# Fix the big game draw system



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

Is there any support out there for switching from our current big game lottery system, which is essentially a government run Socialist System to a market driven i.e. Capitalist system where the distribution of big game hunting tags is decided by free market supply and demand? In other words, instead of having a lottery where everyone has a chance to draw a tag the tags are distributed by free market capitalist economics?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

So you want a "Dutch Auction" kind of system? Sucks for poor people... probably would suck for you too! How much would you pay for a deer tag per year? $250? $500? $1000? $5000? Cuz I'd bet the market price would be alot more than you would be willing to spend.

Fact are there are way too many hunters, way too few animals to hunt. 


-DallanC


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

I feel one reason the free market tags are so high right now is because there are so few of them (very low supply). If all tags were offered in a free market system (more supply) the laws of economics dictate that their price would go down.


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

We could probably sell off all of the socialist public ground too..........


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Anyone in the middle class could probably kiss any opportunity for an OIL tag goodbye. What is it for moose right now? 24000 applicants for 85 tags? Under a pure capitalist system, 80 rich dudes could hunt moose annually, unless there were additional "socialist" restrictions. Probably ditto for Premium LE deer or most LE elk too. 

No, thank you.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Hell no and HELL NO!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Yep, you could scratch off any and all middle income earners from being able to hunt a big game animal again with that kind of idea. 

I have a question for you, where did this hair brain idea come from?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Don Peay? 


-DallanC


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

Critter said:


> Yep, you could scratch off any and all middle income earners from being able to hunt a big game animal again with that kind of idea.
> 
> I have a question for you, where did this hair brain idea come from?


To answer your question, as a conservative American I have always been taught that Capitalism is good and Socialism and Communism is bad.

Who on this thread is in favor of socialized medicine? Who wants Obama care? Sure, under Obama care, if you need an operation you can get it for free it just make take a few years. Under socialized hunting you can eventually hunt (for almost free) but it will take many, many, many, years. In fact, you may never draw.

Do you want to work hard and earn the money for a hunt or do you want the government to subsidize your hunting? Are you a capitalist, socialist, or communist?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The tags aren't being subsidized. No one pays for your tag, nor any part of it. The price is paid by you. No one else helps you pay for it. There is a "price control", but without it, you would need to be one of the very rich to be able to afford to hunt.


----------



## Buzzard (Oct 20, 2008)

oldTimer, I'm a conservative American. The difference between you and I is; I'm not cranial-anally impacted. I sure that listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh makes you an expert on Capitalism. So I'll point out some flaws in what you're suggesting. 
You want to take the tags for the game animals and sell them to the highest bidders. The game animals belong to the general public. So do you believe rights of the general public to hunt the animals they own should be taken away? Should the general public have to pay a considerable amount to hunt the animals they own? As an expert on Capitalism do you believe in any communal property(ie Federal and State lands, animals, highways,ect? 

I work hard to go hunting. The government does not subsidize my hunting. I'll pay a fair fee for a tag. 

What it comes down to is there isn't enough tags for demand. The current system in Utah is a good way to distribute the tags. Everyone owns the animals and everyone has a chance to draw a tag. Those that have put in the longest have better odds. If they want to improve it the should get rid of the auction tags or have the UDWR auction the tags and allow 100% of the funds to go back to managing the resource.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

This question is ridiculous. There are free market driven big game tags in landowner and auction tags. If that was all that were available I wouldn't be hunting. The North American Wildlife Model is unique and awesome. If you're upper class and want to hunt every year you can buy your way into it. If you aren't you still have opportunities to hunt every year.

Protecting this wildlife model is very important. There have been those who've suggested it needs changed -- they aren't in it for the hunting anymore ($$).


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I always find it interesting when someone plays a "one-topic" Socialism card on the internet. The internet and communications system is a socialistic system. Everyone who drives on a freeway or highway is a Socialist. The people flying are using Socialism. Fished at Strawberry lately- Socialist. Water skied at Utah Lake, Lake Powell or Jordanelle-- Socialist. Hiked Timp or your local BLM, Forest Service, or State lands then you participated in Socialism. Been to a Park for a bar-b-q-- yep, socialism. 

So no, no one can claim they were raised as a pure "Capitalist" and no one was taught in their socialistic public (or gov't subsidized private school) school that socialism is not acceptable in any form. I am certain some kids are taught how bad socialism is as their parents drive them on I-15, down to the National Forest to go camping, while mom talks on her cell phone and the kids enjoy their "freedoms" -- (those freedoms are protected by a socialized military and not a privately owned, capitalistic army).

I'll agree we could auction all tags IF we exclude anyone who obtains any of their income from gov't monies/subsidies/contracts/trickledown. I'd wager all tags would remain unsold. The whole Socialism card is usually played for a "one-topic" argument while ignoring the facts of life.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

What's interesting is how offensive this is to most everyone, but having a portion (only some of the best BTW - the icing so to speak) to auction to the highest bidder in the hands of "conservation groups" is ok. Don't pretend that this current system is either black or white. There are bundles of gray.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not a fan of Utah's system. When you have more demand than supply, then you have two options really - let the price adjust upward until you just price people out, reaching that equilibrium point, or design a system of allocation as fair as you can make it, honoring years without tags/not drawing, in some kind of "pay your dues" type system. 

So if we are really true capitalists, then just elevate the prices until the "sweet spot" is reached. In this sense, only those with the most money could hunt. Which really is pretty darn American when you think about it. 

If not, then the most fair of all draw systems is Idaho - no bonus, no preference, no whatever points. Just fair up, everyone gets one shot each year. Rationing at its core is socialistic, but hey, we recognize the need for it. Right?

Utah's system attempts to reward those that have "paid their dues" by not drawing for decades. The result in my view, is a system stacked in favor of those that have been in the system longer. To a kid starting to hunt, or new comer to our state, the system really reduces the fairness to them. But somehow, Utah has decided that if we don't draw out for so many years, we somehow "deserve" more of a shot at getting a tag. I'm not sure I agree with that or not. I personally believe that because I haven't drawn an LE elk tag for 10 years now, I don't have anything coming to me any more than a first time applicant. Its how it goes.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> What's interesting is how offensive this is to most everyone, but having a portion (only some of the best BTW - the icing so to speak) to auction to the highest bidder in the hands of "conservation groups" is ok. Don't pretend that this current system is either black or white. There are bundles of gray.


FWIW - I don't know anyone that opposes auction tags for conservation groups - as long as those groups are transparent with what they do with the funds. Its when people that run the groups are making huge salaries, and can't account for the funds that people have an issue.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

I have a great idea Oldtimer & Garyfish! Quit being hypocrites and putting in for our socialist draw systems and start purchasing your hunts through auctions. I'd be willing to bet your ancestors came to this country to get away from the very crap your preaching!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Originally Posted by *SteepNDeep*  
_What's interesting is how offensive this is to most everyone, but having a portion (only some of the best BTW - the icing so to speak) to auction to the highest bidder in the hands of "conservation groups" is ok. Don't pretend that this current system is either black or white. There are bundles of gray._

"FWIW - I don't know anyone that opposes auction tags for conservation groups - as long as those groups are transparent with what they do with the funds. Its when people that run the groups are making huge salaries, and can't account for the funds that people have an issue. "

I don't have a problem with the conservation tag program per-se either, but SteepNDeep's observation is on the mark. There *are *pressures for more "capitalistic" tendencies with our limited public hunting resources. How these issues are resolved will probably be one of the main challenges hunting (as we know it) and the North American model will face in the upcoming years.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> I have a great idea Oldtimer & Garyfish! Quit being hypocrites and putting in for our socialist draw systems and start purchasing your hunts through auctions. I'd be willing to bet your ancestors came to this country to get away from the very crap your preaching!


Actually they came here to get away from monarchies where only the ruling class and the wealthy could own property or hunt.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Actually they came here to get away from monarchies where only the ruling class and the wealthy could own property or hunt.


And they also owned the game they hunted! Those were literally, the "king's deer"!


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

That was my point fishrmn! Only the rich got to hunt!


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

Lots of good feedback and discussion; except of course from the likes of BirdDogger and Buzzard whom found it necessary to sink to the level of name calling, profanity, and vulgarity. Oh well, as the Mormon Prophet Gordon B Hinckley said "It tells others that your vocabulary is so extremely limited that you cannot express yourself without reaching down into the gutter for words."

At any rate, it is obvious that there is little support for improving draw odds by raising tag prices. This is discouraging since, if you run the numbers, there is little to no hope of a new hunter, just entering the bonus point system, ever drawing an OIL tag and you can only hope to draw a LE tag a few times in your lifetime.

I feel raising the tag prices would, if nothing else, eliminate all of the people currently putting in for their wives, mothers, aunts, uncles, etc.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You don't have to raise tag prices to keep people from putting in everyone in their family, all you need to do is to require the money up front instead of when you draw the tag. There are some that can afford that extra dillars but a lot can't.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

You know, here's the funny thing. 1/2 of the tags are drawn randomly in the LE/OIAL categories. This is a key hole in the complaints of people stating that "new hunters will never get drawn". Does is suck sometimes when you are putting in for years and years without pulling a tag? Yeah, it does! I know it does! I am 24 years old and have 10 points for bull elk this year! But the cool side of it is the hope--my wife has only started to get into hunting since we were married 2 years ago, and guess what? This year with only 1 point going in, she pulled the LE elk tag I've been going after for almost my whole life! Every year new hunters DO get some awesome hunts here in UT, and so do the guys who've been sluggin' it out for ever(my dad finally pulled his mt goat tag this year with 17 points). Is it a perfect system? Of course not. But it is a system that I think maximizes opportunity across the board.

As a graduate in economics, I would like to look at a "capitalist" perspective that seems to be ignored here. How do we determine price? It is a relationship between marginal willingness to pay (MWP) and supply. But what constitutes our willingness to pay? Is it just the dollar amount? no. Our time is also a part of this. So in one sense the "purely capitalist" approach is already met! There are tags to buy at a cash only price, then there are tags to buy at a cash+time. Your willingness to pay is going to be based on your personal discount rate of future payoffs versus present consumption. What could be more capitalistic than that?


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

Yes Jonnnycake; it is true that 1/2 of the tags are drawn randomly in the LE/OIAL categories and yes some lucky individuals draw out. However, just like in the Power Ball lottery, your odds are awful and the sad truth is that most people will not draw out. The people of Utah have decided that the Power Ball lottery is immoral and have made it illegal. They have realized that the Power Ball lottery with it's "hope" of instant riches is for the most part a lie. Yet, for some reason the people of Utah embrace the Big Game Lottery. I am happy for your wife and I am happy for the people that win the Power Ball lottery but I think that there must be a better way.

Having said that, I concede, based on the feedback from this thread, that increasing tags to true market value is a hopeless cause. I accept that and respect your opinion and the opinion of others on this forum.

However, as a reality check, using moose and an example, it would take a newcomer well over 100 years to be guaranteed a tag. So there you have it, stick with the current system and hope to win the lottery or try to change the system.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Garyfish, I am opposed to the "conservation" permit program. I'm sure I am not the only one. While the concept is sound, it does not take into account the greed and dishonesty that invariably shows up when big money rears it's head. The public loses valuable tags, the private groups gain wealth and power that they use against the public. I would be in favor of A FEW conservation tags if 100% of the proceeds went to conservation. They certainly do not. And Utah gives away many, many times the number that other states do. Isn't it true that we give away more than all western states combined?

Catering to the wealthy is not a solution to any problem we are facing in the hunting community, but rather it is a major reason for the problems we have. LE hunts started as good management practices, but tags have been so severely limited due to lobbying for the wealthy that we all get hosed. The Henry Mountains was producing monster bucks way before it became LE, and those who actually hunted were able to take those bucks. But the wealthy (read: lazy) are all in favor of buying a tag where they can eat catered meals and shoot a 200" buck from the road. Enter: our LE Henry mtns unit. Thousands of hunters deprived of hunting this amazing unit over the years so a few lucky or wealthy people can have an easier time finding a big buck. A total travesty and a huge waste of public resources. The same can be said for nearly every LE elk unit across the state. Countless thousands of hunters are having their rights taken away so that the value of auction tags will increase. Hundreds of CWMU's now demand very high prices for permits, where in years past you could hunt the same land for very modest trespass fees. Just another perversion of hunting regulations that cater to the wealthy.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

A lottery tag system is already set up on a free market, supply and demand model. It depends from what veiwpoint you look at it. True, an opportunity to hunt will be afforded on what you are willing to pay. The price you pay is time. Time to draw a hunt, whether it is 1 year or 12, is the price you are willing to pay. If you are not willing to pay, then you seek other opprtunities via landowner/ranch or OTC in other states. Making it "fair" with a fixed price for all to benefit is more socialistic than you think.

Economics is the management or allocation of scarce resources. When the number of applications are in the tens of thousands for a few thousand animals, resources are pretty scarce. If time were not the price to pay, as DallanC stated, would you be willing to pay $5000? Because eventually, that's what it would come to - under a fair system of course.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

> However, as a reality check, using moose and an example, it would take a newcomer well over 100 years to be guaranteed a tag. So there you have it, stick with the current system and hope to win the lottery or try to change the system.


Regardless of what system we use the fact of the matter is that there will always be way more demand than there is supply. The only thing having people pay 10s of thousands of dollars to get a moose tag would do is to eliminate anyone making less than 75k a year from ever having the chance at an opportunity to hunt moose. With the current system everyone who puts in for moose has a chance to draw a tag, with a so called "capitalist" system you would eliminate far more opportunity than it would create.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I get where you are coming from oldtimer, but I still don't think you understand the concept that High Desert Elk restated quite elegantly. Time+$=total price. Therefore, our system is already a purely capitalistic market. The equilibrium price is equal to one of two equations:
#1. (years applyingxprobability of drawing)+(price of applicationxyears applied)+actual cost of tag=Real Value of tag
#2. $$ to purchase tag at auction=Real Value of tag. 

By definition you can set these to equations equal to each other and find dollar value relationships for playing out the odds. And guess what? this is going to follow standard free market economic models. We don't need to change the system to achieve a capitalistic system, we already have one if you define your currency more accurately. 

I will grant you that under the type of system that you are talking about, I would wager that cow/doe tag values would be practically unchanged, as well as the spike/any bull area tags and GS deer. This is because price is determined by the marginal buyer, and all these tags have a relatively high quantity. But as for LE/OIAL I think your system would send the average bull elk tag to a number in the neighborhood of 5-8k, based on current market prices for equivalent tags and factoring in the increased supply and holding demand constant. This would result in a lowering of the current privately sold tag values, but an overall increase in tag prices. Same goes for the rest of the high interest tags. Sure, you make more money, but if you study natural monopoly theory you will see that although profits are maximized, there is dead weight loss incurred which in this case would be due to a negative externality---lost opportunity to literally thousands of "lottery winners" each year. So it is a net negative gain.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> I have a great idea Oldtimer & Garyfish! Quit being hypocrites and putting in for our socialist draw systems and start purchasing your hunts through auctions. I'd be willing to bet your ancestors came to this country to get away from the very crap your preaching!


I'm not a hypocrite here. I don't put in for our socialist draw system. I gave up hunting in Utah for the most part more than a decade ago. I've only put in for CWMU tags and if I don't draw them, I don't hunt.

I have found I can hunt more often in Montana for less money, more enjoyment, and better experience as a non-resident than I can in Utah.

But one must be honest with the system of the North American Big Game Model - it is in its most pure form - socialistic. And on public lands, even more so. Lands owned by all, with game owned by all, and allocations to harvest equal to all, if only for an application process. Tag allocation is not based on merit, social standing, hard work, or anything else, other than the willingness to make a few clicks and enter a credit card number.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> I always find it interesting when someone plays a "one-topic" Socialism card on the internet. The internet and communications system is a socialistic system. Everyone who drives on a freeway or highway is a Socialist. The people flying are using Socialism. Fished at Strawberry lately- Socialist. Water skied at Utah Lake, Lake Powell or Jordanelle-- Socialist. Hiked Timp or your local BLM, Forest Service, or State lands then you participated in Socialism. Been to a Park for a bar-b-q-- yep, socialism.
> 
> So no, no one can claim they were raised as a pure "Capitalist" and no one was taught in their socialistic public (or gov't subsidized private school) school that socialism is not acceptable in any form. I am certain some kids are taught how bad socialism is as their parents drive them on I-15, down to the National Forest to go camping, while mom talks on her cell phone and the kids enjoy their "freedoms" -- (those freedoms are protected by a socialized military and not a privately owned, capitalistic army).
> 
> *I'll agree we could auction all tags IF we exclude anyone who obtains any of their income from gov't monies/subsidies/contracts/trickledown.* I'd wager all tags would remain unsold. The whole Socialism card is usually played for a "one-topic" argument while ignoring the facts of life.


^^*This*^^


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

alright, who voted yes? did someone have a gun to your head?? 

Now, y'all understand you cant compete with BIG money right? Those tags (what little we have) would be sucked up so fast... you'd be spinning for a week, they'd be gone and you'd be left wondering whhhat the? Gone to corporate types entertaining clients and such, then you'd have to deal with all those folks with cameras hanging from their necks speaking those funny sounding languages!


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

For those who look at time and points as capital I would suggest one of the best ways -IMO - to lower the amount of points and drag in the draw. Allow people to point pool with their own points. So let's say I have been putting in for Moose and deer on a consistent basis for 10 years. What if I am putting in for both because I have the opportunity but I take a nice deer and get that out of my system. If one was hungry for a moose they could pool points and have 20 points. If they draw, now 20 points are gone rather than 12. It makes for a happy - earlier draw moose hunter - and it makes one guy who would have missed on the Book Cliffs happy - because he can draw the tag that this first hunter would have drawn. This would clean out points and also help align desires (in your time and point = capital model) better than the current system. Everyone would benefit. 

And GaryFish - meet one more person that is not in favor of the conservation permit program. There are many more.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> And GaryFish - meet one more person that is not in favor of the conservation permit program. There are many more.


Fair enough. In the circles I run in, guys don't oppose the conservation permits, but rather the lack of transparency. I don't have a problem with the number of tags, as most are not the premium super sought after tags. Seems like 1/3 of them are turkey tags and the like. But fair enough. I respect where you are coming from.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

oldTimer said:


> Under socialized hunting you can eventually hunt (for almost free) but it will take many, many, many, years. In fact, you may never draw.


An $800 bison tag doesn't sound almost free to me (guess I'm way too poor). May never draw, there's only a couple tags in the state this is possible. Bison, Moose, Goat yea maybe. But elk or deer? You will draw without any doubt.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Here's the funny thing. In Alabama they have so many deer that instead of drawing out for tags they have a daily bag limit. Yes, that's right, I said a daily bag limit for deer. Clearly, there's no shortage of deer down there in the heart of Dixie.

How is Alabama different from Utah? I don't know. I'm sure there are a lot of ways they are different, but I would bet that the biggest difference is that they have not had the same degree of massive habitat loss that we have had, or perhaps they just have so much habitat that it doesn't matter if they have lost some.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Mule deer and Whitetail differ about as much and black bears and polar bears when it comes to habitat needs and adaptability. Whitetail flourish in far more diverse areas than do mule deer.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Mule deer are prestine animals.....whitetails have evolved into large jackrabbits! Of coarse there's a daily bag limit when there are more little whitetails than people.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner is correct, plus the food density per acre is more abundant in AL than UT, or anywhere out west for that matter.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

brookieguy1 said:


> Mule deer are prestine animals.....whitetails have evolved into large jackrabbits! Of coarse there's a daily bag limit when there are more little whitetails than people.


Genetic research has proven Mule Deer are Whitetail / Blacktail hybrids. Its pretty interesting.



> *Mule Deer History*
> 
> Recent analysis of three North American deer species' (mule deer, blacktail deer, and whitetail deer) mitochondrial DNA now allows biologists to hypothesize the mule deer's unique evolution. *This testing determined that blacktail bucks bred with whitetail does to produce mule deer.* As whitetail deer spread east to west across prehistoric North America, those reaching the northwest coast ultimately became a separate species, blacktail deer. Thousands of years later, as blacktail deer expanded eastward, whitetail deer once more spread westward, with the two species meeting in the Midwest. The blacktail bucks supplanted the whitetail bucks, breeding with the whitetail does. The resulting hybrid species is known now as mule deer.




-DallanC


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

true Dallan but they are different species with thousands of years of evolution separating them and distinguishing them as different species with different requirements. Same thing happened with bears, dogs, cats, monkeys, fish......even people.......guess what.....it's still going on.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

DallanC,

That was very interesting.

I did some web searches and found documents on deer populations in Utah and in the West, and also documents on deer populations in Indiana, Tennessee, and Alabama. I had prepared a detailed post with references and quotes, but somehow my post was lost when I tried to post it. Rather than try to recreated the post let me just summarize by saying that deer populations in Utah are in trouble, whereas deer populations in some other states are exploding.

I find this troubling. To ask a rhetorical question, does anyone else find this troubling?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

massmanute said:


> DallanC,
> 
> That was very interesting.
> 
> ...


What is troubling to me is that there are people who still think that we can manage our deer the same as Alabama, Tennessee, and Indiana. Or that we can keep doing things the same as we always have here in Utah.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Fishrmn said:


> What is troubling to me is that there are people who still think that we can manage our deer the same as Alabama, Tennessee, and Indiana. Or that we can keep doing things the same as we always have here in Utah.


I didn't say that we should manager our deer "the same as" Alabama, Tennessee, and Indiana. However, it is true that their deer herds are exploding and ours is in trouble. Maybe, just maybe, there is at least something we can learn from other states where the deer herds are increasing, and in any case I find it disturbing that our herd is declining and opportunities for hunters are contracting, regardless of what is happening in other states.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Where are MULE DEER populations increasing?!?!? Here's a hint... Nowhere.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

massmanute said:


> I didn't say that we should manager our deer "the same as" Alabama, Tennessee, and Indiana. However, it is true that their deer herds are exploding and ours is in trouble. Maybe, just maybe, there is at least something we can learn from other states where the deer herds are increasing, and in any case I find it disturbing that our herd is declining and opportunities for hunters are contracting, regardless of what is happening in other states.


There is no state with exploding mule deer populations. The downward trend has been the same accross every mule deer population in the United States and Mexico.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

True, it is not mule deer populations in the West that are exploding. It is whitetail deer in other states.

Since the Utah deer population is virtually 100% mule deer it means that Utah deer populations are in trouble, and Utah deer hunting is just a shadow of what it was a few decades ago.

Nevertheless, there are some states, such as those mentioned earlier, where deer populations are exploding, and hunters have numerous opportunities to hunt. Am I the only one who thinks there might be something we can learn from this?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Yes, you are. There are virtually no similarities to White tailed deer populations and Mule deer populations.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

population increase (loss of habitat), growth of infrastructure (loss of habitat), oil and gas development (loss of habitat) explosion of elk herds (loss of habitat), increase road fatalities, migration corridor fragmentation, predator depredation and many other factors including drought and winter kill, combine to create a difficult scenario at best for mule deer. Whitetail are not mule deer and the Rocky Mountains have little in common with the states that hold large populations of whitetail. if you spend time in the states that have flourishing numbers of whitetail you will realize this.

The mule deer is a species that lived in a vulnerable area to begin with. If things do improve it will not be by much. It will be a short term trend rather than a long term result. Sorry to say it but I just don't see it turning around. The great numbers of deer that were experienced in the past are a thing of the past. Mule deer populations have declined by 50% over the past thirty years in the Rocky Mountains, meanwhile the human population has increased that much in the past twenty. Places that I used to see mule deer are now covered with blacktop and golf courses......... but hey it's all progress..........right?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> population increase (loss of habitat), growth of infrastructure (loss of habitat), oil and gas development (loss of habitat) explosion of elk herds (loss of habitat), increase road fatalities, migration corridor fragmentation, predator depredation and many other factors including drought and winter kill, combine to create a difficult scenario at best for mule deer. Whitetail are not mule deer and the Rocky Mountains have little in common with the states that hold large populations of whitetail. if you spend time in the states that have flourishing numbers of whitetail you will realize this.
> 
> The mule deer is a species that lived in a vulnerable area to begin with. If things do improve it will not be by much. It will be a short term trend rather than a long term result. Sorry to say it but I just don't see it turning around. The great numbers of deer that were experienced in the past are a thing of the past. Mule deer populations have declined by 50% over the past thirty years in the Rocky Mountains, meanwhile the human population has increased that much in the past twenty. Places that I used to see mule deer are now covered with blacktop and golf courses......... but hey it's all progress..........right?


Muleskinner,

Your analysis is pretty much similar to what I have been reading, with loss of habitat being by far the dominant reason for decline in mule deer. I believe that loss of winter range may be the major factor.

On the other hand, according to what I have read, deer habitat in places like Alabama have improved significantly in recent years, partly driven by changes in farming practices that ended up favoring deer as a side effect.

As I already indicated, I find the decline of the deer herd in Utah to be troubling. I also believe that there is something to learn from the states where deer populations are exploding, even if the deer in those places are the lowly whitetail deer. For example, one could start with the concept that habitat (and the related topic of food for wildlife) are among the dominant factors in the fortunes of the deer herds in various places... probably even the most important factors. If that is true, then is there anything that can be done in Utah, or is the damage already irreversible, so we might as well just throw up our hands and go to places like Texas to the pay-to-hunt ranches, if we can afford it, or just decide it is not worth it and find some other activities to occupy our spare time?

To be honest, I find little appeal in the concept of putting in for the draw in the hope of getting lucky enough to occasionally hunt in some small predetermined area of the state.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Technically, deer declines are a sort of Western phenomenon. Montana has experienced white tail declines, along with its mule deer declines. Of greater interest, is that white tail rebound faster. And in areas of the West, where mule deer, and white tail deer, are found in the same area(drainage), they do not typically occupy the same ground. Mule deer as rule are found at higher elevations, with white tails at lower elevations.

"Recent analysis of three North American deer species' (mule deer, blacktail deer, and whitetail deer) mitochondrial DNA now allows biologists to hypothesize the mule deer's unique evolution. This testing determined that blacktail bucks bred with whitetail does to produce mule deer. As whitetail deer spread east to west across prehistoric North America, those reaching the northwest coast ultimately became a separate species, blacktail deer. Thousands of years later, as blacktail deer expanded eastward, whitetail deer once more spread westward, with the two species meeting in the Midwest. The blacktail bucks supplanted the whitetail bucks, breeding with the whitetail does. The resulting hybrid species is known now as mule deer. At this point in time, the blacktail deer is classified as a mule deer subspecies. It is smaller in size than the generic mule deer, and it has a longer tail. The blacktail deer inhabits the Pacific coastline, from Alaska to southern California."

Black tailed deer, and mule deer, have suffered the same declines, in the West. White tails in the West have also suffered declines, disproportionate to their Eastern and Midwestern relatives. The difference between the Western white tails, and the Mule deer being that the white tails rebound, much quicker. 

Starting in 1984, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, have all declined in the West at similar rates, and similar frequency. Out side of the West, the only other similar comparison is the Dakatos, and the upper Midwest. Which have seen similar rates of decline, and frequency. Yes, we have habitat destruction, yes we have road fatalities, yes we have poaching, yes we have oil and gas development, and they all contribute to mule deer declines. but none of it explains why deer that were living in remote areas, untouched by many of these things, started to decline in 1984, at the same time as deer, that were directly affected by this laundry list. Nor does it explain why bighorn sheep began to decline across the West, along with moose, in 1984. Or why these declines intensified simultaneously in the '90s, across the West and upper midwest. And no this is not an Orwell joke. Why are mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose numbers, correlative across the West and the upper midwest? 

Answer the bigger question, and the draw question is mute.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for posting that info Lonetree. Quite disturbing phenomenon for sure. La Nina / El Nino affect's/re****s?

Do you have a link to the rest of that?


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

There is already a system like that, it's called Texas and despite all their land and wildlife, you can still pay up to $10,000 per deer tag. So Hell No on the auction/capitalist ideas.


----------



## wasatchmtnbike (Oct 16, 2007)

My solution would be to limit every hunter to one and only one big game tag per year. Choose your species and that's it. I'm sure it's more complicated than that but it would spread the few tags that are available to more people. Not a popular solution for those that somehow obtain a few tags for deer and elk year in and year out. Don't crucify me, it's just an idea for a possible solution.


----------



## wasatchmtnbike (Oct 16, 2007)

A little clarification on my last post. My solution would be that you can put in for as many hunts and animals as you would like but if you draw out any single tag for any species you're done, no more tags for you for that year.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

It may have already been said, but closing the loopholes in the draw that increase individual odds would help exponentially. The system as a whole is sound as far as giving all a chance at opportunity, but with some tweaks it could be much better. Some have mentioned a few that could be implemented immediately:

1. All tag fees paid up front

2. Combine all species on the same app (then you are forced to put in for the species/area you want most).

3. Take rifle elk out of the rut, add more primitive weapon tags increasing overall tag numbers and reducing harvest success/increasing harvest of all age classes.

4. Take auction tags from conservation groups, add small amount to tag fee with that $$ going directly back through the DWR to the resource. Make these groups dependent on their membership and outside donations again instead of a leech of public resources.

5. Increase CWMA tag allocations to public hunters, expanding opportunity further.

These are just a few examples of things that would either reduce applicants or increase tags with minimal impact on the average hunter; all without a complete revamp of the current system. There are other options as well, but you get the idea.


----------

