# Meeting regarding the new deer revisions



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

We'll be meeting Wed. 12/15 at 7 PM at the following address:

4122 South 1725 West (Just west of Redwood Rd.)

It's the Sunrise Land Investments building. There is a green canopy out front.

We will be there to discuss forward movement towards fixing the new revisions to the mule deer management plan, as well as input for other issues pertaining to diminishing opportunity and control by average folks in regards to hunting and fishing in Utah.

I look forward to meeting you all. If your not happy with the new deer proposal you will want to show up. Any questions feel free to PM me. Thanks!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Will there be a stripper? :mrgreen: See you guys there. 8)


----------



## Tylert (Aug 6, 2008)

It's like that's even going to help any. They have made their decision and the chance of anything getting changed at this point is going to be like tiring to find a 190 buck in the central region :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Tylert said:


> It's like that's even going to help any. They have made their decision and the chance of anything getting changed at this point is going to be like tiring to find a 190 buck in the central region :roll:


So you just quit? Is that how passionate you are in regards to hunting? I **** sure hope you are in the minority! What the WB passes doesn't go into effect until 2012, so we can do plenty. Sitting around feeling sorry for ourselves accomplishes what?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Tylert said:


> It's like that's even going to help any. They have made their decision and the chance of anything getting changed at this point is going to be like tiring to find a 190 buck in the central region :roll:


With that kind of attitude you are correct. :mrgreen: This is not a meeting so a bunch of hillbillies can sit around and bitch, there is a direction and well thought out plan. Like horsesma said, please come if you are not happy with what went down, if there is a will there is a way.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I will be there.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

This discussion brings up an interesting question. The decided upon changes are so radical they cannot be implemented until 2012. The big game board meets at least yearly. What are the chances of the changes being changed before they can be implemented?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

campfire said:


> This discussion brings up an interesting question. The decided upon changes are so radical they cannot be implemented until 2012. The big game board meets at least yearly. What are the chances of the changes being changed before they can be implemented?


That depends on US!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> campfire said:
> 
> 
> > This discussion brings up an interesting question. The decided upon changes are so radical they cannot be implemented until 2012. The big game board meets at least yearly. What are the chances of the changes being changed before they can be implemented?
> ...


Agreed! Pappy always said there is more than one way to skin a cat! :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Take it easy on him. I'd imagine he is just naive to how things get done and are _supposed_ to get done. I'd take this chance to educate, rather than brow beat. I don't want to hear negativity in regards to trying to get things changed either, but opportunities to educate folks on the wherefores and whys will come often. I suggest embracing those opportunities.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

..............


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Its kinda funny,,,,,the only place up in arms about option 2 is this forum!

The MM poll " For or Against" option 2 is around 60% FOR IT and 40 % against it..

I've been from Pays-on "SF" south a lot since the board meeting,,and option 2
is a big time winner in southern and SE in all the small towns.........
The RAC vote was not a fluke!! The deer hunters down here REALLY want to give
unit management a try..


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I fail to see the humor in ignorance.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Its kinda funny,,,,,the only place up in arms about option 2 is this forum!
> 
> The MM poll " For or Against" option 2 is around 60% FOR IT and 40 % against it..
> 
> ...


It doesn't surprise me. I would imagine the 60% on MM are people who want to shoot trophy deer. They just don't see the big picture of less choice, less opportunity, more trouble policing the new rules and boundaries, and not to mention more bucks has nothing to do with over all herd health. 

If everyone was more educated on what is really happening here they would understand that option 2 is no good. It is also putting an end to the dedicated hunter program. Which is a huge benefit to our state the DWR and us as hunters.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Its kinda funny,,,,,the only place up in arms about option 2 is this forum!
> 
> The MM poll " For or Against" option 2 is around 60% FOR IT and 40 % against it..
> 
> ...


Hmmmm....a place called "MONSTER MULE.YS" in favor of an option that will increase the buck to doe ratios. That's weird. Clearly biased based on the name of the place alone.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....most people don't understand mule deer management and believe that option 2 will increase deer populations. These options were thought up, created, and passed because the average hunter believes buck management can make a difference. If they knew that it would only add a few more bucks and DO NOTHING for overall deer herds I think a lot of people would have a different opinion.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just caught this conversation at a southern coffee shop,,in a nutshell..

One guy, Deer herd sucks, ain't chit left for deer..

Next guy,,But the RAC meeting said the state is at carrying capacity for deer?

A guy at the counter,,WELL, at least option 2 will give us more bucks on the mountain..

That pretty much sum up were its at ....
The majority of hunters I've spoke with the last few weeks could care less if they don't 
hunt deer every year, But when ,or if, they do, they want to see more than little bucks..

AND AGAIN,,I'm surprised at the number of hunters that say " they are done" hunting
deer in Utah,,,,,,,,,,Its at least 2 or 3 out of ever ten telling me this...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> AND AGAIN,,I'm surprised at the number of hunters that say " they are done" hunting
> deer in Utah,,,,,,,,,,Its at least 2 or 3 out of ever ten telling me this...


I really dont know why that surprising to you.

But I've heard the same thing from alot of people, and judging by people who told me that a few years ago and actually did stop hunting, I think a fair percentage actually will. Its going to compound the budget concerns for the DWR as every person that quits is a loss of the cost of the big game license + federal matching funds.

I am really concerned going forward, and how the DWR will be further hamstringed due to loss of funds. ANY change to the system should have increased the DWR budget in some way.

Now we have increased work load and management complexity by a tremendous amount, and are forcing them to work under a reduced budget. Jim K flat out stated in the meeting the DWR would conform to any budget even if that meant reducing services and personel.

Without a major increase in fee's and prices, you are going to have your 29 micro units with even less DWR officers to enforce and manage. Fantastic news for poachers unfortunately.

-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Just caught this conversation at a southern coffee shop,,in a nutshell..
> 
> One guy, Deer herd sucks, ain't chit left for deer..
> 
> ...


I get the coffee shop conversation and the concept has merit. My stance has been from the start though instead of taking a "reactive" approach where we set policy based on current circumstances, let's take a "proactive" approach where we set policies that invest in imporving deer herds into the future. It's lost energy and opportunity IMO to keep being reactive.

We all agree that we'd like to see more deer and I would be the first to make what ever sacrifice was necessary to help deer numbers improve long term.


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Its kinda funny,,,,,the only place up in arms about option 2 is this forum!
> 
> The MM poll " For or Against" option 2 is around 60% FOR IT and 40 % against it..
> 
> ...


I have heard this same stuff, people saying there are no deer, smaller units will help the DWR, once I explain to our southern brothers what really going on, how it will not improve deer numbers ect... They change their tune. MOST of the people I have talked with in the southern and southeastern units do not want option2. They do see how hard it is to keep their kids involved in hunting, fishing and just out of the house when the mountains, and lakes are minutes from our door steps.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

reaper said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Its kinda funny,,,,,the only place up in arms about option 2 is this forum!
> ...


My family still lives and hunts the Southeastern unit. Most give the same response of shut down the hunt for a few years or cut tags until I explain why that doesn't work then they start to see why option 2 wont work. I believe it was bullsnot that said many he talked to down south were for favor of option 2 and I disagreed with him at the time, well I have to obviously agree with him now.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I read a lot of posts how opt 2 wont work,,,,,BS

Option 1 is pretty much the exact same thing with more buck tags!!

THERE IS REALY NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENT in the two other than 
13,000 less tags with opt 2...
8,000 less tags with opt 1....

5,000 difference is all were talk'in here...BFD

And then pick a unit to hunt to control hunter pressure,,,,,,,,RIGHT?

OMG, What do people mean opt 2 wont work???? 
Unit management is being used in ALMOST EVERY western state BUT UTAH!!
I think Utah's DWR is smart enough to see how the other states do it!!
NOT THAT TOUGH TO SEE!

And for the draws,,,,,Fallon Nevada that does our draws all ready has a system
set up for UNIT DRAWS........
Hell, they do aor elk just fine, There home state, Unit management deer,,,,,,,
I don't see a problem them doing 29 deer units in Utah??? So, why wont opt 2 work in Utah?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I read a lot of posts how opt 2 wont work,,,,,BS
> 
> Option 1 is pretty much the exact same thing with more buck tags!!
> 
> ...


I am not going to argue with you on this, we have already gone back and forth too many times, but I just wanted to say I wasn't a fan of option 1 either, it is better than option 2. Just because several other states do micro managing, doesn't mean it works. Anyways, I will agree to disagree. :mrgreen:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> So, why wont opt 2 work in Utah?


It is the option that hurts the DWR the most, with its huge negative finanicial impact.

It doesnt address either of the major causes for herd decline (predators & roads), and fawn retention.

It wastes more time by not addressing the above two issues, allowing the herds to decline further, which in turn will cause more reductions in tags, more lost revenue for the DWR, and more reductions in their ability to do something worthwhile.

It divides and discourages hunters, at a time when we most need to be unified.

13,000 is only the starting point, and its actually not even a fixed number. No-one knows right now just what that permit reduction number will be, it could easily be 23,000 permits by the time its implemented if certain people get their way.

I'd like to see an estimate of how much extra $$$ the SFW will make from this new change. I have yet to be convinced after listening to biologists, that this isnt primarily being pushed for monitary gain among a select few groups.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Its kinda funny,,,,,the only place up in arms about option 2 is this forum!
> 
> The MM poll " For or Against" option 2 is around 60% FOR IT and 40 % against it..


One more thing, the fine folks running UWN actually let people (respectfully) speak their minds here, MM doesnt. MM is widely known for its bias towards certain groups and deleting threads / banning users that question / complain about things the owner & mods dont agree with.

-DallanC


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Do you guys already have a lot of ideas?


----------



## hunter_orange13 (Oct 11, 2008)

Will there be refreshments?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Thank you to all who made it! It was a good turn out. Keep it going and it will make a difference.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Goofy- Dallan pretty much nailed it. Option 2 took the focus off the actual problems and divided hunters, all for the sake of growing 0-4 more bucks per unit. Many of the 29 units are already meeting the 18 objective, so how will Option 2 grow more deer? You, nor the Option 2 guys, have never answered that question.

One other point. Yes, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, micro manage. They have a few more bucks. Their deer herds are NOT growing. Nevada has shrunk, Colorado has shrunk. We are hearing how Colorado is going downhill in numbers and quality of bucks. We'd all love to have a Strip tag in AZ or get a late hunt on the boarder to hunt Utah's Pauns deer, but Arizona is no muley hotspot- even their herds are shrinking. New Mexico? Have at it- my clients living in NM think Utah is much better; go figure. Nevada produces some nice bucks, but their biologists say they are carrying too many bucks at around 30 per 100 and Nevada hunters wait 2-6 years to draw the marginal units.

Wyoming on the other hand has some micro and some regional and a whole lot of statewide for residents. Their herd is rebounding nicely from the early 2000s winterkills under much more liberal hunting.

Goofy, I know that was a waste of time for me to write this post, as you seem to not want to hear anything different. There were units needing to be addressed and the UDWR was set to do that. Option 2 didn't even pass as presented-- much different fluff and hope. The Board had true options within the current management plan to help the herd.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

horsesma said:


> Thank you to all who made it! It was a good turn out. Keep it going and it will make a difference.


+1 great meeting last night with great people.


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> Tylert said:
> 
> 
> > It's like that's even going to help any. They have made their decision and the chance of anything getting changed at this point is going to be like tiring to find a 190 buck in the central region :roll:
> ...


I gave up hope, and it worked!

I'm a much happier man now. I don't have mood swings, loss of sleep, fits of frustrated rage, severe weight gain, binge eating, cold sores, and my complexion has cleared up.

All this because I just plain don't give a sh*t any more!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Packout said:


> Goofy- Dallan pretty much nailed it. Option 2 took the focus off the actual problems and divided hunters, all for the sake of growing 0-4 more bucks per unit. Many of the 29 units are already meeting the 18 objective, so how will Option 2 grow more deer? You, nor the Option 2 guys, have never answered that question.
> Would opt 1 do any better,,,,I think not.
> One other point. Yes, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, micro manage. They have a few more bucks. Their deer herds are NOT growing. Nevada has shrunk, Colorado has shrunk. We are hearing how Colorado is going downhill in numbers and quality of bucks. We'd all love to have a Strip tag in AZ or get a late hunt on the boarder to hunt Utah's Pauns deer, but Arizona is no muley hotspot- even their herds are shrinking. New Mexico? Have at it- my clients living in NM think Utah is much better; go figure. Nevada produces some nice bucks, but their biologists say they are carrying too many bucks at around 30 per 100 and Nevada hunters wait 2-6 years to draw the marginal units.
> That's just it!! Mule Deer herds are in decline almost EVERYWHERE.............
> ...


I do agree, It is a shame the board chose not to use options that were available..
But leaving the plan that was in place didn't even seam to be an option..
There are so many hunters unhappy with the way general deer hunting has declined
in overall numbers and quality that A LOT of people feel like something else had to 
be tried............SO ,that's pretty much why we are at option 2 in my opinion..


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Is somebody going to send out an email to those of us who weren't there kinda explaining what went on, what was hashed out, etc? I'm very interested, even though I couldn't be there like I wanted. Had to help a buddy get a doe out of the woods last night.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here Is A SOLID biologist report from Todd Black written 2 years ago..
This is in support of option 2 and why it is so important for mature bucks
to be the ones breading does in the case of fawn survival..

http://www.blacktimberoutfitters.net/thebucks.pdf


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here Is A SOLID biologist report from Todd Black written 2 years ago..
> This is in support of option 2 and why it is so important for mature bucks
> to be the ones breading does in the case of fawn survival..
> 
> http://www.blacktimberoutfitters.net/thebucks.pdf


I read the entire article and maybe I missed it, but I saw no mention of micro managing, the heart and soul of option 2. :?


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

................


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here Is A SOLID biologist report from Todd Black written 2 years ago..
> This is in support of option 2 and why it is so important for mature bucks
> to be the ones breading does in the case of fawn survival..
> 
> http://www.blacktimberoutfitters.net/thebucks.pdf


This little essay written by Mr. Black has popped up on this site several times over the years...it is one biologist's opinion. Nothing more. The problem with this essay/opinion is that it isn't verifiable. No evidence exists to support it. In fact, according to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (of which Mr. Black is a member) "Buck-only seasons generally have little effect on mule deer populations because the remaining bucks breed all reproductively active does. Wide buck:doe ratios and an abundance of younger males may delay the timing of breeding, but there is no evidence this significantly affects the reproductive rates of does or the number of fawns that survive to adulthood in a mule deer population.

Some people have expressed concern that heavy, buck-only harvest degrades the gene pool of a population, but there is no evidence to support loss of genetic diversity as a result of younger males breeding does. Buck-only seasons can effect changes in age structure, sex ratios, and timing of breeding, but these do not significantly affect the population as a whole. Under normal conditions, fawns are born at a time when habitat conditions are optimal."
http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html

Also, if you go through the numbers of Utah's general season units, you will find that most units have a fair number of mature bucks to do a good portion of the breeding. The good thing about open general season hunting is that harvest is spread out among all age classes and not focused solely on one age class (like antler point restrictions do). This assures for some mature bucks to be available to breed...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Is somebody going to send out an email to those of us who weren't there kinda explaining what went on, what was hashed out, etc? I'm very interested, even though I couldn't be there like I wanted. Had to help a buddy get a doe out of the woods last night.


there was so much talked about and I don't think any body took notes.You missed a good meeting and some good info.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Myself or someone else will send an email out with a summary as soon as we have time. Thanks to everyone who showed up, I was very inspired by all who attended. Good things will happen by _doing_, so put your work hats on.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk":3120uuhd]Here Is A SOLID biologist report from Todd Black written 2 years ago..
> ...


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Re: Meeting regarding the new deer revisions
by goofy elk » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:32 pm

I read a lot of posts how opt 2 wont work,,,,,BS

Option 1 is pretty much the exact same thing with more buck tags!!

Option 1 is nowhere close to option 2. Option 2 calls for 29 units option 1 does not. Once we go to this and it doesn't work then what? 50 units 100? It's been said time and time again none of these options is from a biological stand point. Your article does not say grow more bucks and things will get better. 15 bucks per hundred does. You telling me there is not enough mature bucks around now to do the job? We very well could be at carrying capacity.

Loosing 13,000 tags is just the beginning! When these sub units don't meet ratios they will cut more tags. Then they will not give out more until they reach their capacity. At 25 to 100 does do you know how long that could take. Especially if numbers stay in decline. And they will because more bucks does not equal more deer!

It's about fawn retention, and more bucks does not equal better fawn retention. That is a know fact stated by biologists. More bucks equals less fawn retention. Didn't you pay attention! Again none of the options are from a biological stand point. They are from a social stand point.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Myself or someone else will send an email out with a summary as soon as we have time. Thanks to everyone who showed up, I was very inspired by all who attended. Good things will happen by _doing_, so put your work hats on.


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

> . I believe Terry Messmer Worked for the division. The article makes sense me. Maybe just maybe Its part of the problem.


Possibly, but do you really think that they reduced buck tags because it is the most efficient and biologically readable way to gather the data pertinent to this?

Count pregnant does on winter range, hell, count roadkill does. Count enough of them to make the data valid and then go from there. If the numbers are below 50-60 percent, there's a problem, but until then, it's all speculation and another red herring flopping around on behalf of the minority who want to hunt trophy bucks and/or benefit financially.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Its kinda funny,,,,,the only place up in arms about option 2 is this forum!
> 
> The MM poll " For or Against" option 2 is around 60% FOR IT and 40 % against it..
> 
> ...


I can name a few small towns in the SE unit that I would argue don't agree with your generalization.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here is the bottom line for me: I do NOT like the plan (whatever it is exactly, because NOBODY really knows) as I understand it, for many reasons that I have and I will continue to be vocal about. But, anyone that is happy with the _process_ and how this was done is seriously fooling themselves. Just because what was passed is to your liking, does not mean you should be happy or gloat about it. The public was mostly ignored, and the biologists were COMPLETELY ignored, during the whole deal. The outcome was set in stone before the RAC's and before the Wildlife Board meeting. The biologists, who are supposedly paid for their expertise, were left out in the cold while actually being blamed for the mess we have found ourselves in. I have never been more disgusted and disheartened by the actions of those in positions of power, and I have been heavily involved in politics my entire adult life, so that is an accomplishment, and NOT one to be proud of! What I see is a group that claims to be made up of 'sportsmen' intentionally causing division amongst the hunting community. They have been doing this for years, a couple of years ago they went after archers under the guise of 'over-crowding' even though there was no data to even suggest there was an issue to be taken up by the WB. Nonetheless, the Wildlife Board took statewide archery away for one year, and then re-instated it the very next year. This was driven by this group of so-called 'sportsmen', IMO, as a way to cause division and to set the wheels in motion for what just transpired. This group is good and finding an enemy, whether its the archers, the opportunist hunters, the DWR, the anti-hunters, the tax payers, the politicians, the predators, but NEVER is anything bad that happens their fault. I swear they have taken a page right out of Saul Alinsky's tactics. Back on topic, I agree that the only way to clean up the process is to amend/fix/nuke the existing system and bring back some sanity in how policies are made. We MUST give the people, not just those who belong to THE 'sportsmen' group, a voice and a real avenue of having their wants/wishes/concerns heard and CONSIDERED. We MUST give the PROFESSIONAL biologists the ability to do what they went to years of school for, and why they were supposedly hired in the first place. Right now the public and the biologists are out in the cold, and if they dare ask to come inside they are called greedy, incompetent, ignorant, ingrates, or worse. A very small percentage of the hunting population is making decisions for all of us, and then we are told to pay the COMING permit price increases and like it and to just keep quiet.

I am NOT going to be quiet, and many are being woken up and getting involved. I encourage all to not give up, not quit, and not sit back and let others decide your future. We can, and WILL, get things on the right track if we unite and take a stand. I am willing/able to fight for my kids hunting future, are you?


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

.......


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Todd makes a valid point.. This would be ideal. Factually it would be impossible. If we expect all of OUR PRIME OF THE SPECIES to rut and breed from basically the 3rd of November through the end of December we wouldn't have any bucks left to hunt due to the toll the rut itself would take... If they made it through the rut ( all two months worth ) they would be in no shape to stand and eat let alone deal with weather and predator situations once all eight weeks of the rut was over.

The point Todd is making is that we need does bred in the first estrus cycle, preferably by the best of the species. What if a doe doesn't cycle in this first round because of sickness of some other natural stress?? 

Some say we have the best mule deer unit in the WORLD on the Henry's. We are pretty **** sure that there are plenty of monsters on that unit to get r done... 35 or 40 to 100 
and the deer herd is well below objective??? Why if this is the all important criteria???

Hasn't worked there, Hasn't worked anywhere else its been tried..

Carry on with the fallacies


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I thought an obscure and rarely discussed part of the CURRENT plan called for a minimum of 15:100 buck to doe ratio AND a 5:100 mature buck to doe ratio. I could be wrong on that, can anyone confirm or dispell? If this is true wouldn't this be sufficient based on Todd's points?

Great post PRO!!

The meeting was a real pleasure gentlemen. Looking forward to rolling up my sleeves and getting my hands dirty with such a solid group of people.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
I am intrested in what your agenda is to fix the deer herds. I am an option 2 supporter. However I truely support it as I think it is a starting point on focusing efforts to give us a growing health deer herd. Is it a fix all? Not evern close but it is a start.

I am not a memeber of any "sportsmens" group. But I do feel we have come to a point that we need to make a stand and get control of the issues we can control. Hunters are the ONLY factor that can be controlled right now. I agree that there are many ways to control them other than cutting tags. However controlling hunter movements and areas they are able to hunt is a starting point. Weapon selection is an option also. All of the issues that have been hashed over and over are all valid at different levels for each unit. I believe 29 unit hunting gives the biologist complete control over that unit. They are not guessing what the hunting pressure is going to be. They will know and can move on to other concerns for that unit. If I really believed that the actual biologist did not support Option 2 I may feel differently. But I believe that I heard Anis say that Option 2 was the best of the three options as far as a biological control? There have been many instances that the DWR biologist have recommend something and others ie WB, Special Intrest Groups, General Public and yes even their own bosses have gone against their recommendations. I believe this will be much easier to bring to light in a micro managed system. None of the issues hurting our deer herds will be hindered in a micro managed system. Is there a possibility for loss of oppurtunity? Well yes that is a possiblity. But not addressing these issues could also cause loss of oppurtunity due to herds shrinking even more. And like I stated above I agree there may be other options than cutting tags, but I believe micro managed units makes it easier to implement those options also.

You are correct that said "sportsmens group" supported option 2. That is not the only sportsmen that supported this option. I know it is hard for some to believe, but there are alot of regular average joe hunters out there that are concerned about our deer herds and supported option 2. They showed up to RAC meetings and wrote letters and sent emails. They pushed hard in the system that was available and they did get results. That does not make them evil or bad. It means they understood the system and what was at stake and pushed hard for what they believe needed to happen. 

So please do not lump all Option 2 supports into a "special intrest sportsmens group". Because I am not and support it for reasons I stated above. I am not just a trophy hunter, I am not just a rifle hunter. I am a concerned sportsmen that believes that if we all don't start working together, whether we agree on everything the same, then we are doomed and worst of all; Our childern will not get to enjoy ANY type of deer hunting in the state of Utah as they grow older! Again lets hear your ideas and work together to fix the deer herds. I can assure you of this if Option 1 or 3 or Status Quo would have won out, my focus would still be on fixing our deer herds. It would not be on blaming other sportsmen that disagreed on my views of what would fix the herds.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

double post sorry.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

.........


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

You really need some hot 20ish stripper to settle you down buddy!!!haha


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

What has me up in arms is not just option 2 or no statewide archery, it is the way we got there. The system is broke and doesn't work. The RAC's are 100% pointless, the WB has ultimate authority, this scares the hell out of me. So Option 2 supporters should still be outraged, it went your way this time, but who knows where it will go from there. Why is there not a single voting biologist on the board? Why are biologist not allowed to make decisions relative to deer? I, like many others, am still going to hunt with statewide archery gone and Option 2 implemented. I am also going to fight like hell to "fix" the system, however that may be. 

As far as Anis saying that Option 2 is what is best biologically, I never heard him say that. I heard the opposite, I would be very surprised if he really said that. Biologically none of the options were the best, some were better than others, but these options were purely social and that scares the hell out of me.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

jahan,
The biologist should have a voice. But they have not for many years. Money, general public, special intrest groupS (not just SFW) anti hunting and sportsmen have driven the DWR not their biologist. I believe that the new system will give the biologist a bigger voice that will be harder to ignore by all those groups, including the DWR. 

13,000 tag cuts came from the DWR not the WB. The WB ask for some changes, the three options were brought to the table by the DWR. They could have choosen to do some other things but they chose to just say we are going to cut tags, because it is the easiest "fix". We all know that it will not "fix" the herds. BUT with 29 units you can have more control now and try many many many options to provide opportunity and "fixeS" that may help our herds. That is why I would like to hear some positive points on what we can implement going foward. It CAN be a great tool if the DWR and their BIOLOGIST use it!!!!

luv2hunt,
That response was for jahan. I care not to tangle with an intellectual junk kicking giant as yourself! -)O(-


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 13,000 tag cuts came from the DWR not the WB. The WB ask for some changes, the three options were brought to the table by the DWR. They could have choosen to do some other things but they chose to just say we are going to cut tags, because it is the easiest "fix". We all know that it will not "fix" the herds. BUT with 29 units you can have more control now and try many many many options to provide opportunity and "fixeS" that may help our herds. That is why I would like to hear some positive points on what we can implement going foward. It CAN be a great tool if the DWR and their BIOLOGIST use it!!!!


This isn't true. The WB was the one that told the DWR that we need to take another look at managing unit by unit. Jim Karp.... said it would put a big affect on family hunting. He also said that managing unit by unit would be the biggest changes that he has seen in the last 30 years. The WB members said they would set a meeting with Anis and discuss/tell the details.


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

He's a teddy bear???


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

coyote,
The 13,000 number was set by the DWR, NOT the WB. I would believe that the WB asked for 18-100 buck doe ratio. But they did not set the tag cuts.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> coyote,
> The 13,000 number was set by the DWR, NOT the WB. I would believe that the WB asked for 18-100 buck doe ratio. But they did not set the tag cuts.


Yes, but the DWR knew that in order to manage for 18-100 buck to doe ratios then tag numbers would need to be cut.

Muley~ keep in mind the 13,000 is just a ball park number.


----------



## killdeer (Dec 9, 2009)

I couldn't make the meeting (I live south of Provo and value my life) I was hoping for something that I could support ( I will wait for Tree's summery). I also am not a trophy hunter, although I find that a nice 4X4 eats better than a than a yearling (my opinion).

My fear is that the hunting community is becoming even more divided. Those opposed to the Boards action seem more focused upon the process (and those who made the decision) than what I was hearing before. No one, in my opinion, has offered an plan that will increase the number of deer we desire. That is what I would support. We hear a lot of what won't work and why. *What will work?* My bottom line. More deer, more opportunity. Without the numbers where is the quality of the experience for _most_ (I will hunt with my family and have a great time regardless).

I hope the meeting and any plan can start to bring sportsmen together for the good of the resource and the hunter.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

.......


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Coyote,
As I stated above. The DWR could have looked at other options to get to 18-100 ie weapon selection. THEY chose to cut tags not the WB. It was the easy "fix". This is why we must all come together and make sure that the DWR uses this tool to help FIX the problem of our declining herds.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Coyote,
> As I stated above. The DWR could have looked at other options to get to 18-100 ie weapon selection. THEY chose to cut tags not the WB. It was the easy "fix". This is why we must all come together and make sure that the DWR uses this tool to help FIX the problem of our declining herds.


Muley73, I do understand that you want the herds health back, we all do. But you just don't seem to be getting the whole picture. Yes, the DWR put in tag reductions in order to comply with what the WB told them to do, and the reason they went with the "easy fix" as you put it, was because the WB wanted the options and changes within those options to be done NOW! Tag cuts were the way to appease the WB NOW. The WB didn't just ask for "some changes", they were pretty ademant about what they wanted, I have no doubt about that.

And those of you who feel this unit management is the "beginning" of the fix all our deer herds, you may have a point. But, it is still a barrel of wishes and hopes. How the hell is the DWR going to do all the wonderful things pro Opt 2 folks say are going to get done? Better/more accurate counts...(means spending a LOT more money, which they won't have because of TAG CUTS), better control over poaching...(nope, can't do it cuz they won't have the money to hire LOTS more CO's because of TAG CUTS), more predator control...(nope, they wont have the money because of TAG CUTS).....and on and on. Oh, and the "bigger voice" you think the biologists will have?? Well, it will STILL be the WB that will be running the show, even with the 29 units. They don't listen to the biologists now, what in the hell makes you think they will listen to them then?

The **** system is broken, and its time to get it fixed! Then, maybe the health of Utah's wildlife can be taken care of by those who know how to do it, not a bunch of dictators who only have ears for "that group".... :evil:

Why would you support a system that does NO good for our Wildlife, and doesn't even listen to those who KNOW what is best for the herds, or listen to those who hunt them???


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Oh yeah, the meeting. I was extreemly impressed by those who attended. Tree is right, there are a lot of things to get done, and its time to get to it! I for one will do all that I can to accomplish the goals needed to bring things back in line.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley73- So growing 3 to 0 more bucks per unit is now a "tool" to grow the overall deer herd? Wow. The Board already had the "tools" to help the overall deer herd TODAY, yet they chose to do something that won't "help" for 2 years. The UDWR told the Board how many tags they thought should be cut if the Board wanted micro units hitting 18 bucks per 100 doe under the current allotments. Is it really that hard to understand?

Too bad you guys left the meeting early. Those guys on the Board almost doubled the time afield on some units and tripled it on other units. Maybe if you would have been there you could have held their hand through it, again. So what was that about getting Option 2 passed as being a first step?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
The hunt time this year has nothing to do with Option 2? Sorry I chose to only stay the first 4 hrs of the meeting. Had to make it back before my daughter was done at school. Is that when all of the other concerned sportsmen showed up after 2 oclock? But by all means lets not move foward. The current system was set up around units, and when the hunts started the DWR lost control....so there is a difference.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Sorry it took so long to get this up but here is the summary of the meeting that took place last Wednesday night.

Roughly 25 concerned sportsmen met to discuss the current political climate and issues regarding wildife in Utah. It was announced that a new organization would be created following years of concern over special interest’s unbalanced influence over policies and practices established by state game agencies. The intention of the new organization is to lobby for the best interests of our wildlife resources and to be a voice for the average hunter. The meeting lasted for about 3 hours. Many mule deer issues and concerns over the current process for creating new management policies were discussed at length. There was much concern over the role that science plays in these decisions.

It was decided the first course of action was to contact your state senator, your district representative, and the governors office to express your concerns over the current process and recent changes as soon as possible. We were all challenged to get at least 10 other people to do the same. The message to government officials should be short, to the point, and polite in nature.

There will be more information to follow in the near future.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://le.utah.gov/house/DistrictInfo/newMaps/State.htm

http://www.utahsenate.org/mapold.shtml

http://www.utah.gov/governor/contact/index.html

Here is where you can find out who your Senator and Representative is, and how to get a hold of them.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

In contacting our representitives what banner of unity are we showing?

I'm just afraid that if they do not understand that this is a united front with serious numbers that it will be washed under the bridge as a few unhappy sportsman.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

I agree with Huntoholic, if we don't act as a unified group our reps will just dismiss our letters. I send a letter to my reps the day after the board meeting and I have not heard a thing back from any of them.
I highly doubt they even read it all the way through. Same with the letters I sent to the board members.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> In contacting our representitives what banner of unity are we showing?
> 
> I'm just afraid that if they do not understand that this is a united front with serious numbers that it will be washed under the bridge as a few unhappy sportsman.


That is a great point. The plan is to immediately contact our legislators as unhappy sportsman. If enough letters come in, we will be hard to ignore.

Once we get this organization together we will fly a flag of unity and we are working herd behind the scenes to do just that. The problem is that you only get one chance to make a good first impression. We need to be organized, have the right tools in place, and make sure we have the right message before we use our banner.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Here is a link to find your reps if you are interested. All you have to do is type in your address or click on the map:

http://www.le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp

Here is the letter I sent out.

_Mr. XXXXXXX,

I am a hunter and I live in your district. I am writing you because I am very concerned about recent events involving Utah wildlife. On December 2nd, the Wildlife Board approved a new deer management plan even though the Division of Wildlife Resources and their wildlife biologists have indicated there will be no biological benefit to the deer herd. In addition the new plan will take away an opportunity to hunt deer for 13,000 people, again with no benefit to our deer herds.

I did not agree with the approved changes and I am very concerned that my voice is not being heard. I am concerned that political interests rather than what's best for our natural resources are what's driving these policies and I believe this to be the latest example of a system that is not working and has not been working for some time. I feel that the recent changes favor a vocal minority and do not represent the average hunter.

Thanks for taking the time to read my correspondence.

Regards,_


----------

