# Report on Richfield Town Hall



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Here are a few details regarding the SFW meeting in Richfield, Utah this evening.
Meeting started at 7:00 p.m. ended at 9:15 p.m.

53 people in attendance.

Besides local sportsmen and women that attended:

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch's aid.
Utah State Senator Ralph Okerlund
Sevier County Commissioner Gary Mason
Sevier County Commissioner Gordan Topham
Utah Wildlife Board Member - Jake Albrecht
Pass Chairman - Utah Wildlife Board - Paul Niemeyer
United States Forest Service - Kraig Rasmusson
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources - Vance Munford
Retired Regional BLM Manager - Don Pendleton
Local News Reporter - didn't get his name
Five local business men and women

Sportsmen from 20 to 75 years of age were represented. There as many 60 year olds as there were 30 year olds, a good mix of the age strata.

SFW leadership in attendance:
Don Peay
Byron Bateman
Ryan Fowtz
Troy Justensen

Ryan Benson with Big Game Forever

Discussion included:
SFW believes what they have done and what others have done for mule deer has not been enough because deer populations continue to decline at an alarming rate.

SFW wants to try one last time to focus their efforts and resources on mule deer recovery in Utah.

SFW want to continue to help fund habitat restoration but put much more effort into predator reduction, specifically coyotes and watchful management of bear and cougar populations.

SFW wants to encourage State agencies and the State Legislature to redirect existing budgets and revenues toward mule deer recovery and less on non-mule deer species.

SFW wants all doe hunts stopped immediately.

SFW want to grow the Utah mule deer population to a viable 400,000 head.

SFW has committed a focus 3 to 5 year effort to restore mule deer populations, starting immediately, with this years Legislature.

SFW discussed and took input on from those in attendance on specific things they plan to do, starting immediately, to start mule deer recovery.

When I say, SFW wants to, what I mean is they intend to 

SFW will continue to meet with other sportsmen at different locations across the State. Tomorrow (Weds. January 4th, 2012) in Spanish Fork at the High Chaparral Room, County Fairgrounds, 475 South Main, Spanish Fork.

And again on Jan. 17. Cedar City Middle School, 2215 Royal Hunt Drive.

I would encourage everyone interested in re-storing mule deer numbers in Utah to try to attend one of these gatherings. I don't know if SFW's current efforts will get us where we need to b but I hope they do and I hope we can all get together, in some way or another to support their current plan.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is, without doubt, the type focus needed for Utah's deer herds!!

And it just blows me away how some hunters DONT realize how serious our deer problem really is.

There are a few on this forum that flat out don't "get It",..OUR DEER HERDS NEED HELP!
IMHO, option 2 is the best place to start, One unit at a time, and move forward!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Great information, thanks for the update.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I went to the meeting. SFW wants to spend more money on coyote control. I think that's great, but I have a cheaper idea: Just follow the mule deer model

1) Sell state wide coyote tags.
2) Have a 10 day rifle coyote hunt.
3) Complain that there are too many coyote hunters.
4) Go to 5 coyote units, increase tag prices, cut tags, get rid of California Coyote hunters.
5) Improve coyote habitat.
6) Feed coyotes dog food in the winter.
7) Stop killing male coyotes during mating season.
8) Stop killing female coyotes.
9) Cut hunting dates from 10 days to 3-5
10) Cut tags more and go to 30 units

It amazes me that the mule deer population is shrinking.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> I went to the meeting. SFW wants to spend more money on coyote control. I think that's great, but I have a cheaper idea: Just follow the mule deer model
> 
> 1) Sell state wide coyote tags.
> 2) Have a 10 day rifle coyote hunt.
> ...


Yea thats sounds about right, I dont see why people dont get it. What! that plan doesn't work. it wont grow the population? "has not done enough"'', I beg to differ. I did not see a big emphasis on Otion WTF? these guys not proud of their work?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

That sure is allot of politicians. Now dont get me wrong, I'm sure they have the best interests of mule deer at heart, over their own. Still, I cant help but think that I have a new MPI micro light stock in my future, maybe some leftover funds for a new roof on my unibomber shack too. Wow, the legislature? thats the answer? SFW has their hand out again!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley, you forgot: (Not necessarily in the following order)

The dozen of so times we heard "we just met or we've had meetings with so and so".

We already have enough wildlife habitat, but we don't have enough animals using it.

"The hunters that fixed this (30 units) ought to be able to tell us how to hunt in the future" (Don Peay) That remark got lots of applause. 

"If they (other hunters) don't like it ($40 raise in tags), tough" (I don't remember his name) Also lots of applause.

AFTER we reach deer population goals, THEN we'll decide how to harvest bucks.

Per some survey or surveys, 35% of hunters would rather hunt less, every 5-7 years, and take a trophy while 65% would rather hunt every year. (See above)

We don't believe the DWR's numbers. (See SFW's population goal of 400,000.)

In order:
1- $2M coyote control
2- $50 county bounty on coyotes
3- $1M professional coyote control
4- Law Enforcement for trappers
5- Change trapping law
6- Bear and lion management
7- No doe hunts, transplants instead
8- Winter feeding
9- Goal of 400,000 deer
10- Continue habitat projects

New bill next year (2013) to increase license fees $3 to $5 for predator control.

Bottom line - New funds for deer or shift funds from fish hatcheries

Meeting with governor, Jan 18, Wellsville (Elementary?), Cache County

From Big Game Forever a discussion and video about wolves coming to Utah. Grey wolves naturally from the north and Mexican wolves (250) transplanted from the south. Sign petition online biggameforever.org. Free (IMHO, a good project) What I thought was ironic about the wolf presentation was Don and Ryan kept talking about how awful it was that the vocal minority was controlling things for the majority. Duh!!!

In general, I found the meeting interesting, but rather arrogant. And it reminded me of an info-mmercial. Almost everyone there knew each other, except me and a couple of young kids who appeared to be Native American. And most of the private conversations were about big bucks per a couple of Henry Mountain hunters.

SWF believes that the amended deer management plan is the only way to go and since they are the ones who pushed Option #2, they're more than willing to take the credit for saving our deer herds. Also, they believe they are speaking for the public, and unfortunately, they are about the only ones the legislature and government officials see, so as far as they are concerned, SFW is the public.

I was just there to take notes for UWC so I didn't speak up, but I may at the Cedar meeting.

And, at least 54 were in attendance because they wanted my name and email address on the sign-in list and I passed on the opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Bottom line - New funds for deer or shift funds from fish hatcheries


This one ticks me off...So, Sportsmen for FISH and Wildlife wants less money going towards fish? Why even have fish in their name? They really have hurt fishing and fishing interests a hell of a lot more than they have ever helped....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Another side note, winter feeding adversly affects winter range. Also, winter feeding boosts deer numbers(hypotheticaly) very minimaly over a say 5 year period, but negetively impacts the range for much longer. It has been shown to concatrate animals, and their selective feeding in the feeding areas. Feed sights have been located on historic winter range(thats where the deer congregate). On heavy winters, this helps the deer durring those winters, but negatively impacts the use of that range durring drier years when no supplemental feed is available. This is NOT good for deer. There is nothing in this plan that is good for deer LONG TERM. Option WTF? does not grow deer herds, and winter feeding further degrades winter range. These degradations, negate and nullify, any habitat improvements. 

Note: the sales pitch here is peripheral(predators), there is NO DIRECT plan on actually growing deer herds. Predator management, specificaly coyotes, is in full effect, range improvements? we've been doing it for decades. Change trapping laws(more than 48 hours)? thats not about coyotes, and besides, its lazy and unethical. So we have predator management, hunter management, and range degradation. What about deer management? Specifically management that GROWS deer! This all reaks of a big bait and switch, HOPE! sales pitch. More of the same, or gcd(a,b).


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Wyoming,

Funny you say that about fish. I completely forgot fish was in their name. I usually say sportsmen FOR wildlife. They only seem concerned about trophy big game. Sheep, mule deer, and elk (elk only if they can get conservation permits out of it)

Elk,

SFW does not think they speak for sportsmen, they pretend to speak for sportsmen. Don seemed very uncomfortable with the figure that shows 65% want to hunt every year. 

Also, did you notice an older guy asked how many tags were allowed during the better hunting of the 60's and 70's? Nobody would step up and say there were way more tags then than now. They just responded by talking about the record numbers in the 80's. 

IMHO the only thing they are left with is to kill coyotes. The biologist said it would probably help in the short term if they killed enough but he admitted there is no consensus among biologists regarding the matter. Nobody knows why the fawn survival is so low. I take comfort knowing SFW has found another crusade that probably will not fix the problem.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

There are several CWMU's that winter feed deer. If it adversely effected their business they would stop. But it doesn't.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The thing about winter feeding deer is that it is a band-aid...if you have to feed deer every year to keep them alive, what does that say about your habitat? Instead of applying the band-aid to stop the bleeding, heal the wound. Honestly, if you want to have a long term plan that allows deer to remain healthy and viable, you have to fix the things that are holding them back...feeding deer during the winter is not a solution. It is like these guys that want the DWR to feed the fish in lakes where stunting is a problem...it is stupid. And, it doesn't even take into account the potential disease problems and overgrazing winter range problems that could occur.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> The thing about winter feeding deer is that it is a band-aid...if you have to feed deer every year to keep them alive, what does that say about your habitat? Instead of applying the band-aid to stop the bleeding, heal the wound. Honestly, if you want to have a long term plan that allows deer to remain healthy and viable, you have to fix the things that are holding them back...feeding deer during the winter is not a solution. It is like these guys that want the DWR to feed the fish in lakes where stunting is a problem...it is stupid. And, it doesn't even take into account the potential disease problems and overgrazing winter range problems that could occur.


bingo


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yahtzee! You guy should inform those CWMU's. If you hurry you might just save there livelihood. :mrgreen:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Yahtzee! You guy should inform those CWMU's. If you hurry you might just save there livelihood. :mrgreen:


If private land owners want to degrade THEIR land, thats THEIR imperitive. It should not be allowed on public land.

So if these CWMUs have been feeding deer, their deer numbers should be higher, and growing, right?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> There are several CWMU's that winter feed deer. If it adversely effected their business they would stop. But it doesn't.


What are they feeding them?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > There are several CWMU's that winter feed deer. If it adversely effected their business they would stop. But it doesn't.
> ...


That ones easy, same thing they always feed deer, protien and energy.

CHAPTER 4
ASSESSING MINERAL STATUS AND DIET SELECTION
OF WINTER-FED MULE DEER3
ABSTRACT Though mineral deficiencies may increase seasonally with reduced quality
and quantity of winter forage, and may limit wildlife production more than protein and
energy deficiencies, most winter-feeding programs address only the latter. We assessed
the mineral status of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) during a winter-feeding program
in Utah. We found that both serum and liver samples of fed deer were marginal to low in
Se, Zn, and Cu. We also found that fed deer selected forages high in selenium (Se), zinc
(Zn) and copper (Cu). When we offered fed deer on winter range a choice between Cuamended
and plain ration, they selected a diet of 42% Cu-amended ration. During spring,
they did not decrease intake of the Cu-amended ration as quickly as the plain ration (F3,
67=5.02, P < 0.003). The efficacy of mule deer winter-feeding programs may increase if
site-specific feed rations were formulated to rectify low levels of minerals in mule deer.
INTRODUCTION
Mineral deficiencies affect wildlife health (Robbins 1983, McDowell et al. 1993),
and production (Underwood 1977, Flueck 1994). Mineral deficiencies may increase
seasonally with food shortages (Robbins 1983), with winter diets low in protein or high
in lignin (McDowell et al. 1993), or with the increased requirements of gestation
(Robbins 1983). Marginal to low-level mineral deficiencies, more common than
generally thought (Robbins 1983, Flueck 1994), are especially difficult to detect as
animals may show no obvious symptoms even as their productivity declines (Underwood
3 Coauthored by Peterson, C. C., F. D. Provenza, and T. A. Messmer.
99
1977).
While feeding programs have been used to compensate for seasonal dietary
restrictions of elk (Cervus elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus spp) (Urness 1980, Ozoga and
Verme 1982, Baker and Hobbs 1985, Schmitz 1990, Doenier et al. 1997), most address
only deficiencies in protein and energy (Baker and Hobbs 1985, Murden and
Risenhoover 1993, Ouellet et al. 2001, Page and Underwood 2006). *Rarely do feeding
regimes target mineral deficiencies, although these may limit wildlife survival and
production more than energy and protein deficiencies* (Lyon 1966, Severson 1981, Hobbs
and Swift 1985, McDowell et al. 1993, Hodgman et al. 1996).


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I think its great that people are meeting together and making an effort at building mule deer populations in Utah. What I don't think is great is that SFW is doing it. Sure its good to lobby and propose ideas - but the ultimate decisions should be made by those who are responsible to make them. 

The problem is that they've been allowed to do this before. They create the management plan and then go hand it over to the WB and it gets approved. They get a kickback. While I appreciate and support that things need to change, I'm not sure SFW's incentive for this change reflect what's best for the resource.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

svmoose said:


> ..... What I don't think is great is that SFW is doing it.
> 
> The problem is that they've been allowed to do this before. They create the management plan and then go hand it over to the WB and it gets approved. They get a kickback. While I appreciate and support that things need to change, I'm not sure SFW's incentive for this change reflect what's best for the resource.


So what is going to happen if the herds do get to the 400K base? IS SFW going to lobby to increase the opportunity? I seriously doubt it. They will try to feed a plan to the WB that goes along the lines of "We cannot increase tag numbers because of the threat that would pose to the newly restored mule deer herds."

I appreciate the effort but it has to be done for the good of all sportsmen. And no we cannot compromise on the "It's better than nothing doctrine". Would you feed and clothe one of your kids and starve and freeze another one?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....if having 400k deer in Utah were as easy as having a bunch of pep rallies and thinking really hard about it, it would've been done already. 

To grow more deer we're going to have to start thinking outside the box. We need to continue current efforts but we also need to look harder at the impact man has had on deer habitat (fire intervals, loss of range, change in range conditions), deer travel patterns (fences and roads), deer mortality in the way of cut off escapement and vehicles, and look at ways to get other agencies on board to help the situation. If we had the support of the Forrest Service, BLM, and UDOT at it's full potential we would be doing great things for mule deer. That and doing some effective rain dances.

Anyone else concerned about the lack of snow so far this winter?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again.....if having 400k deer in Utah were as easy as having a bunch of pep rallies and thinking really hard about it, it would've been done already.
> 
> To grow more deer we're going to have to start thinking outside the box. We need to continue current efforts but we also need to look harder at the impact man has had on deer habitat (fire intervals, loss of range, change in range conditions), deer travel patterns (fences and roads), deer mortality in the way of cut off escapement and vehicles, and look at ways to get other agencies on board to help the situation. If we had the support of the Forrest Service, BLM, and UDOT at it's full potential we would be doing great things for mule deer. That and doing some effective rain dances.
> 
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> So what is going to happen if the herds do get to the 400K base? IS SFW going to lobby to increase the opportunity?


I guess we can speculate based on Don's remark about allowing those who pushed through the 30 unit idea to "tell us how to hunt in the future". (They were in the audience.) And his remark and slide about after reaching the 400,000, then "we" can decide how to harvest bucks. And his slide showing the 35% every 5-7 years vs 65% every year split. And the fact that archery and muzzy tags were cut under the guise of "fairness".

Additionally, since they don't trust DWR counts, how will we know when we reach 400,000? When SFW decides we have, which may be never?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> This is, without doubt, the type focus needed for Utah's deer herds!!
> 
> And it just blows me away how some hunters DONT realize how serious our deer problem really is.
> 
> ...


Oh, we get it alright! We just don't think Option #2 will do anything to fix it! And it concerns us that it is considered just a "place to start". And we don't believe it's moving "forward".


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The thing about winter feeding deer is that it is a band-aid...if you have to feed deer every year to keep them alive, what does that say about your habitat? Instead of applying the band-aid to stop the bleeding, heal the wound. Honestly, if you want to have a long term plan that allows deer to remain healthy and viable, you have to fix the things that are holding them back...feeding deer during the winter is not a solution. It is like these guys that want the DWR to feed the fish in lakes where stunting is a problem...it is stupid. And, it doesn't even take into account the potential disease problems and overgrazing winter range problems that could occur.


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

In a way I am glad I didn't make it to the meeting, I would have had a hard time holding my tongue.....but I would have enjoyed visiting with elkfromabove, its been a while..

Society today seems to prefer band-aids over real solutions. This sickness in the cause of misery on many levels, not just wildlife. Until we get serious about FIXING things, and stop looking for quick/miracle cures, we are wasting our time/money/energy. Yes, I am a cynic.....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I guess I don't understand why you would hold your tongue at Town Hall meeting yet jump right on the web and complain. If you guys don't agree go to meetings and speak up! That's what town halls are for. You are correct just having more meeting won't fix the herds by neither will all of us fighting on the web. Again I don't always agree with the SFW but I'm still not seeing any other group making any progress. Im really not trying to stir the pot on here, but I really would love to see some opposion or tough questions asked in Spanish Fork tonight.

Hope to see you all there.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I guess I don't understand why you would hold your tongue at Town Hall meeting yet jump right on the web and complain. If you guys don't agree go to meetings and speak up! That's what town halls are for. You are correct just having more meeting won't fix the herds by neither will all of us fighting on the web. Again I don't always agree with the SFW but I'm still not seeing any other group making any progress. Im really not trying to stir the pot on here, but I really would love to see some opposion or tough questions asked in Spanish Fork tonight.
> 
> Hope to see you all there.


Great post! Thank you for your input.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

You're right, fighting on the web won't do a lot. Hopefully folks get educated though on the issues through the web enough that they can be a contribution to the cause at some point. 

I've listened closely to the content of the meetings as they've happened. (Reported by others) To be honest I have not heard anything of any real substance come from them yet. They seem more driven by emotions, emotions that we all share. We all want more deer. I only hope that, like any recession, someone isn't trying to profit from the situation. I just feel that the problems that deer face are much more complex than can be solved by some town hall meetings with us average folk throwing out our half baked ideas. Maybe I'm wrong and someone will say something to change my mind. 

To be clear I don't have the answers but if we were smart....we'd do what any successful person with some brains and money would do and that would be hire some experts (researchers in this case) to tell us what's going on. Why are fawns dying? Then we can figure out how to fix it.

As far as tonight, ironically I have a conflict that involves discussing wildlife in Utah.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I guess I don't understand why you would hold your tongue at Town Hall meeting yet jump right on the web and complain. If you guys don't agree go to meetings and speak up! That's what town halls are for. You are correct just having more meeting won't fix the herds by neither will all of us fighting on the web. Again I don't always agree with the SFW but I'm still not seeing any other group making any progress. Im really not trying to stir the pot on here, but I really would love to see some opposion or tough questions asked in Spanish Fork tonight.
> 
> Hope to see you all there.


I don't do so well speaking in public, especially on the fly, but now that I know the presentation I'll do better in Cedar, especially since I'm home and I don't feel I have to represent anyone but myself. Also I'll likely have a few friends there who agree with my position. We'll see how that works.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The meeting was interesting. Don started out sounding really inclusive. He said something like "If we get the herd to 400,000 deer, then the general hunt and everyone will be happy." There were a lot of great things said. I gathered that their primary focus was killing coyotes in the future. 

By the end of the night, Don said SFW consists of "hard core" hunters. He also said the other 65% who want to hunt every year don't understand data. They are like the Occupy Movement


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Muley73 said:


> I guess I don't understand why you would hold your tongue at Town Hall meeting yet jump right on the web and complain. If you guys don't agree go to meetings and speak up! That's what town halls are for. You are correct just having more meeting won't fix the herds by neither will all of us fighting on the web. Again I don't always agree with the SFW but I'm still not seeing any other group making any progress. Im really not trying to stir the pot on here, but I really would love to see some opposion or tough questions asked in Spanish Fork tonight.
> 
> Hope to see you all there.


Great info Muley thanks for the FYI. I hope some of these Internet Biologists show and ask some questions. As for the other groups MDF etc etc, what are the other groups doing about the situation?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

The other groups are doing the same things they always do....not a whole bunch.........Like SFW or hate them they have some passionate followers that get involved and I have to give them props for going from town to town asking there members what they would like to see


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bullsnot wrote: "I just feel that the problems that deer face are much more complex than can be solved by some town hall meetings with us average folk throwing out our half baked ideas."

I like fully baked ideas. Like when ranges get over run with cheat grass and burn hotter, and more fequently. You know what that does, Yeah kinda easy to see this coming, it cooks off all the selenium from the soil. But look on the bright side, it only takes a few million years to replenish it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I guess I don't understand why you would hold your tongue at Town Hall meeting yet jump right on the web and complain. If you guys don't agree go to meetings and speak up! That's what town halls are for. You are correct just having more meeting won't fix the herds by neither will all of us fighting on the web. Again I don't always agree with the SFW but I'm still not seeing any other group making any progress. Im really not trying to stir the pot on here, but I really would love to see some opposion or tough questions asked in Spanish Fork tonight.
> 
> Hope to see you all there.


I would 'hold my tongue' because what I have to say would NOT make those running the cute little 'Town Hall' meeting happy. I also know they would NOT listen to what I have to say. I know Don Peay, Ryan Foutz, and the rest of the VIP's of SFW, and they know me, so what would be gained by my attendance? Don't preach to me about showing up! I guaran-****-tee you I have done more 'showing up' ovedr the years than you have, so get off your ****land pony for a moment..... I have heard the song and dance BS from the Don, for YEARS, I don't need more smoke blown up my backside anymore. I once was a believer, NEVER again! I have asked the Don the 'tough questions', and I have asked the others as well. I know their answers, they know my opinions. But, for you to be so arrogant and think I, or anyone else, need to show up to the SFW three-ring circus in order to have a say........ :roll:


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I didn't see much opportunity for comment. A few guys were able to make some very long winded comments - painfully long. There are only so many minutes in a night. Eventually we must go home. Don called the majority of hunters Occupiers which doesn't do much to invite differing ponts of view.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
My point is if you are there speak up. Nothing personal, I'm sure you have been to plenty of meetings. But many on this site chose to take shots and make comments from behind a screen name rather than show up an speak their minds.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Ahhh, but you DID direct your comments at me, yes? Thus my response. I still stand by the opinion that one can care as much/more as you/me and never attend a SFW get-together. One doesn't need have a sit-down with a pimp to know what to do in church on Sunday.....and yes, I AM COMPARING DON TO A PIMP!!!!!!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I suppose I'll discharge my inflation adjusted 2 cents on what apparently was discussed at the meeting. I suppose as a less hard core hunter than some of you, I may make some errors in analysis. Feel free to correct me if you'd like. 


1. "SFW believes what they have done and what others have done for mule deer has not been enough because deer populations continue to decline at an alarming rate."

Fair enough, we can all agree that we would like more deer on the mountain.

2. "SFW wants to try one last time to focus their efforts and resources on mule deer recovery in Utah."

Does this mean that if they fail this time that they will give up and not mess with it any more? (In other words, leave it to the DWR? -Ov-)

3. "SFW want to continue to help fund habitat restoration but put much more effort into predator reduction, specifically coyotes and watchful management of bear and cougar populations."

Sounds reasonable to me. Just asking, how is this different from what the DWR is currently doing with yotes?

4. "SFW wants to encourage State agencies and the State Legislature to redirect existing budgets and revenues toward mule deer recovery and less on non-mule deer species."

"Bottom line - New funds for deer or shift funds from fish hatcheries"

We anglers outnumber hunters by 2-1. Gutting the hatchery and fisheries program to fund SFW's mule deer plan is asking for a major political battle that even DP may not be able to win. I suppose the states fishermen and the so called "non-consumptive" citizen users of wildlife will be thrilled to hear that a ton of DWR resources is going to mule deer and not their projects. Talk about driving a wedge between hunters and the rest of the public! As a deer hunter too, I want to see the mule deer program funded, but not at the cost of alienating the non hunting populace.

5. "SFW wants all doe hunts stopped immediately."

No argument here, but how are we going to protect Pro's neighbors pumpkin patches?

6. "SFW has committed a focus 3 to 5 year effort to restore mule deer populations, starting immediately, with this years Legislature."

Sounds fine to me, but didn't we already have a 5 year plan before option 2 was implemented by the WB?


I can agree with some of the things presented here, but I suppose that I agree with Bullsnot that the specifics are a bit short on substance. Anyway, I don't have a big problem with them holding the meetings either, so maybe some good will come of it all. 



One last thought. RE:

"New bill next year (2013) to increase license fees $3 to $5 for predator control."

A very publicized effort to kill large numbers of predators has real potential to bring the PETA crowd out of the woodwork in full frenzy. With that, we could possibly lose the predator control programs we already have. I may favor a more low key approach. Also, does the plan just charge hunters or fishermen for this? Most anglers would have a hissy fit if they had to pay this.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

great post Catherder


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Fish are already pulling money out of the general hunting fund. Maybe that money should go back in the hunting fund and fees on just the fishing license should go up??? 

Did not see a lot of people jump and have much to say again tonight in Spanish Fork. Maybe most people were just holding their tongue??? :O•-:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Who says there's no snow this year? Looks like a monster snow job to me! Not being negative - just paying enough attention to recognize a re-run.

Nobody else remembers SFW's "First Annual Predator Control Survey" back in 2001? Killed a reported 5,000 coyotes in the Uintah Basin? DWR took out an additional 5,000 with special funding for predator control? So why are they talking about it today instead of having the 12th annual? Could it be that the point of the 1st was less about predators and deer than it was about emotions and membership recruitment? Just asking.

As Bullsnot commented, a little thinking outside the box could be a good thing. But "outside the box" means outside SFW's control and they're working for more control, not less. That's not a slam on SFW at all; it's just what politics is about. Separate "them" from "us", stir "us" up with fear and emotion, tell "us" what we want to hear, stay away from details and facts and win our support.

My point is that even though they are inter-related, we should be able to distinguish between politics and wildlife management. I like most of the SFW folks and respect many of their accomplishments. (They don't like me - I'm one of "them". :lol: ) I keep looking, hopefully, for some indication of actual deer management in these meetings. But all I'm seeing here is politics - likely to build SFW's membership but not likely to grow healthy deer.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Is it a fact or opinion that Don is pulling money out of a Hatchery???????? 

At the meeting I went to in Logan.......he discussed money should stay where it is spent.......Like Big game dollars should stay with big game and not on tortoise re-introduction, black footed ferrets and horse shiz like that. This is the first I have heard about taking it from hatchery's........

I personally think that each recourse should fund itself and if it cant cuts should be made.....


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I attended the Spanish Fork meeting and it was pretty non-controversial. No inflammatory language, no divisive talk, no name calling, no "better-than-others" banter. Here is my take on the meeting last night.

-Looked like 90-100 in attendance.

-They started by clarifying the fishing money issue. They want to use hunting funding for hunting. *My recollection dealing with this issue--Fishing has been propped-up by hunting for about 3 years if I recall correctly. I was told by the Division that they have regularly floated one program with the other between the years of license fee increases. --Fishing license increases year A and covers fishing and helps cover hunting-- then as costs rise, hunting permit increases year F and helps cover fishing shortfalls. This allows the Division to not raise each permit fee every couple years. I am sure some will hate the idea of dedicated funding and some will love it. I fish and hunt so I am ok if hunting takes a little from fishing one year and fishing takes a little from hunting one year. One shouldn't prop-up the other for the long term.

-Some units with more bucks are doing ok, while some units with more bucks are doing poorly. Don said the problem wasn't bucks. 

-Lots of range work has been done and we should be able to carry more animals. 

-They feel coyotes are the problem and want to kill 20,000 in the first year of a coyote killing program. Cougars and bears will be looked at more. 

-Increase a predator fund earmark in the license from $3 to $5.

-Continue to work with road planners to include wildlife crossing structures.

-Grow the deer herd to 400,000. Mostly done through predator management, with a heavy focus on coyotes.

-Wolves are a problem. They are working hard to deal with wolves, get them delisted in the remainder of Utah.

-Politics are what guide our funding, land use, and opportunities. Sportsmen need to be involved will policy makers to make wildlife policies which benefit wildlife and hunters.

I'd wager most guys didn't speak to the contrary because I think everyone pretty much agreed. I saw guys try to push the cougar issue more, which I believe is equal to or even more important than the coyote issue. I saw guys pushing the bear issue. No real hard questions, because there was nothing really divisive.

I saw more guys raise their hands in favor of Regional Management, than guys who raised their hands in favor of micro-buck management. (Some will gloss over that tid-bit.) I liked how Don said we need to stop worrying about bucks- bucks are not the issue. Grow more deer. We are dividing over the buck issue. 

It felt like the meeting had a time-line to end by 9 and it did. I saw lots of friends, shook lots of hands. It was a decent sit and listen. It seemed they were there to fire-up the base, get people re-focused on the political issues, ask for more support to fight wolves and give attention to mule deer. They got that accomplished. Now, if it really does make a difference remains to be seen.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks for the update Packout. Good info. I like the direction the thoughts and ideas are going. Hopefully we can see what works and what doesn't and move forward...collectively.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

_*"Don said the problem wasn't bucks."*_

Wow that was a 13 month 180!!!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> _*"Don said the problem wasn't bucks."*_
> 
> Wow that was a 13 month 180!!!


Once you get "LEGISLATION" passed you don't have to push it anymore. :lol:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Fish are already pulling money out of the general hunting fund. Maybe that money should go back in the hunting fund and fees on just the fishing license should go up??? :


you didn't just say that, did you? Out loud? Seriously?

OK.

first, you're right. 100% correct. No argument.

Question: for how many years has hunting carried fishing in Utah?
Answer: 3-4 years.

In the last 30 years FISHING has carried hunting in utah for all but a handful of years, including the last 3-4.

So, for you to come on here and spew some crap about Utah's fisheries pulling money away from hunting is a bunch of garbage.



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> I personally think that each recourse should fund itself and if it cant cuts should be made.....


Anglers have carried this state for far longer than hunters ever had. If SFW really wants to isolate deer funding from the rest of the non-hunting areas, they are asking for trouble. Just looking at the past, I think one could come to the conclusion that deer funding would dry up sooner than the other non-deer funding areas. Good luck with that.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Is it a fact or opinion that Don is pulling money out of a Hatchery????????
> 
> At the meeting I went to in Logan.......he discussed money should stay where it is spent.......Like Big game dollars should stay with big game and not on tortoise re-introduction, black footed ferrets and horse shiz like that. This is the first I have heard about taking it from hatchery's........
> 
> I personally think that each recourse should fund itself and if it cant cuts should be made.....


I don't know about other meetings, but in Richfield he first said that about fishing (aquatics) in general, then mentioned the hatcheries specifically. Whether or not they actually get this done remains to be seen, but that's what they are after.

And as far as leaving money where it is, the answer is NO, unless we get additional funding for mule deer elsewhere. That was part of the slide show and was, in fact, listed as "Bottom Line"

If the Spanish Fork meeting was low key, maybe Don is watching this forum! Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned my anticipated attendance here in Cedar!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Details, details boys!! If you've got data and official surveys, and charts and graphs of this "funding shift" from fish to game and vica-versa, then share it instead of calling each other out and pitching a fit... I want to know where your getting your info from, so I can be educated by it. I fish, I hunt, I ATV, I hike improved trails, I camp in improved camping areas... where does all the funding from these sources (Campground fees, ATV registrations, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, tag fees, etc...) Where does all that funding go?


----------



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

> Separate "them" from "us", stir "us" up with fear and emotion, tell "us" what we want to hear, stay away from details and facts and win our support.


WOW! I never saw it in this light until now!

Lets see, what other organizations try to manipulate us through fear, guilt, and emotion in order to get us to part with our money and abandon reasonable train of thought...

"I hope they call me on a mission, when I have grown a foot or two"

-O|o- o-||


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> I don't know about other meetings, but in Richfield he first said that about fishing (aquatics) in general, then mentioned the hatcheries specifically. Whether or not they actually get this done remains to be seen, but that's what they are after.


Due to some publicity over an unfavorable audit, the hatchery system is an easy target for criticism right now. That could be where that was coming from.

One thing I might mention that could be a positive about SFW's push. If they are able to twist the arms of some legislators to fund the DWR better, that would be great. Even if it is "only" for mule deer restoration, that is something we all agree would be considered a positive.

The only caveat with that is everything in life comes with a price...................


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> WOW! I never saw it in this light until now!
> 
> Lets see, what other organizations try to manipulate us through fear, guilt, and emotion in order to get us to part with our money and abandon reasonable train of thought...












-DallanC


----------



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

-_O- :^8^:

*Obama 2012!!!*


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about other meetings, but in Richfield he first said that about fishing (aquatics) in general, then mentioned the hatcheries specifically. Whether or not they actually get this done remains to be seen, but that's what they are after.
> ...


Part of the reason that budget cuts were pushed through is because the DWR voluntarily cut their own funding (Option 2) in the face of contradictory social input with no benefit to deer. Francis Gibson (R) let the division know in an open forum that since they were doing this, not to come to the legislature for money.

Anyway, that's a bit off subject. At a minimum, whether you're an SFW supporter or not, elevated social consciousness.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> -_O- :^8^:
> 
> *Obama 2012!!!*


god no... both partys suck.

-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Few things that I saw at the meeting.

Raise of hands on Region or Units. I thought was pretty close to 50/50 maybe a little more for units??? Just what I saw from the back of the room. 

Don I believe said, not just buck will fix all the problems. I took that as, if we focus on only more bucks it won't fix the problem. Pretty sure that's what everybody has been saying all along. 

It seems to me the fisheries are doing very well in UT? Don't hear alot of anglers complaining and forming groups and distress that their fish are disappearing??? Well that is not true of the deer herds. In most business if a division of a company is struggling they put more focus on it. They move in new or better managers, they focus budget and resources to that division. This may come from a division that is doing well. It's to streghthen the company as a whole. It happens everyday in the business world. Why would you be so appould to see the DWR do the same thing with their business. Remember we are all share holders in this business and I for one would like to see the deer division of our company a little stronger. Good job fishing division, but now we need your help with this division of the company!!!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> It seems to me the fisheries are doing very well in UT? Don't hear alot of anglers complaining and forming groups and distress that their fish are disappearing???


You missed the boulder booke trout fiasco then.

-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Dallan,
Well aware of the brooke trout on the boulder. Grew up fishing the boulder A LOT. But that one case.

Irony...over harvest of fish hurt the boulder.


----------



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

> god no... both partys suck.


Amen brutha! I'd post up another picture but it would be deleted right now by the do-gooder police. :twisted: Picture a sheep taking it from both ends by a donkey and an elephant... :lol:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> You missed the boulder booke trout fiasco then.
> 
> -DallanC





Muley73 said:


> Dallan,
> Well aware of the brooke trout on the boulder. Grew up fishing the boulder A LOT. But that one case.
> 
> Irony...over harvest of fish hurt the boulder.


huh? what? brook trout fiasco? Over harvest?

Are you guys on dope???


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> In most business if a division of a company is struggling they put more focus on it. They move in new or better managers, they focus budget and resources to that division. This may come from a division that is doing well. It's to streghthen the company as a whole. It happens everyday in the business world. Why would you be so appould to see the DWR do the same thing with their business.


in the business world special interest groups don't have a say in the management of the company. Neither does the general public.

In the wildlife world the general public cries for 5 year management plans, then asks to change that 5 year plan every other year.

We complain about our biologists, but we don't allow them to manage. Ironic?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Don I believe said, not just buck will fix all the problems. I took that as, if we focus on only more bucks it won't fix the problem. Pretty sure that's what everybody has been saying all along.


Well this is kind of a flip flop because the whole Option 2 or as Lonetree puts it Option WTF only dealt with bucks hence the reason to reduce the number of tags. Many on here have said the same thing that were in favor of Option 2.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lol. The big brooked are not what they use to be. But the tigers have filled in nicely!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Is this when the division killed all the Brookies because they were not native??? I think I heard about that man that was a hot topic clear up here....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

> in the business world special interest groups don't have a say in the management of the company. Neither does the general public.
> 
> In the wildlife world the general public cries for 5 year management plans, then asks to change that 5 year plan every other year.
> 
> We complain about our biologists, but we don't allow them to manage. Ironic?


Sure they do!!! They are called customers!!!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Lol. The big brooked are not what they use to be. But the tigers have filled in nicely!


you're fishing the wrong lakes...



Muley73 said:


> > in the business world special interest groups don't have a say in the management of the company. Neither does the general public.
> >
> > In the wildlife world the general public cries for 5 year management plans, then asks to change that 5 year plan every other year.
> >
> ...


Customers? NO -- customers don't have a say in management decisions. Managers make decisions based on what customers think they want, but customers certainly do NOT have a say making management decisions.

You and natural bringing up Boulder Mountain sport fish improvement project shows just exactly what the problem wildlife managers deal with in regards to the general public: ignorance. the lack of knowledge, education, or awareness of a subject.

don peay can spout off about SFW being made up of "hard core" hunters, and those people not part of SFW being "common" or average hunters, all he wants. But all I see is a bunch of ignorant sheep following the $$.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Just wondering.

Do the anti option 2 folks believe it is possible to over harvest bucks? 

And how many bucks do they figure is responsible to harvest in Utah per yr now a days?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> Do the anti option 2 folks believe it is possible to over harvest bucks?
> 
> And how many bucks do they figure is responsible to harvest in Utah per yr now a days?


I would certainly say we can over harvest bucks but that's not the issue. You're not listening my friend. The issue is cutting tags to increase buck to doe ratios. Increasing buck to doe ratios will do nothing for herd production. Cutting tags because we are below buck to doe ratio objectives makes all the sense in the world and I support 100%. On units that are below 15:100, tags SHOULD BE CUT!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> Do the anti option 2 folks believe it is possible to over harvest bucks?
> 
> And how many bucks do they figure is responsible to harvest in Utah per yr now a days?


Sure, bucks can be over harvested as many of the anti-option 2 have stated. The areas with low buck to doe ratios were being addressed under the 5 year plan that we didn't allow to work because we allowed our emotions to take over our common sense.

Many areas in utah have good buck to doe ratios, but people aren't satisfied. They want general season units more like LE units which means a major opportunity reduction for hunters. I thought we had enough LE units.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering.
> ...


+1000


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Do share holders have a say???


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Just wondering.
> 
> Do the anti option 2 folks believe it is possible to over harvest bucks?
> 
> And how many bucks do they figure is responsible to harvest in Utah per yr now a days?


Sure, we can over harvest bucks and that has occasionally happened in some areas, but the decline in the herds can rarely be caused over harvesting bucks. It's the loss of the does and fawns that decimates the herds, and those losses have to do with less and/or poor habitat, bad weather, predation, disease, starvation, highways, and human encroachment.

By the same token, _under_ harvesting of bucks creates other problems with more intense competition between bucks during the rut, displacement of does and fawns in winter range and competition for limited forage and cover.

As far as a responsible number of bucks harvested, I guess that depends on what you are trying to accomplish regarding the size or composition of the herd. I'm no biologist and I haven't tried to work the numbers, but from what I've read, harvesting about 8-10% of the population, mostly bucks, will maintain a herd under normal conditions. If the DWR numbers are correct (I have no reason to doubt them.) and we have 290,000 deer, then we should be able to harvest 23,000 to 29,000 deer without impacting the numbers. I think that's about where we are.

If you want a higher buck to doe ratio, then somewhere around 5-7% is what you're after.

Like I said, I'm no biologist, but those are the numbers I've seen.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

> By the same token, under harvesting of bucks creates other problems with more intense competition between bucks during the rut, displacement of does and fawns in winter range and competition for limited forage and cover.


Wow, now that would be a debate that would be fun!!! Kind of like being rich makes you unhappy!!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> > By the same token, under harvesting of bucks creates other problems with more intense competition between bucks during the rut, displacement of does and fawns in winter range and competition for limited forage and cover.
> 
> 
> Wow, now that would be a debate that would be fun!!! Kind of like being rich makes you unhappy!!!!


This is the exact problem that has occurred in Colorado...the ignorant hunters think all is great and fine because of the UNDERHARVEST of bucks leaving lots of big ones roaming the hills...but, what they don't see is what kind of effect this has had on the does and fawns. Nevada has come right out and said that this is a problem in their state....the truth is that most hunters don't give a shizz about does and fawns; all they care about are the bucks.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Do share holders have a say???


they might have some say, but ultimately the managers still make the decisions. It might cost them their job if they make the incorrect decisions, but that's up to upper management or the board of directors, not necessarily the "share holders". It could possibly come down to share holders, if the majority agreed. With regards to Utah's wildlife, what does the majority want? If you truly want management to follow the lead of the majority, I think you'd find that "opportunity" would trump "trophy" management.



coyote said:


> he areas with low buck to doe ratios were being addressed under the 5 year plan that we didn't allow to work because we allowed our emotions to take over our common sense.


yep. yet another 5 year plan that the people who cried to implement the 5 year plan only gave 2 years before crying for yet another 5 year plan. I imagine we'll see some changes next year to the current 5 year plan.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> > By the same token, under harvesting of bucks creates other problems with more intense competition between bucks during the rut, displacement of does and fawns in winter range and competition for limited forage and cover.
> 
> 
> Wow, now that would be a debate that would be fun!!! Kind of like being rich makes you unhappy!!!!


Last year at one of the Southern RACs I heard the argument that we need to eliminate cow elk tags and increase the bull tags on the SW Desert (Indian Peaks) because the quality of the bulls had gone down due to broken antlers caused by too many bulls fighting over too few cows. And the issue got quite an intense serious hearing! And, yeh, it was fun! Go figure!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

PBH said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Do share holders have a say???
> ...


Yep! Don's stated survey says just that with 65% opportunity (hunt every year) vs 35% trophy (hunt every 3-5 years for a trophy). Unless, of course, Don doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

w2u,
Please explain who the "irogant hunters" are????? You seem to have all the correct answers?????? Please explain your background and superior knowledge.

Efa,
I will say this about the 65% and 35%. I don't think anybody including Don knows what 70% of the 65 or 35% really want, including those hunters them selves. I truly believe that 70% either are not educated enough or don't care enough to care either way. Both sides of the argument claim that 70% are on their side at times. But the truth is that 70% will probably for most part just go with the flow regardless of what decisions are made. They have for 30 years now. They might complain one way or the other while at the coffee shop but it ends there. We all threaten each other with them but truly they go with what us irogant hunters or terrible managers give them. Just my opinion please tell me I'm wrong, but until
I see them more involved I won't believe it.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I'd say that 90% of hunters want more deer. The other 10% are the people who do not know what they want (thus the "undecideds" we see in every poll). Getting there without killing those who arn't like minded in the strategies is the danger.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
I agree 100%!!! I also think that 99% want to hunt every year. My point is 70% will never get more involved than they have in the past. They will carry on and the deer herd is not a major issue in their mind.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> w2u,
> Please explain who the "irogant hunters" are????? You seem to have all the correct answers?????? Please explain your background and superior knowledge.
> 
> Efa,
> ...


Your assumption that those who don't voice their opinion just go with the flow and just complain at the coffee shop is nieve, at best. Each decision that puts hunting further down their priority list (cutting tags, raising prices, limiting their hunting areas, increasing red tape, shortening seasons) may not seem like much by itself, but at some point, it becomes the infamous straw and they simply, quietly, drop out. After 50 years of starting with 15 to 20 member extended family deer hunting camps, I now have only 5 extended family members, including me, doing any hunting at all and only 2 of us still hunt deer while the other 3 only hunt antlerless elk on the Wasatch West unit. And I now have only 2 grandchildren, ages 8 and 7, who still like to go hunting with grandpa, and none of my 6 children or 6 children-in-law now hunt. What makes things worse is that my family is now pressuring me to stop because of my age and health. They tell me I shouldn't be going alone, but none of them will go with me. Additionally, we now have 2 avid animal-rights/vegan members.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that those non-hardcore hunters will just continue to take what we dish out. And don't assume this just affects the current generations. I've heard proponents of these proposals say that the silent hunters can take it or leave it when these proposals are made, and they are correct, but I see more and more of them leaving it.

Additionally, in the last 5 years, I've seen 3 of my hardcore, but silent, trophy hunting neighbors drop out due to the hassle of trying to get a tag and their lost opportunity to hunt as often as they would like. They're now just fishing. So it isn't just the average Joe any more.

It's true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but the other 3 wheels are losing grease too, they just don't squeak, and at some point they'll freeze up and the trip will come to a screeching halt.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

It's a funny thing that everyone has a different opinion on how to fix what is agreed to be the common problem. What always seems to elude us is how to solve that common problem because we will never accept that the solution is not the one we have predetermined. How many of us are willing to put all of our personal thoughts, feelings and interests aside and concede to the real solution whatever it might be?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> It's a funny thing that everyone has a different opinion on how to fix what is agreed to be the common problem. What always seems to elude us is how to solve that common problem because we will never accept that the solution is not the one we have predetermined. How many of us are willing to put all of our personal thoughts, feelings and interests aside and concede to the real solution whatever it might be?


Good post MH!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I believe people drop out from hunting because of the hassle. I also believe if they saw more deer and had more success they would put up with the hassle. Hassle with no reward generally will turn people away from anything. 

I'll support any fix!!! Regardless of who gets credit or who's idea it is. I dont believe many on this site can HONESTLY say that!!!!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I'll support any fix!!! Regardless of who gets credit or who's idea it is. I dont believe many on this site can HONESTLY say that!!!!


I like that you can admit it, but I guess I can saw the same thing about you and not prove it. Right?

I think most would welcome positive growth like what the infamous email stated. I'm just not getting my hopes up that it can/will happen in the timeframe of 3-5 years.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I believe people drop out from hunting because of the hassle. I also believe if they saw more deer and had more success they would put up with the hassle. Hassle with no reward generally will turn people away from anything.
> 
> I'll support any fix!!! Regardless of who gets credit or who's idea it is. I dont believe many on this site can HONESTLY say that!!!!


I don't think you give us enough credit! I think MOST hunters on this site, including me, would support any fix as long as what we're fixing is the declining population of the whole herd, not just attempting to increase the trophy population. And I'm glad to see SFW now making a concerted effort to remove coyotes and to ban wolves. But looking back at how much effort they made promoting Option #2 as the way to increase the herds, which they now concede it doesn't, I'm not sure how much I can believe their stated motives. Are they crying "Wolf" again? Pun intended!

So, once we reach 400,000, if we do, does that mean we'll get our tags back and then some? Will they be OTC? Will archery go back to statewide? Will we go back to doe hunts which they want banned? Regional rifle hunts? In other words, what will change? And will it be to the benefit of the not-so-hardcore hunters? He did say (and showed in the slide) that we first need to fix the herds, then we will/can decide how to hunt them, and he also said those who "fixed" the problem by instigating and promoting Option #2 should decide how to hunt them "in the future."

"Regardless of who gets credit or whose idea it is"? I'm with you on that and if that's the case, I applaud you, but that isn't how it works at the RACs or WB meetings! There, numbers, both dollars and people, count!

I don't like SFW's arrogance, and I have great reservations about their fundraising, but if they are truly willing to openly put up the money for their cause, more power to them! Well, not actually more power, 'cause they have more than enough already. That's just a figure of speech!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> I'll support any fix!!! Regardless of who gets credit or who's idea it is. I dont believe many on this site can HONESTLY say that!!!!


I suppose this gets lost in the "battles" and arguments because to a certain degree things have turned somewhat personal in some cases and has turned into a "us" versus "them" as Finn mentioned. It's almost like both sides discredit anything the other says.

The truth is, and I will stand by this till the day I leave this world, that UWC and those that founded it stand on the principal that we want to do what's best for the resource first and foremost. We are not anti SFW, MDF, DWR or any other organization. We stand behind any person or persons that is intersted in doing what's best for the resource. PERIOD! In our minds hunters come second to that.....in the end hunters win if we can do that and that is my belief and the mission statement of UWC. When UWC no longer stands on those principals I will walk away.

Don't be confused by the fact that when issues come up that do not benefit the resource we will side with hunter desires and lobby for hunter desires.

We may disagree but my/our whole foundation is doing what is best for the resource. We may not be as good at the politics, i.e. holding meetings around the state to announce that we have a fix for the deer herd, but we are working as hard as we can to find solutions that fit the real world and ALL of the challenges that it faces like the lack of inter-agency cooperation and politics. We have done several projects that benefit deer and other wildlife. We have worked very hard to get involved in issues that are not necessarily hunting related but have the potential to impact wildlife. We have worked hard with the division to understand the real problems they face in growing more deerand assisting in any way we can. We are working hard to set up committees in every region (eventually unit) to work on wildlife projects to improve the problems specific to those areas. We are looking very hard at science (researchers that are looking at eliminating cheat grass so the natural ecosystem can regenerate itself the way it should without millions of dollars of habitat work, looking the nutrient value of existing plants and how can improve them, understanding the real reasons fawns aren't surviving at a higher rate), we are looking at historic range conditions and fire intervals to understand the problems wildlife face. We are working with researchers to understand how fencing and what wildlife crossings are effective. We have been looking at how we can make programs better for landowners and kill less does that are causing crop damage.

I suppose we need to get better at grandstanding so the world knows that but we aren't in it for credit, money, or popularity. If we had all the answers we would give them away for free. We will continue, one day at a time, one project at a time, one issue at a time to chop away at the tree that is the mule deer and other wildlife problems. We just understand that there is no majic bullet and the answers are not simple. We feel that promising the mule deer population will double in the next few years is what everyone wants to hear and would be a great fundrasising tactic but good intentions only get you so far. We want real solutions and we will assist in finding them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> So, once we reach 400,000, if we do, does that mean we'll get our tags back and then some? NO! Will they be OTC? NO! Will archery go back to statewide? NO! Will we go back to doe hunts which they want banned? NO! Regional rifle hunts? NO! In other words, what will change? THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SFW LINES THEIR POCKETS WITH! And will it be to the benefit of the not-so-hardcore hunters? NO! He did say (and showed in the slide) that we first need to fix the herds, then we will/can decide how to hunt them, and he also said those who "fixed" the problem by instigating and promoting Option #2 should decide how to hunt them "in the future."


 "ALL HUNTERS ARE EQUAL, SOME MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"!


----------

