the same thing. The big problem is getting the herd #'s in general up. The bucks that are currently in the herd are sufficient to "service" the does. The biggest problem with the herds right now is road kill. In the area he covers on 3 of the however many hunred state roads they reporte 8000 deer killed over the past year. 90 % of those were does. A majority of the car deer accidents occur in the winter, when the does would be carrying fawns after the rut. Most of the does are carrying twins because of the low herd numbers. So you just killed *21600* deer out of next years herd numbers (rough estimate numbers) and thats just in one of the areas in the state. Theres other areas in the state I know of that kill a lot more deer on the roads than this area. He also said that although elk do not eat the same things herd cows will push deer out of an area. He said bulls don't bother them but herd cows will push them out of an area. The other critical problem is winter range. The season change proposal is more to allow people to hunt deer and elk at the same time than anything else. Anyways I thought this was some pretty interesting information.


Iron Bear here are my numbers. LOL   :lol:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Jahan..... I figured we were in the righ ball park for them roadkill numbers.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What can I say. We have an example of someones estimation that fits your preconceived notion. 

Did that biologist actually see those deer hit by cars. Who's to say that cougars did kill them next to the road just for the fun of it. :mrgreen:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> In the area he covers on 3 of the however many hunred state roads they reporte 8000 deer killed over the past year. 90 % of those were does. A majority of the car deer accidents occur in the winter, when the does would be carrying fawns after the rut. Most of the does are carrying twins because of the low herd numbers. So you just killed 21600 deer out of next years herd numbers (rough estimate numbers) and thats just in one of the areas in the state.


I was in a rush on my last post and I didn't get a chance to read and absorb this post. If that's 8000 in just one area and there are many more that account for many more deer wouldn't that put us well over the popular 10,000 estimate. Maybe as high as what 50,000. And I wish you could extrapolate the loss of deer like that with any credit. Lord knows I've tried with predators to no avail. But good for the DWR they have a new unsolvable target to blame. When in doubt blame it on the drought was getting old.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Yeah, I agree with you that Corroon is no more immune to special interests than Sherbert or his predecessors. However, there is another angle here. WHO would be Coroon's special interests? It would more than likely not be the realtors, (Herberts former position), the developers (closely allied to the realtors), The Farm Bureau, SFW and Don Peay, and rural politicians. All of these groups seem hostile to accomplishing the changes many of us want. As I follow this thread, and it is repeatedly stated by many that a lot of this is political in nature, I heartily agree. How can we change the following?



USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> The WB is bought and payed for by Don Peay.





The Naturalist said:


> Now look at where we are today. We have a mess with Herbert and UDOT because the head of UDOT was paying too much attention to campaign contributions, and too little attention to his "real" job. And, we have political savvy sportsmen groups and WB members who wish to push certain agendas that may or may not be good for wildlife.


The easiest route to real change seems to be to change who is appointing the Wildlife board and other key positions, and that means changing governors. If this doesn't happen then we can all bellyache about how things are run but nothing really will change. I will admit that I have been disgusted by Sherbert in other areas, but considering that Corroon is probably the only "D" I'll vote for this election it still isn't easy. Just some food for thought.



USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> I had the pleasure of meeting one of the DNR biologists last night and discussing these issues. He explained quite a bit of information and helped me understand some things. So now my opinion is this. The WB is bought and payed for by Don Peay. The 5 day hunt is a feel good lets act liking we're doing something fix. The 29 units is pretty much the same thing. The big problem is getting the herd #'s in general up. The bucks that are currently in the herd are sufficient to "service" the does. The biggest problem with the herds right now is road kill. In the area he covers on 3 of the however many hunred state roads they reporte 8000 deer killed over the past year. 90 % of those were does. A majority of the car deer accidents occur in the winter, when the does would be carrying fawns after the rut. Most of the does are carrying twins because of the low herd numbers. So you just killed 21600 deer out of next years herd numbers (rough estimate numbers) and thats just in one of the areas in the state. Theres other areas in the state I know of that kill a lot more deer on the roads than this area. He also said that although elk do not eat the same things herd cows will push deer out of an area. He said bulls don't bother them but herd cows will push them out of an area. The other critical problem is winter range. The season change proposal is more to allow people to hunt deer and elk at the same time than anything else. Anyways I thought this was some pretty interesting information.


Interesting stuff, Thanks for posting this.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> USMARINEhuntinfool said:
> 
> 
> > In the area he covers on 3 of the however many hunred state roads they reporte 8000 deer killed over the past year. 90 % of those were does. A majority of the car deer accidents occur in the winter, when the does would be carrying fawns after the rut. Most of the does are carrying twins because of the low herd numbers. So you just killed 21600 deer out of next years herd numbers (rough estimate numbers) and thats just in one of the areas in the state.
> ...


I posted this on another thread but I saw a report on KSL several months back that stated hunters kill roughly 20k deer a year and cars kill roughly 22k a year in Utah. They cited the DWR as their source for the numbers.

I can't find the more recent article I read but here is a link to a 2006 article.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=608384


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Interesting point on road kill; UDOT has added hundreds of miles of high fence on the highways. According to a UHP from Price, A little stretch by Price, at the golf course was known as the single worst short stretch of road in the state. It now has the high fence too and I have not see any roadkill in that area, however when the rancher just a half mile to the west leaves his high gate open nearly year round, that pretty much defeats the whole purpose. However, I still see a lot of roadkill, but certainly not in that area. Just to give credit where it is due, they have spent a lot of resources to help the cause.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Hey! The DWR has all kinds of figures we scratch our heads at. You all are welcome to call my source. After all it is a concrete number not a guess or estimation or extrapolation. And maybe it is that only 1 out of 9 deer that are hit are reported. If I hit a deer I sure am not going to pay for the damage out of pocket. I'm putting in an insurance claim. And in order to do that I need a police report if the damage is over $500 which is easy to get to.

I'm sorry but Im just skeptical. Even at 30K what are we going to do about it? Spend 100s of millions on deer fencing that disrupts migration and provides bottlenecks for predators? In case you all haven't noticed I rant all the time about lifting LE cougar, promoting coyote hunting. And negate the road kill there. Instead of looking to limit hunter harvest in any way. Weather that's LE, limited season, limiting technology, antler restriction ect. Take it from the cats not us.

The predator population in Utah is managed at or near capacity. If we are accepting estimations. That's an estimated 150,000 deer being eaten per yr. And all we want to do is fret about wolf. Am I missing something? Worrying about the wolf when the fox (cougar) is already in the hen house. There needs to be a mentality change on predation in general with the DWR or all you are fighting for is a healthy population of wolf in Utah at some point.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm sorry but Im just skeptical. Even at 30K what are we going to do about it? Spend 100s of millions on deer fencing that disrupts migration and provides bottlenecks for predators?


Funny you mention this I also posted this info on another thread but in southern Utah, near Monticello were road kills are crazy high, they are testing some new technology. In short they are tiny devices that senses an oncoming car and emits a noise the drives deer away from the side of the road. Certainly not a cure all solution but even it it is only 50% effective it would certainly help. I'm skeptical but hopefull.

Here is a link to see the devices.

http://deerdeter.com/


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> Funny you mention this I also posted this info on another thread but in southern Utah, near Monticello were road kills are crazy high, they are testing some new technology. In short they are tiny devices that senses an oncoming car and emits a noise the drives deer away from the side of the road. Certainly not a cure all solution but even it it is only 50% effective it would certainly help. I'm skeptical but hopefull.
> 
> Here is a link to see the devices.
> 
> http://deerdeter.com/


Looks interesting. If Europe claims to be 90% effective I would be happy with 50% as Bullsnot mentioned. I am wondering what the cost per unit is. If it is 100% more effective than high fences with a 50% increase in cost it would still be a good solution.


----------

