# Viewpoint from a fence sitter



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

People who know me, know that I have been to several RAC, I400 meetings and even Utah Wildlife Cooperative meetings in the past. Many times riding with one of you forum members but at this time I'm through with meetings for a while. I need to get my own house in order before taking on anything else. You guys really need to know that all this mud slinging, name calling and scare tactics is not helping your cause. In fact I believe it's hurting it. On either side! I don't like the way things are voted one either but honestly I can live with option 2. The one thing I really hated about how our DWR managed deer, was to let the hunters do it themselves. If an area got over hunted and the buck to doe ratio got too low, then the masses would head off to a new area until it was over hunted and so on. That reminds me a lot of what a large herd of domestic sheep does when grazing on the mountain. At least option 2 will put a stop to that, even if it's not going to help grow more does. One can argue that a lot of opportunity will be lost for the hunter that wants to hunt ever year in the same spot but a lot of opportunity can be gained (IMHO) in seeing a lot more bucks for those hunters that are willing to change locations and hunt ever few years. I just hope you guys can find some direction with your agenda. What has happened with the push to get back elk tags? Will this push for deer tags end up the same? I'm not try to be smart here, just asking some honest questions. Good luck to all in the fight and I commend you with your efforts. In the end, I can live with whatever ends up happening.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

good post.
I feel there are to many hunters where I like to hunt deer. and if I don't get to hunt every year I can deal with it if it means less pressure and a better quality hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Good post there ridge,,,I agree.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

There are two issues here:
*
#1) Divide the state into 29 units*
And
*#2) Decrease tags/opportunity (13,000 tags) in order to increase the buck doe ratio by 3 bucks to 100 does. *

I can see how some will support different management arguments on micro units vs. regions but it is a sad day when you would give up your own opportunity and the opportunity of others (13,000 tags) for a false sense of bigger bucks and more inches. Yeah you think you can live with this change but keep taking it one step further (and they will) and at what point will you say enough is enough! 
*
"I can accept hunting only every other year"*

Yeah, that's easy for you guys to say now that your fat and old but I hope we can get this all turned around so my boy gets the same annual opportunities that we all did growing up.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

"Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.

Elk hunting, Spike/general,,,,,UNLIMITED archery permits!
Spring Turkeys
Ton of antler less permits,,,August through January!..
Unlimited H/O lion permits,,some year round..
SOOO much more OIAL and antelope hunting..

NONE OF THIS existed when I started,,,,,,But we did have pheasant's, and 11 day deer hunt.


----------



## MuleyCrazy (Jun 6, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> People who know me, know that I have been to several RAC, I400 meetings and even Utah Wildlife Cooperative meetings in the past. Many times riding with one of you forum members but at this time I'm through with meetings for a while. I need to get my own house in order before taking on anything else. You guys really need to know that all this mud slinging, name calling and scare tactics is not helping your cause. In fact I believe it's hurting it. On either side! I don't like the way things are voted one either but honestly I can live with option 2. The one thing I really hated about how our DWR managed deer, was to let the hunters do it themselves. If an area got over hunted and the buck to doe ratio got too low, then the masses would head off to a new area until it was over hunted and so on. That reminds me a lot of what a large herd of domestic sheep does when grazing on the mountain. At least option 2 will put a stop to that, even if it's not going to help grow more does. One can argue that a lot of opportunity will be lost for the hunter that wants to hunt ever year in the same spot but a lot of opportunity can be gained (IMHO) in seeing a lot more bucks for those hunters that are willing to change locations and hunt ever few years. I just hope you guys can find some direction with your agenda. What has happened with the push to get back elk tags? Will this push for deer tags end up the same? I'm not try to be smart here, just asking some honest questions. Good luck to all in the fight and I commend you with your efforts. In the end, I can live with whatever ends up happening.


Great post, I agree 100%!


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.

Elk hunting, Spike/general,,,,,UNLIMITED archery permits!
Spring Turkeys
Ton of antler less permits,,,August through January!..
Unlimited H/O lion permits,,some year round..
SOOO much more OIAL and antelope hunting..

NONE OF THIS existed when I started,,,,,,But we did have pheasant's, and 11 day deer hunt.



Youth tags for everything and no age limit for small game. Yep I had all of this when I was a kid 20 plus years ago. I had to wait till I was 12 and 14 years old. I didnt get special hunts for youth only either. Not saying any of this is a bad thing, but you guys are always saying the kids are losing out on tags. Kids have it better then I ever thought of having it. I guess you also think its fair for someone to draw OIL sheep tag at 14 years old, but there are people out there with max bonus points, plus 20 years of putting in for a tag before the point system began, and are still waiting to draw. If hunting means that much to you trying hunting something else. Does it have to be a deer hunt? What about hunting elk, ducks, geese, rabbits, coyotes, etc.... Is it about the kill or just getting out with the family? Dont think that I am not worried about all of the changes either, I have a 9 year old son that will be so far behind on points for any limited entry that i will be 60 before he draws anything. But on a positive note, he loves to go hunt anything we can. Time spent with him in the field doing anything (hunting, fishing, camping, four wheeling, etc....) is the best memories I will have now and later on in life. We cant snap our fingers and make the deer herds come back over night, and what we have been doing has not been working. I am game for the new change....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> There are two issues here:
> *
> #1) Divide the state into 29 units*
> And
> ...


Good post.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> "Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.
> 
> Elk hunting, Spike/general,,,,,UNLIMITED archery permits!
> Spring Turkeys
> ...


You're right about the elk hunting opportunity's in Utah. They have grown quite a bit in the last few decades.

I still think we are frogs in a pot of water right now and temperature is slowly rising. The average man is losing this sport one small step at a time. At some point you've got to see the bigger picture and say enough is enough. It's time to draw a line in the sand.

My grandfather always used to tell me that if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.


----------



## bearhntr (Oct 6, 2008)

Well I see a few problems with this new change and it will have the same challenges that the previous attempts at getting the herds back. 
First off you need money to make things work. We have wild life biologists that take care of more than one region right now. The state does not have enough funding to hire a biologist for each region. Now with taking this into 29 different units, that is supposed to eliminate over hunting in certain areas. Well my question to you is who is going to be doing the animal counting, habitat restoration, and any other thing needed to get a stronger herd. If you don't have the man power to make it work with the regions how is it going to be any different with the 29 units? The other thing is yes there are plenty of opportunities with hunting other animals, but the deer hunt seams to be the one hunt that has sustained a lot of hunting and has been the biggest money maker for the state (general hunt speaking). I like to hunt deer every year and I don't take a deer every year but to take my boys 5, & 7 with me is a priceless adventure! I do take them camping, elk hunting, rabbit hunting and anything else we can fit into our schedule but they are always the most excited to go deer hunting! This is why I am having a hard time with this new option. You talk about all the youth tags...... this was because we were loosing hunters both older and the new generation hand over fist. They came up with the youth program to try and get the younger generation hooked on hunting. Now if they have to wait a few years in between each hunt we will see a significant reduction in hunters for now and the future. It is hard enough getting out with your kids as it is and to have that opportunity reduced will make it that much harder! This is just my two cents and How I perceive this and I am not good with it. You might be and that is your opinion and this is mine. only time will tell what this will do for our deer herds and hunting in Utah.


----------



## bearhntr (Oct 6, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > "Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.
> ...


1+


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> "Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.
> 
> Elk hunting, Spike/general,,,,,UNLIMITED archery permits!
> Spring Turkeys
> ...


And some it seems have forgotten what has already been given away.

OIAL hunts and upland game hunting are not replacements for the back bone of big game hunting.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy
whooo gives a rip about our spike elk hunts I dont want to hunt a spike elk anymore then I want to hunt a spike deer!
I dont want to go out and look at are elk that I cant hunt! I want to hunt!
I sure as hell dont want to go out and look at are deer and say man I wish some day ill be able to draw a tag so i can shoot a 20" 4pt, when I can go out already and do it. 

we are living it the good old days of huntitng just look at the record books to prove it. Goofy how many times in the last 8 years has the state record typical and non typical bull or buck been broken? how many times has any of the other animals been broken. 

leave the general elk and general deer units alone Goofy if you want to hunt a monster buck why dont you just put in for a Le unit and wait your turn.

the inch game has to stop! show me a way to increase the overall deer numbers not just bucks and ill be 100% behind it. show me a lame proposal that just cuts my opportunity out, increases your waiting periods and ill fight against it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SW,, Only in the last 8-10 years has 90% of hunters even known how to score..
10+ and beyond years back ,,NO BODY CARED!!
Hell SW,,,Do you have any idea haw many RECORD BOOK deer were just tossed
in the hay barn between 1960 and 1985,,,,,One heck of a lot!!!!

And as far as spike hunts go,,I know this much, the guys that do enjoy spike
hunting could care less THAT YOU AND I DONT......
If it were up to me, I'd do away with spike hunts and issue more LE tags..

And, I am in the Books, or The Henrie's, or on the Pauns'y every year...
I get to see some good stuff,,,Not going to wast my time on general hunts
until they are fixed......

And as far as " the inch game having to stop"...
All one has to do is look at question #8 on the new deer survey,,This one even 
surprises me!

Question 8* 
Do you have size limitations for the deer you are hunting?
No 49 
9%

Yes ,at first, but will kill for meat at the end of the hunt 
106 
20%

Yes, and would rather go home empty than shoot a small deer 
382 
71%


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> SW,, Only in the last 8-10 years has 90% of hunters even known how to score..
> 10+ and beyond years back ,,NO BODY CARED!!
> Hell SW,,,Do you have any idea haw many RECORD BOOK deer were just tossed
> in the hay barn between 1960 and 1985,,,,,One heck of a lot!!!!
> ...


Honest question, why are you referring to a survey posted on a forum that is comprised of mostly trophy hunters as good evidence to support your argument? Of the nearly 500 people who took the survey, which is no where near the amount that took the DWR survey, most are like you and could care less about killing a small buck. Now there is nothing wrong with that, I just don't think that mentality needs to be force feed to everyone else.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Question 8*
> Do you have size limitations for the deer you are hunting?
> No 49
> 9%
> ...


Wasn't there a question on that same survey that asked specifically about quality vs. opportunity and most people answered that they would prefer to be able to hunt every year with the same quality as 2010? As opposed to sitting out every other year or more and having better quality? What are the numbers on that question?

I think a lot of guys want a big buck, nothing wrong with that. The hunting shows, magazines, and marketing teach us how to score. But being able to hunt and being able to hunt with family and friends is still more important to most hunters than inches.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I posted the survey in response to " the inch game has to end" comment...

Like it or not, Inch hunting or "trophy hunting" has been becoming more
popular every year...

I actually like both,,meat and trophy hunting..
We usually get a cow tag almost every year and love elk for dinner..

Huntohalic,quote.. 
"And some it seems have forgotten what has already been given away."

My response to that is,, Deer are a limited resource.
There was a time that resource could handle hunting pressure of 200K tags..

The current 97K general tags available would be OK if there were truly 310K deer.
I do not believe this is the case, and I await this winters count because the
pressure is on the DWR BIG TIME to come up with realistic numbers.......

It would not surprise me one bit to see general season deer permit numbers
reduced at the march 5th meeting for the 2011 season....

I don't believe we have given away anything,,,,,,,
Simply issuing the number of permits the deer herd can support.
That is certainly how it should be anyway......


----------



## STEVO (Sep 13, 2007)

Im not sure the question that was asked in that survey was actually what the person that made it intended it to say. 

Me personally, I havent shot alot of deer in my life, but its not because I havent had the chances. I guess I would call my self a "trophy hunter" to an extent, but most of all I enjoy getting out. I personally wont shoot a small spike or 2pt and would much rather go home empty handed than shoot one. For me about the inches, but I can tell you the opportunity to hunt them means way more than that to me. I would be more than happy to take 1 nice deer every 10 years and nothing in between, but I wont be happy not having the opportunity every year. I dont think there has been a season I have been out that I havent passed on ATLEAST 5 small spikes or fork horns. The deer are there, people just arent looking hard enough. I do agree the big deer are few and far between in Utah, but every year you have a CHANCE at one. Im not really into the deer hunt for the meat, Elk are bigger, easier to come by and taste much better. Its all about the sport.

Honestly, I would much rather take a 200" mulie than a 400" bull elk, and thats even with the elk being my favorite animal of all time. Big elk are everywhere in Utah. Big mulies are not. I think thats why its a true trophy, they are few and far between and usually take alot of hard work to get to them. Trophy caliber elk are not hard to get in Utah, Deer are!!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Bullsnot,,that would be #13..

Question 13* 
Which would you prefer on General season hunts ?

Hunt every year with the same quality as 2010 
302 
56% 

Hunt every 2-3 with better quality than 2010 
187 
35% 

Hunt every 4-9 with great quality comparable to Limited Entry hunts 
41 
8% 

Hunt 10+ with Henries "monster buck" quality 
7 
1%


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I posted the survey in response to " the inch game has to end" comment...
> 
> Like it or not, Inch hunting or "trophy hunting" has been becoming more
> popular every year...


I'm not disagreeing with you on that...all I'm saying, and possibly others, is that we need to stop making inches the most important consideration in hunter management practices.

I'll be the first guy out on a hill with my spotting scope counting points, guessing mass, guessing tine and main beam lengths. It's fun and adds another dimension and another challenge to the hunt. But when you start taking away opportunity to hunt in exchange for inches I think we've taken it a bit too far.

Like SWB I too have found plenty if good bucks on general units. They are still there, a guy just has to be willing to work for it.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

STEVO said:


> I guess I would call my self a "trophy hunter" to an extent, but most of all I enjoy getting out. I personally wont shoot a small spike or 2pt and would much rather go home empty handed than shoot one. For me *it's* about the inches, but I can tell you the opportunity to hunt them means way more than that to me.


This sums it up well I think and represents the majority and I totally agree.

PS - I added one word to your statement for clarity's sake.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Everybody keeps saying we are losing hunters, were are they going? I remember 5 years ago there was always deer tags left over after the draw. Now there is no tags left over, not northern, or archery, did they drop all of those tags that were left over? 5,000-10,000 archery tags and the same northern tags just lost? I dont think so, those nmbers show we have more people wanting to hunt. We are not losing hunters, looks like we gained hunters. This was my first year ever, not having a deer tag. I either drew a rifle tag, or I would go down and buy a left over archery or northern tag..........YOU CANT DO THAT NOW....... Please explain why? Show me were we keep losing hunters, and I will show you were we have gained hunters.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

dark_cloud said:


> I remember 5 years ago there was always deer tags left over after the draw.


They didnt all go during the draw true, but they did sell out the remaining tags "over the counter". Its only reciently that all the tags all go during the draw. 5 years ago a guy could be lazy and just buy a remaining tag the day they went on sale... no longer.

-DallanC


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> My response to that is,, Deer are a limited resource.
> There was a time that resource could handle hunting pressure of 200K tags..
> Agreed
> 
> ...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Well 10000ft, you sure got things going! Just like I was saying, some of you can't help from throwing out the insults and scare tactics. Like the 13,000 tags being lost because of option 2. Actually it's almost a given that all 5 of the recovery units would be going to LE status in 2012. With that being said, there will be about 10,000 tags lost between the 5 units. That will happen reguardless of which option passed. The other 3 or 4k tags lost could be worked back in, if they were to be offered as archery tags. 

The comments about option 2 is only for the trophy hunter is not true at all. Look at how many hunters are shooting the first buck they see or the first average 2 or 3 year old buck out on the Bookcliffs and Vernon units. They are putting in for these units not to kill the biggest buck on the mountain but just seeing more bucks make it worth the wait to hunt. I think most people would like to have that kind of opportunity every few years instead of every 10 to 15 like it is now.

Like I first stated, I believe that if structured correctly. Very few of the non recovery units need to loose very many tags. It would only take a couple years to see which units could handle more pressure over others.

The biologist can manage these 29 units just the same as they are now because they already are. The COs can patrol the same areas, it's still the same square miles out there. The people who might hunt the sub units illegally, probably hunted illegally this past year anyway. 
well carry on with the bickering. lol


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> STEVO said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I would call my self a "trophy hunter" to an extent, but most of all I enjoy getting out. I personally wont shoot a small spike or 2pt and would much rather go home empty handed than shoot one. *For me it's about the opportunity to hunt them that means way more than the inches. *
> ...


I changed and bolded "STEVO"s statement for clarity's sake.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Well 10000ft, you sure got things going! Just like I was saying, some of you can't help from throwing out the insults and scare tactics. Like the 13,000 tags being lost because of option 2. Actually it's almost a given that all 5 of the recovery units would be going to LE status in 2012. With that being said, there will be about 10,000 tags lost between the 5 units. That will happen reguardless of which option passed. The other 3 or 4k tags lost could be worked back in, if they were to be offered as archery tags. Sorry, but this is flat out false. The powers that actually run the state game 'management' would never go for increasing archery permits, and with all the removal of incentives to archery hunt, I doubt they could sell that many archery permits.
> 
> The comments about option 2 is only for the trophy hunter is not true at all. Look at how many hunters are shooting the first buck they see or the first average 2 or 3 year old buck out on the Bookcliffs and Vernon units. They are putting in for these units not to kill the biggest buck on the mountain but just seeing more bucks make it worth the wait to hunt. I think most people would like to have that kind of opportunity every few years instead of every 10 to 15 like it is now. How many yearling bucks are killed on the Books? What was the sole STATED purpose of making the Books/Vernon limited entry? Was it to 'see' more bucks, or was it to increase HERD numbers?
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> "Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.
> 
> Elk hunting, Spike/general,,,,,UNLIMITED archery permits!
> Spring Turkeys
> ...


Really? In 1983, the year I was able to first hunt, you could hunt ALL three weapon seasons for deer and actually kill two bucks. You could hunt any-bull elk archery AND rifle every year, you could actually find and kill a pile of pheasants every November. Chuckar were plentiful, as were doves. It is a myth and a tad bit dishonesty to state opportunity is far more now than back then. We need to remember, by far the most popular big game hunt has been for all of our lifetimes been deer hunting. Not limited entry deer hunting, not 3 point or better deer hunting, but deer hunting. What has just been passed strikes at the core of big game hunting. Mentioning more OIL hunts as justification for reducing GENERAL season deer hunting is nonsensical. At best, a hunter can hope to draw 1-2 OIL permits over the course of 40 years. How the hell that makes up for several fewer opportunities to hunt deer is a good one.

Ridgetop, I know you have been a DH for several years, what has been passed is the end of this perk. Yes, I agree that this is not the end of the world, and I also agree that we need to be willing to sacrifice when needed. But, a sacrifice is giving up something good for something better. A reduction in permits in 95+% of Utah for the SOLE purpose of having more bucks to SEE is not what many, I dare say MOST, consider something better.


----------



## STEVO (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > STEVO said:
> ...


Thanks guys. You knew what I meant :lol: . The thing that irks me is yea in a way i would call myself a "trophy hunter", but at the same time I dont want to be in the same class as those people that say its "all about the horn". The hunt for the big one means so much more to me than the actual kill itself. I feel sorry for the people out there that are all about the kill. I have seen many big deer in the woods , but sometimes its tough to seal the deal. They dont get big by being stupid!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

There are several sub units in the state that has higher than 25:100 buck to doe ratio. Why not give out more tags in those areas? Like I said before, the line in the sand has not been drawn for me yet. I still have a positive outlook on these changes. Bart, I disagree with most of your red lined remarks but your still a good egg. 8) Keep up the hard work.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I disagree with everything PRO wrote in his last two posts.....

1) To say that the "powers" would never go for increasing archery permits
is COMPLETELY FALES,,,,,,,,,I've already heard the idea of units having
early and late archery hunts to increase permits avalible in 2012 and beyond..

2)First off, The Books, Vernon, AND the Henry's, and Oak City 
were COMPLETELY CLOSED due to the fact when antler restrictions were
lifted these units were bombarded by hunters and ruined........
Buck to doe ratios fell to the point herds WERE IN DANGER!!
They were then reopened to LE to avoid this happening again.
The same thing took place on both San Juan and the Paunsy deer herds too,,
just minus the antler restrictions......

3)Many of the new deer units will start with an 18 bucks to a 100 doe 
ratio,,,,,,,,the more critical number will be overall herd size in each 
unit........this remains to be seen as far as the 13,000 + or - permit reduction.

4)Using what some CO said in Colorado as an example for Utah is BS....
Smaller units are already in place AND WORKING WELL for antler less,
lions, bears, AND LE elk that have very similar boundaries to what the new
29 ,or so, deer units will be,,,,COME ON, I think deer hunters are smart enough
to tell the difference from Manti , Nebo, Boulder, Fish lake, Monroe, Dutton,???
Don't Ya think there PRO???

5) an for the annual opportunity comments,,,
I started in deer camps in the late 60's, All most EVERY BODY just rifle hunted..
The first year we could elk hunt was 1977,,,,,,I killed my first spike.
And the first year I remember being able to have two deer permits and hunt
all three hunts was 1980.....
Not only that, there were no youth permits set aside until recent years,
AND there was less than 5% of the OIAL tags available 30 years a go..
That to me is significant..


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

"Not true, I remember talking to a CO the year they went to regions. I have known this CO since I was a little kid, and he told me it was going to be a nightmare to try and keep hunters in the actual region they were supposed to be. This was in Gunnison where 3 regions meet. How can we expect the CO's to monitor the 29+ units AND worry about the other issues they need to be worrying about? Giving the same, or less, number of CO's more tasks to complete is a recipe for a cluster...."

Pro, 
This is not the first post I have seen concerning this possible issue. So please don't think this is only directed at you. I am going to have to be honest about it. I can not believe that any true sportsmen would even entertain this as an issue. I personally take this issue like a slap in the face and so should any true sportsmen. It is basically saying that enough sportsmen are poachers or to stupid to read a map that we should not have 29 units. REALLY. If the state was all open you would still have private mixed in. The pukes that would hunt off their unit would probably trespass. The number of idiots will not increase with adding units. It is the sportsmens responsiblily to stay on the right unit, regardless of the number not the DWR. 

Bart, I know you have better arguements than this to support your views! Please use them as this reason is a slap in the face of every true sportsmen in the state of Utah!  

I also disagree that more archery tags will ever be added. I have talked to alot of Option 2 guys that think that more archery tags will be great tool in helping the deer herds recover. If you would like to discuss this issue and some of the conversations I have had send me a PM and I be more than happy to discuss.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I think if it is ever going to be fair so hunters will quit fighting over everything we need to either 

give 33% of the state to archers, 33% of the state to rifle guys and 33% of the state to muzzy guys. let each group manage their portions, season dates, and tag numbers how ever they see fit. I can guarantee if it went this system 80% of the die hard rifle guys would pick up a bow and come hunt the promise lands of opportunity and monster bucks instead of waiting years hunting a tag.

or manage the tag numbers fair 33% rifle 33% muzzy, 33% archery and this includes the LE units. this is my suggestion from the beginning. why is no one even looking at it is beyond me, I am left with the assumption they are too selfish to see the benifits of picking up a lesser weapon. most people want it easy, most want a rifle shoot out of their truck or wheeler with a one day shoot. 

Muley 73 

What do you think about these ideas? and no I dont think we need to rotate the areas so every 5 years the rifle guys can come in and slay everything that walks. pick your weapon pick your area.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

Well said buckmaster. Give the 87,000 tags out 1/3 to each rifle, bow, and muzzy. I have said this before I'm willing to bet there would be huge waits for rifle and tags and left over tags in the muzzy and bow pools. I belive at least 50% of rifle hunters would not want to put in the work for a "primitive hunt". I'm new to hunting and started with a bow, because I thought the general rifle season what a joke. Way too many idiots with guns! I'm not talking about responcible hunters. I'm talking about the weekend warriors. I think the new system will filter the less seriouse out because you will have to apply for your tag not just buy it at Walmart.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

It is about as good an idea as saying lets give 33% of the tags to *Mexicans*, 33% to *Blacks* and 33% to *Caucasians*. :roll:

That's fair isn't it? 1/3 to each group :roll:

I will assume you were joking swbuckmaster.

How about we issue more tags across the board everywhere by allowing the buck/doe, bull/cow ratios to come down to a healthy 10-15/100 and reduce the ratios on LE units as well by adding tags. All my friends or family can either 1.) "get'r done" on a general season unit just fine with those kind of ratios or 2.) love the opportunity at a good meat animal regardless of horn size.

We will free up habitat for more cows, does, fawns and calves.

All this crap we are being force feed is about money for the guys at the top and being supported by hunters who I believe will never be happy with their hunt options because no matter what changes are made they still will lack the ability to hunt and kill a trophy animal or will not acquire an enjoyment or appreciation for the many other reasons to hunt.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

PKred and SWbuckmaster, isn't that part of the appeal to the muzzy and bow hunts (I muzzy hunt half of my hunts) is not having the masses out with you?

I would think that primitive weapon hunters would not encourage thousands of rifle hunters to flood their hunting areas all in the name of having more tags allocated to your weapon choice. 

I'm torn on this because I recognize the potential for maximizing OPPORTUNITY by pushing hunters towards weapons with a lower success rate but at the same time I'm a big "free market" guy and believe if there are ways to control success ratios with the buck/doe ratio and allocate tags based on weapons hunter choose to hunt with then that is best. Primative weapons should be for hunters who are passionate about the way they hunt and understand the commitment they are making by choosing to hunt with said weapon. Not pushed on people who would rather hunt with their rifle but can't draw a tag.

Secondly this would only further hurt hunter recruitment. face it, the majority of hunters will always be rifle hunters (and there is nothing wrong with that).


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

SW,
I believe that you are on the right track! That does not mean I would agree 100% with your post, as I see there are several issues that would need to be addressed. But I would be a lot more supportive than you believe I would be. This is the type of discussion that should be taking place and I would be more than excited to set down and look at these types of options.

I believe others are also willing to set down and discuss options. You should know that from PMs you have recieved. 

Thanks for the input and ideas.

Cody


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I would love to see a 33% split to weapons allocation, versus tag cuts..

In-fact, I'd love to see it used on all limited entry hunts..

And here why, This spring when permit numbers are released, Elk permits are 
going to decrease............Antelope permits are going to decrease as well.

I would love to see hunt dates changed and something like this done with weapons
to give an option for more L/E permits ....

And as far as "turning L/E back to general season" ,,,Well, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
I just don't understand how anyone would want to see our wonderful LE units destroyed??

I've seen it happen in my lifetime,,,Watched the Henry's, and Book Cliffs FIRST HAND, 
Go from similar to what you see today to COMPLETELY CLOSED ........

And TRUST ME, open ANY limited entry unit to a general hunt and watch what happens..


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I just don't understand how anyone would want to see our wonderful LE units destroyed??


Oh I totally agree, the Henry's are awesome! How many bucks have you taken off the Henry's goofy? How many LE hunts have you drawn? :roll:

*Fact:* Most hunters will never draw the Henry's if they apply their whole life!
*
Fact:* Under the current system most hunters will draw a LE elk tag 2-3 times in their life!

In my short life of 28 years I have shot 1 spike elk, 4 cow elk, 16 deer of witch the last two were respectable 25 inch bucks (all GS public ground).

I'm hanging my hat on limited entry type hunting to fulfill mine and my families hunting desires like I am social security for my retirement.

General season is where it is at and someday my stupid LE elk tag will be a fun little page in my large book of hunting experiences. I do and always will promote general season opportunity over limited (opportunity) entry.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> "Not true, I remember talking to a CO the year they went to regions. I have known this CO since I was a little kid, and he told me it was going to be a nightmare to try and keep hunters in the actual region they were supposed to be. This was in Gunnison where 3 regions meet. How can we expect the CO's to monitor the 29+ units AND worry about the other issues they need to be worrying about? Giving the same, or less, number of CO's more tasks to complete is a recipe for a cluster...."
> 
> Pro,
> This is not the first post I have seen concerning this possible issue. So please don't think this is only directed at you. I am going to have to be honest about it. I can not believe that any true sportsmen would even entertain this as an issue. I personally take this issue like a slap in the face and so should any true sportsmen. It is basically saying that enough sportsmen are poachers or to stupid to read a map that we should not have 29 units. REALLY. If the state was all open you would still have private mixed in. The pukes that would hunt off their unit would probably trespass. The number of idiots will not increase with adding units. It is the sportsmens responsiblily to stay on the right unit, regardless of the number not the DWR.
> ...


It is an extremely valid argument. The reality is many sportsman still don't even realize things are being changed up as we speak. They will get their proclomation and realize at that point something is different and start gripping about the DWR. There are many folks that feel entitled and will not take the proper time to figure out the boundaries properly and even some that will, may accidently get confused. It did happen to the DWR director after all. Now add in the fact that there is less of a budget for CO's and more units to cover, I don't see how anyone don't see this as a legitament concern.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Not sure how this will make more work for CO's? From what map I have seen many of the areas are the same with sub units within. I think what your focus should be on is the lack of revenue from the min. of "13000" tags lost. That could be jobs, and I PROMISE YOU the grunts get it first! Then you run into a problem!



jahan said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > "Not true, I remember talking to a CO the year they went to regions. I have known this CO since I was a little kid, and he told me it was going to be a nightmare to try and keep hunters in the actual region they were supposed to be. This was in Gunnison where 3 regions meet. How can we expect the CO's to monitor the 29+ units AND worry about the other issues they need to be worrying about? Giving the same, or less, number of CO's more tasks to complete is a recipe for a cluster...."
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well 10,000 ,,I've been lucky...
I took 4 bucks off the Henry's back when it was general season, antler restricted..
will be there Sept. 1 2011 with the sportsman deer tag holder..

Here's the L/E tags I've had,,,,And I have guided 20 to 25 hunts every year for 
for the last 20 years or so as well......This is from the DWR, results page..

2009 Big Game 820 PLATEAU PRONGHORN BUCK Permit
2009 Antlerless 624 WASATCH MTNS, DIAMOND FORK(EARLY) ANTLERLESS ELK Permit 
2006 Turkey 509 CENTRAL MOUNTAINS, NEBO (A) TURKEY, LANDOWNER Permit 
2006 Big Game 012 PLATEAU, THOUSAND LAKE BUCK DEER Permit 
2005 Big Game 818 PLATEAU PRONGHORN BUCK Permit 
2005 Antlerless 549 CENTRAL MTNS, NORTHWEST MANTI ANTLERLESS ELK Permit 
2004 Big Game 309 NINE MILE ANTHRO ELK BULL Permit 
2003 Turkey 560 UTAH COUNTY SOUTH (B) TURKEY, LANDOWNER Permit
2002 Black Bear 013 WASATCH MTNS-WEST BEAR Permit 2001 Cougar
2001 Cougar 006 MANTI, NORTH MANTI COUGAR Permit 
2000 Turkey 112 FILLMORE, PAHVANT (A) TURKEY, RIO GRANDE Permit
1997 Bucks, Bulls, Once-In-A-Lifetime 034 PAUNSAUGUNT BUCK DEER Permit 

Pryor to this I also had a landowner elk tag in the Wasatch 1994
A Book cliff Bitter Creek elk tag 1992
A paunsaugunt deer tag 1990

A number of out of state permits in Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming for deer and
antelope as well


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Guys listen to what you are saying. Are the rest of you sportsmen listening. What is being said is either sportsmen are not smart enough to read a map or they are poachers that don't care where they are at. I for one have more faith in my fellow sportsmen. They will see the changes and adjust. If they do not then they should be fined and it should be a big fine. 

We all know that tag prices will increase some and the DWR will have their money. They will not go with out. Just like they have not in the past. For those that missed the WB meeting it was discussed the the DWR budget had nearly doubled in the past 15 yrs. Why would that trend stop now? 13,000 general tags is a drop in the bucket and will replaced!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Guys listen to what you are saying. Are the rest of you sportsmen listening. What is being said is either sportsmen are not smart enough to read a map or they are poachers that don't care where they are at. I for one have more faith in my fellow sportsmen. They will see the changes and adjust. If they do not then they should be fined and it should be a big fine.
> 
> We all know that tag prices will increase some and the DWR will have their money. They will not go with out. Just like they have not in the past. For those that missed the WB meeting it was discussed the the DWR budget had nearly doubled in the past 15 yrs. Why would that trend stop now? 13,000 general tags is a drop in the bucket and will replaced!


I mostly agree with everything you have said but the last line. Are you referring to the monetary loss from the tags or the tags themsleves. Either way it is more than a drop in the bucket, the unitended consequences are going to be much larger than most realize.

I think sportsman in general will do their best to follow the rules, but their is always a group of people who will not, making the CO's job even more difficult. You know these are the same guys making their own trails on their ATV, ect.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> "Not true, I remember talking to a CO the year they went to regions. I have known this CO since I was a little kid, and he told me it was going to be a nightmare to try and keep hunters in the actual region they were supposed to be. This was in Gunnison where 3 regions meet. How can we expect the CO's to monitor the 29+ units AND worry about the other issues they need to be worrying about? Giving the same, or less, number of CO's more tasks to complete is a recipe for a cluster...."
> 
> Pro,
> This is not the first post I have seen concerning this possible issue. So please don't think this is only directed at you. I am going to have to be honest about it. I can not believe that any true sportsmen would even entertain this as an issue. I personally take this issue like a slap in the face and so should any true sportsmen. It is basically saying that enough sportsmen are poachers or to stupid to read a map that we should not have 29 units. REALLY. If the state was all open you would still have private mixed in. The pukes that would hunt off their unit would probably trespass. The number of idiots will not increase with adding units. It is the sportsmens responsiblily to stay on the right unit, regardless of the number not the DWR.
> ...


First, goofy, you need to PAY ATTENTION! I am talking about Gunnison UTAH!!!!!

Second, Muley73, WTF are you talking about? I simply relayed what I was told back when the state went to regions. You and goofy need to reduce the caffeine intake, slow down, and actually read what I said! I was making the point that the CO's (that is conservation officers, goofy!) are already stretched thin on trying to keep up with the masses, now they have to worry about what side of a road a hunter is hunting one. And to clarify, the sub-units may/may not follow the limited entry elk boundaries, so confusion is assured of being common place for a few years or longer. How pointing out FACTS is a 'slap in the face' is a mystery to me.

I have been on the front lines for several years fighting for archery permits/seasons/areas. I could write a 4 inch thick book of examples of how those on the WB and those that are in decision making positions of SFW have stuck it to the archers (pun intended). We only need to go back to the first time SFW and the WB did away with statewide archery for an example. SFW has also tried more than once to do away with the Wasatch Front being archery only. They have pushed for shorter season dates, have resisted increasing archery permit numbers/percentages several times. I could get as detailed as you like. If option 2 guys are so supportive of giving archers more permits, why didn't a SINGLE one of them make such a suggestion at the Wildlife Board meeting? :shock:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

jagah,
The drop in the bucket was in reference to the overall budget. I agree that the unforeseen consequences could be huge. That is exactly why I supported Option 2, doing nothing could have had huge consequences as well. This is why I feel the focus should be utilizing this micro managing tool to get healthy increased deer herds and maximizing oppurtunity, in that order.

You ought to take a look at 2lumpys post on MM. It really is right up your alley about taking action. If you really read what he is saying and don't try and twist in all the what ifs and hidden agenda crap it can only help. Let me know what you think and what you ideas are! SW and I usually disagree but I really liked some of his ideas.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> PKred and SWbuckmaster, isn't that part of the appeal to the muzzy and bow hunts (I muzzy hunt half of my hunts) is not having the masses out with you?
> 
> I would think that primitive weapon hunters would not encourage thousands of rifle hunters to flood their hunting areas all in the name of having more tags allocated to your weapon choice.


The appeal to the archery hunt is not to be on the mountain alone. ha ha wish that was the case. Have you ever been on the archery hunt. you have archery deer hunters, archery elk hunters, Le elk rifle hunters out scouting, recreation tree huggers. you are basically smashed with people. No the appeal to archery hunts and muzzy hunts is not to be able to go out on be alone. The appeal is to have first crack at the animals. Face it the rifle hunts get sloppy thirds! The appeal to archery hunt is now the front. Why do you think the archery tags are selling like hot cakes every year when in years past you could buy them over the counter. Thats right the rifle guys that are not drawing the rifle tag are choosing a lesser weapon to hunt monster bucks in the rut!

Archery is way over looked!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
Like I said if you'd like to discuss the archery then we can. I'm not going into examples on the forum. I don't want to have my word twisted or agenda twisted. SFW is not the only player in this game regardless of what everybody thinks! When some of you realize that I think true progress can take place! Go take a look at 2lumpys post on MM. Really read it and don't try to read in some hidden agenda. He is being honest and upfront. It should be right up your alley about taking action. 

As I posted on the other. Your post was one of many that has thrown out this idea about hunting the wrong units. I guess that CO is the one in your story that does not trust the sportsmen. Still a slap in the face of honest sportsmen. Like I said you have better arguments to back your views then to say sportsmen are not smart enough or to dishonest to make smaller units work!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Well 10,000 ,,I've been lucky...
> I took 4 bucks off the Henry's back when it was general season, antler restricted..
> will be there Sept. 1 2011 with the sportsman deer tag holder..
> 
> ...


Since I put in for my first LE draw I have graduated from high school and college, started a business, sold that business, lived in 2 different countries, got married, have had 3 children, oldest is almost in high school, bought 3 different houses, bought 12 different vehicles, sold 10 of those vehicles after putting on well over a million miles combined, bought 3 different RV's, over a dozen different ATV's, bought and sold horses, got into and out of snowmobiling, started rock climbing and then quit, worked several seasons as a snowboard instructor, lost my best firend in the war, gained a new best friend, bought and sold 4 boats, took up bowhunting, muzzy hunting, hunted general season deer 14 times, general elk 8 times, hunted antlerless elk 6 times, fished about 678 times, and have done general turkey once.

I am 33 and have been putting in for different LE hunts every years ince I was 18. I have drawn exactly 0 tags so far. Yeah it would really suck to lose our LE units. They are abound with opportunity.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

ive never drawn a big game animal either except for cougar. My friends family I hunt with has only drawn one elk tag and there is 4 boys and one father with 14 points each. No one in my family has draw a big game LE tag and they are all up to 6 points. 

I dont have any faith in the LE tag until the division has to give me the tag and that wont happen for 10+ more years. LE units suck inmho I hunt better bucks every year with a general tag then are on any of the LE units in this state except for the Henry mtns.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

So PRO,,,This CO you speak of,,,,,Freddie Pannunzio?

If so, I've known Fred for over 25 years now..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> Like I said if you'd like to discuss the archery then we can. I'm not going into examples on the forum. I don't want to have my word twisted or agenda twisted. SFW is not the only player in this game regardless of what everybody thinks! When some of you realize that I think true progress can take place! Go take a look at 2lumpys post on MM. Really read it and don't try to read in some hidden agenda. He is being honest and upfront. It should be right up your alley about taking action.
> 
> As I posted on the other. Your post was one of many that has thrown out this idea about hunting the wrong units. I guess that CO is the one in your story that does not trust the sportsmen. Still a slap in the face of honest sportsmen. Like I said you have better arguments to back your views then to say sportsmen are not smart enough or to dishonest to make smaller units work!


You need to get your dad to come over here, I really REALLY do not like that site. 8)

Until proven otherwise, I will keep saying ONE group controls, if not every major decision, the overwhelming majority of them. I am hopeful, and doing what I can to assist, that this will soon change, but for the past 5 years this one group has reigned supreme, that is clear.

I think you are still reading far more into my comments and those from the CO I referred to, than intended. If you don't think it happens, then you are not paying attention. And, if you don't think this will consume a butt load of time for the CO's you are kidding yourself. More boundaries means more chances for violations. Good hell, the DWR director himself was guilty of this very thing this year while hunting grouse. If he can get 'confused' why is it so 'offensive' to suggest 'commoners' will do likewise?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> So PRO,,,This CO you speak of,,,,,Freddie Pannunzio?
> 
> If so, I've known Fred for over 25 years now..


Nope, Fred is over the Fish Lake unit in Sevier County. Gunnison is in Sanpete County. I have known Fred since high school myself, and I have been to his parents home many times out here in Tooele. Good man! The CO I am referring to has the initials B.B..


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Well 10,000 ,,I've been lucky...
> ...


WOW! Only fished 678 times? :mrgreen:


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Pro... Buddy.... In my opinion the smaller units are not going to effect the law-enforcement as much as you think... if at all. Each CO will be working the same areas they have always. Utah will not grow, just the hunters chains will be shorter. The honest people will do it legal, and the others will do what they do until they get caught... 

Now don't take this as I support this one bit! Hate it! But I hated the way we have it now. Because where I live and where I hunt, it divides me. Now it will be even more. IF the map I seen is the one used, I may not get to hunt my own land and family own land 10 minutes away!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> You ought to take a look at 2lumpys post on MM. It really is right up your alley about taking action. If you really read what he is saying and don't try and twist in all the what ifs and hidden agenda crap it can only help. Let me know what you think and what you ideas are! SW and I usually disagree but I really liked some of his ideas.


I really liked what 2lumpys had to say. I hope when people realize that the 29 units are not going away. This much energy can be put into fixing the herd problems and preserving as many tags as possible through many different avenues.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK, tell me; if you are responsible to patrol a certain size area, and suddenly they add a bunch of new boundaries into the mix, how can it not add to your work load? To me, this is like adding a bunch of stop signs all over town, and then saying it won't impact the LEO's any. If you as a LEO are forced by the police chief to write up every driver who fails to come to a complete stop, you won't have time to do much of anything else. That is essentially what adding a bunch of NEW boundaries will do to CO's.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

We know that more borders will mean more challenges for law enforcement, they've told us that much.

I think the challenge comes in the way of more regulations. More regulations/borders means it takes a greater law enforcement effort to enforce them. It's true the state won't grow but to keep everyone honest will take a greater effort when ever more regulations go into effect. Sad but true.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Koby, I read lumpy's thread and I responded to it. I will just say I like/applaud his intentions, but I find them flawed and doomed for failure.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> "Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.
> 
> Elk hunting, Spike/general,,,,,UNLIMITED archery permits!
> Spring Turkeys
> ...


You nailed it!!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

+1 Goofy, You are spot on. My son and I spent over 40 days out hunting this season and only one was on the general deer season.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Not sticking up for the illegal people, but do you really think people road hunting on a boundary, and shooting a deer 100 yards away from the road, on the wrong side is going to be that big of a deal? It happens right now, every day of the hunts. Chances are the deer cross the road daily. I think its wrong, but the boundaries will more then likely be on roads, just like right now. There wont be much of a difference. I guess we need to get rid of the slot limit at strawberry too. Takes extra CO's to make sure people dont break the rules. There will always be law breakers, you will never change that. What I am trying to say is let it happen, give them a fine and take the money and put it towards more deer management. I dont think it will change much at all. We dont have a problem with LE hunt boundaries right now so why would this be different. Sounds like more people are mad about more boundaries for themselves then anything. I guess the best thing to do is make everything state wide and issue unlimited tags , for everything. :mrgreen: You would only have state lines to worry about and everybody would have a tag.......Its a win win for everybody......Oh except for the animals. I think the biggest problem is everybody is worried about "CHANGE" Stop living in a tunnel and except change and try to make the best of it. Oh and 1 more thing, I like the 3 way split on tags. :mrgreen: Great idea, more archery tags less rifle tags means less deer killed, and we could still keep the same amount of tags. That would help the deer herd out.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
Thanks for looking. Not perfect I agree but involvement guided by the professionals I truly believe will help us in the end. 

Funny you said that about MM. I feel I'm in hostile territory when I'm on this site. But I have to check in now and again to make sure you guys haven't tied my buddy Goofy to the wagon wheel and spinning him over the coals!!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

hoghunter011583 said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > "Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.
> ...


Goofy serious question here!
Whats your take on the pheasants? Do you think we need to cut the rooster tags on that hunt to be able to hunt trophy long tailed pheasants from your truck with a rifle? Its the same problem with the pheasants as our deer! If you can see the problem with the pheasants you should be able to see the problem with our deer and it doesn't require rooster tag cuts imho!

In order to save our roosters or grow more of them we need to cut out the invasive species and predators Ie *****, foxes, coyotes, hawlks ect. Just like our deer need help in this department with coyotes, cougars, elk ect. The elk are displacing our deer and need to be thinned out as well imho. They directly do compete with our deer. We needs the habitat restored from several years of drought and I believe this part will come from our 10 year cycle of drought and rain Utah always gets. we are headed imho into the rainy 10 year cycle.

what this state this state doesn't need is any more "inch" LE units managed for high success weapons with low hunting opportunity!

KISS! :shock:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> jagah,
> The drop in the bucket was in reference to the overall budget. I agree that the unforeseen consequences could be huge. That is exactly why I supported Option 2, doing nothing could have had huge consequences as well. This is why I feel the focus should be utilizing this micro managing tool to get healthy increased deer herds and maximizing oppurtunity, in that order.
> 
> You ought to take a look at 2lumpys post on MM. It really is right up your alley about taking action. If you really read what he is saying and don't try and twist in all the what ifs and hidden agenda crap it can only help. Let me know what you think and what you ideas are! SW and I usually disagree but I really liked some of his ideas.


Muley73,
I took a look at his post and I like his passion, but can you imagine 29 units controlled by groups like SFW, ect. that have their OWN agenda at heart. It scares the hell out of me, the intent is fine and I don't believe he wants it to turn that way, but it will. I don't know the guy, but from reading the posts, it doesn't look like he has a hidden agenda, just maybe a lot more optimistic about how it would turn out than I am.

Also for those who think Option 2 is a done thing, it isn't and I will just leave it at that. 8) Anyways I enjoy hearing different perspectives.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Maybe on paper it seams to look more complicated but in reality the areas don't get bigger, just divided. If ya add a bunch of stop signs, the work don't go up either. You will have the same people running them as you had when you had one stop sign. It really is simple in my mined. You have those that no matter what you do you will not make them be legal, and then you have those that will go to any measure to make sure they are legal!
Each unit will have X amount of hunters allowed to hunt... Am I right on that? So in them bigger sub units you might have 2 CO's working it, where as some of the smaller one might have only 1 and half the hunters.
I don't think the flaw in this is the enforcement of it, I think it is the idea that these Deer know the boundries! In reality some deer will get counted twice!



proutdoors said:


> TAK, tell me; if you are responsible to patrol a certain size area, and suddenly they add a bunch of new boundaries into the mix, how can it not add to your work load? To me, this is like adding a bunch of stop signs all over town, and then saying it won't impact the LEO's any. If you as a LEO are forced by the police chief to write up every driver who fails to come to a complete stop, you won't have time to do much of anything else. That is essentially what adding a bunch of NEW boundaries will do to CO's.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Another question. Is the deer committee working on details with these sub units? Is there still a deer committee? Is there still talk about a split rifle hunt next year? If so, I think the split should be 25% for each rifle season and 25% for the muzzy and archery.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Sw , were you do identify some issues that are real problems,
You MIS-identify other issues that are almost shocking.............
Pheasants will never be the same,,,,,,,,,,NEITHER WILL DEER!

As human encroachment and population continues to grow,,hunting changes!

You relate and understand well what is happening with the Wasatch front deer herd,,
But TOTALLY miss the point that Utah's deer ,not long ago, WERE LIKE THAT EVERYWERE!
There used to be GREAT deer herds on Boulder, THERE GONE!
Pavhant,, THERE GONE,,,,,,LA SAL,,THERE GONE!,,,SW Desert,,,THERE GONE!! the list gos on.

The time has come to start fixing EACH INDIDIDULAL unit and MAINTAIN them.............
You guys can call opt 2 hunter management if you want,,and that is DEFFENATLY were its starting.
But, its just the first step of many, in an effort to HELP OUR DEER HERDS RECOVER!!!

And SW,,,,Why are you consistently hammering the idea of hunting out of a truck??
I would dare say 75% of the deer hunters not seeing deer are hard core hunters,,and hike..

No need to worry about roster tag cuts,,,,Shot gunners just quiting for lack of birds....
And your right , Deer hunting is in the same boat..
If things don't change, cutting deer tags wont be the problem,,,SELLING them WILL..
The DWR wont even be able to sell a deer tag if there's NO DEER!

Another point,,You say "no more inch hunting",,,,,,,,,,,You can get yourself a cow tag.

Anyone with a buck/bull tag can inch hunt if they like,,rather it be general or L/E...
The same will go for 2012 and beyond,,,,,,,,,No one is forcing ANYONE to inch hunt.
They can sill shot the first two point they see if they wish too....Good day.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> "Annual opportunities"????,,,,,,,,You younger guys don't have a clue.
> 
> Elk hunting, Spike/general,,,,,UNLIMITED archery permits!
> Spring Turkeys
> ...


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> That is exactly why I supported Option 2, doing nothing could have had huge consequences as well. This is why I feel the focus should be utilizing this micro managing tool to get healthy increased deer herds and maximizing oppurtunity, in that order.


It's frustrating having to say this so many times, but Utah deer herds are already and have been managed according to these smaller "micro" units for years.

The Option 2 plan is about micro-managing hunters (cutting numbers and spreading them out more evenly) with the intent of increasing buck-to-doe ratios and making those ratios more consistent throughout the state. If that's what you want, then the Option 2 plan is the one for you. If you think that Option 2 somehow gives the UDWR the ability to better manage the deer herds in a way that will actually help improve the herds and increase their numbers, you're likely mistaken, which is precisely why the UDWR was not in favor of the Option 2 proposals.

Once again, the UDWR's mule deer work has already been focused around unit-by-unit management - it's only the hunts that have reflected the larger, regional boundaries. Option 2 gives the UDWR no additional tools to help the deer herds that they haven't already been using for many years. All it does is let them more evenly distribute 13,000 fewer hunters with the objective of harvesting fewer bucks and increasing buck-to-doe ratios. Herd sizes won't grow under this plan unless, contrary to most of the scientific data, these few extra bucks will somehow result in more fawns being born and surviving.



Muley73 said:


> feel I'm in hostile territory when I'm on this site. But I have to check in now and again to make sure you guys haven't tied my buddy Goofy to the wagon wheel and spinning him over the coals!!!


Geech! If it weren't for people like you two we'd have nobody to argue with.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Hunter Geek explained it, spot on. For all those who really want option 2, as it is presented, (state wide LE, Higher Buck to doe ratios, no positive effect on over all deer numbers). All you want is to see more bucks with bigger antlers IMO. You could care less about the true problem, GROWING MORE DEER not bigger deer. Option 2 will do NOTHING to help the deer herd rebound. Options 1 was the lesser of the evils presented. Option 2 guys just say it how it is, you want to see bigger and more bucks and this is the way you feel we can get to that point. But dont say it is better for the herds, that is bull #[email protected]$& and you all know it. I just have not read a valid point from any of the option 2 guys, just running in circles not making any valid points, other than the Utah deer herd is in trouble (we all know that) and you all want to see more and bigger Bucks (we all know that as well). Option 2 is not the way to get herds back up to par.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

TAK said:


> Maybe on paper it seams to look more complicated but in reality the areas don't get bigger, just divided. If ya add a bunch of stop signs, the work don't go up either. You will have the same people running them as you had when you had one stop sign.


See that's the thing....if you add a bunch of stop signs you WILL need more enforcement.

First hunters are just a cross section of society. We've got good eggs and we've got bad eggs. So people shouldn't get offended by the fact that we need to be monitored. (That's directed at Muley73)

Second a big part of the need for more enforcement will come in the way of complaints. Going back to your stop signs, people will complain that the new stop sign put up in their neighborhood is being ran on a regular basis. It's common to see normally law abiding folks start to bend the law themselves when they see others get away with something unpunished. It isn't so much that people suddenly lose their scrupels as much as they just feel it isn't fair that they follow the law while others habitually get away with breaking it.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> If things don't change, cutting deer tags wont be the problem,,,SELLING them WILL..
> The DWR wont even be able to sell a deer tag if there's NO DEER!


Very true. It's simple economics. If and when we reach the point of not selling out deer tags, it would definitely be fiscally prudent to either raise tag prices or increase the perceived value of the product they are selling. We have not reached that point.

I'm a businessman, and there is absolutely no point to making concessions regarding pricing or services if there are no indicators or raised flags that my prices are too high or my services are too low. Markets dictate these things and thus far, the deer hunting market in Utah is solid and I dare say seeing a slight upturn in demand in the past 10 years.

Non-issue and a red herring.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

HunterGeek said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly why I supported Option 2, doing nothing could have had huge consequences as well. This is why I feel the focus should be utilizing this micro managing tool to get healthy increased deer herds and maximizing oppurtunity, in that order.
> ...


You are spot on huntergeek!

It's not necessarily the micro hunter units that scare me with option 2. I don't like the concept but I could compromise and get on board with that for the sake of progress.

The big time problem I have with option 2 is the immediate tag cuts, and how the new buck to ratio standards will effect future tag cuts. Serisously this plan could bring the amount of general tags allocated to under 50,000, no joke!!!! I think this part of the plan is unacceptable and I will keep speaking out against this, fighting it, and I will not unite, hold hands, and sing kumbaya until this part of the plan is changed. This part of the plan is NOTHING SHORT OF A TROPHY MENTALITY and to say otherwise shows you have been hoodwinked by those who peddled and approved this plan or you just aren't being honest about it.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

So here is a question to the option 2 crowd, do you agree with the 18:100 buck to doe ratio? Would you be alright with going to the 29 units without cutting tags, except in the troubled units? I echo what Bullsnot said, it is the tag cuts for no reason that has me more riled up about option 2. Also the process and how the minority controls it is also what bugs me.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Another question. Is the deer committee working on details with these sub units? Is there still a deer committee? Is there still talk about a split rifle hunt next year? If so, I think the split should be 25% for each rifle season and 25% for the muzzy and archery.


The deer committee could be recalled, but it hasn't happened yet. This whole "options" deal was an end run around the deer committee anyway, so who knows. I suspect the DWR will hammer out the details and possibly reconvene the committee next summer to rubber stamp their recommendations. But that'll be statewide, not unit details.

Unit plans already exist although they're up for renewal and most unit plans have local stakeholder participation, i.e., committees. Karpowitz pointed this out (twice) when DC was proposing unit committees. But I gather some still think unit committees are a clever new idea. :roll:

Meantime, the BLM and USFS have their own management plans.

Predator management plans, recreational use management plans, resource management plans, private landowner management plans, development management plans...we humans are full of management plans!



HunterGeek said:


> Once again, the UDWR's mule deer work has already been focused around unit-by-unit management - it's only the hunts that have reflected the larger, regional boundaries. Option 2 gives the UDWR no additional tools to help the deer herds that they haven't already been using for many years.


Here's the unit plans approved by the WB in 2006:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/hu ... plans.html


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Are the anti LE deer guys discounting that the DWR is saying that Utah's deer herd is currently at capacity? And if the deer herd is at capacity why not manage for more bucks?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I love how some of you keep pointing to all the antlerless hunts, antelope hunts... that you can go on in the years you can't draw a general season deer tag.

Have you ever considered that the ten's of thousands of hunters who currently just hunt general season deer and don't put in for any special permits could really make those waiting periods increase.

SWbuckmaster, I realize you are not alone on the archery hunt right now but much more so than the GS rifle hunters. Do you really want to send thousands more rifle hunters out on the archery hunt with you guys?

Unless you truly want to see GS rifle hunters just give up the sport then why are some of you not more appreciative that for the most part they are content with their hunt and not putting in for your tags and wanting to hunt during your hunts and put in for all the other special tags you put in for.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Are the anti LE deer guys discounting that the DWR is saying that Utah's deer herd is currently at capacity? And if the deer herd is at capacity why not manage for more bucks?


Because I am happy with the bucks I see and shoot in both the North and the South and I would rather maintain current levels of opportunity than cut 13,000 tags so other wannabe trophy hunters see more and bigger bucks.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If your happy with the current hunt your in the minority. Thats why they are tinkering with things because of so much discontent.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> Since I put in for my first LE draw I have graduated from high school and college, started a business, sold that business, lived in 2 different countries, got married, have had 3 children, oldest is almost in high school, bought 3 different houses, bought 12 different vehicles, sold 10 of those vehicles after putting on well over a million miles combined, bought 3 different RV's, over a dozen different ATV's, bought and sold horses, got into and out of snowmobiling, started rock climbing and then quit, worked several seasons as a snowboard instructor, lost my best firend in the war, gained a new best friend, bought and sold 4 boats, took up bowhunting, muzzy hunting, hunted general season deer 14 times, general elk 8 times, hunted antlerless elk 6 times, fished about 678 times, and have done general turkey once.
> 
> I am 33 and have been putting in for different LE hunts every years ince I was 18. I have drawn exactly 0 tags so far. Yeah it would really suck to lose our LE units. They are abound with opportunity.


Don't give up hope! I was in that same boat, 18 years or something like that to draw my first tag. Then I drew twice in two years!



> The big time problem I have with option 2 is the immediate tag cuts, and how the new buck to ratio standards will effect future tag cuts. Serisously this plan could bring the amount of general tags allocated to under 50,000, no joke!!!! I think this part of the plan is unacceptable and I will keep speaking out against this, fighting it, and I will not unite, hold hands, and sing kumbaya until this part of the plan is changed. This part of the plan is NOTHING SHORT OF A TROPHY MENTALITY and to say otherwise shows you have been hoodwinked by those who peddled and approved this plan or you just aren't being honest about it.


Amen!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> *If your happy with the current hunt your in the minority*. Thats why they are tinkering with things because of so much discontent.[/quote
> 
> I don't buy into this.
> 
> ...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> If your happy with the current hunt your in the minority. Thats why they are tinkering with things because of so much discontent.


I disagree on this. The strong discontent is coming from a vocal minority. Even a survey posted on MM showed this to be the case. Over 500 people responded and here are the results:

Question 13
Which would you prefer on General season hunts ?

Hunt every year with the same quality as 2010 
302 - 56%

Hunt every 2-3 with better quality than 2010 
187 - 35%

Hunt every 4-9 with great quality comparable to Limited Entry hunts 
41 - 8%

Hunt 10+ with Henries "monster buck" quality 
7 -1%


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Well if the question was are you happy with the current deer hunt then you would get a majority saying no.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sure they would rather hunt every yr thats a given. 44% would be willing to sacrifice a tag to get a better hunt.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

It really is hard to argue this point because it is a matter of opinion only. I also know the last thing that would be considered is if the CO can manage to police it... My opinion is that it will not increase a CO's work load as much as it has been PRO-trade! Had to add the PRO in there!

Again I think the real problem is the boundry's they are looking at. Some of the lines I have saw can cut through an area that these deer are at pretty much year round. So how are you going to get a record of how each of the units asre doing if your seeing many if the same deer...



bullsnot said:


> TAK said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe on paper it seams to look more complicated but in reality the areas don't get bigger, just divided. If ya add a bunch of stop signs, the work don't go up either. You will have the same people running them as you had when you had one stop sign.
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Question 10* 
Are you content with your General Season hunting opurtunity? 
Yes 
329 
56% 

No 
257 
44% 

No Answer 0 0%

Question 11* 
How has the deer population in your area changed over the last 10 years?
Increasing 
24 
4% 

Decreasing 
361 
62% 

Stable 
201 
34%

Question 16* 
Do you approve of the 29 units for 2012?
Yes 
234 
40% 

No 
281 
48% 

Unsure 
71 
12%


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Thanks for posting up such scientific, factual data Goofy..... I was all confused in my observations, thinking and information.

Where did you get this sampling again?


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Goofy serious question here!
> Whats your take on the pheasants?


Habitat and *****! ***** getting the lions share! Lets not forget MONEY! Small game carries very little money compaired to the Big Game! YOUR state knows this!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

That information is as asinine as doing a poll on this forum on how many deer you think are in the state (100k, 150k, 200k, 250k...) and what ever number we decided the DWR will base their management plan on.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10000ft. said:


> Thanks for posting up such scientific, factual data Goofy..... I was all confused in my observations, thinking and information.
> 
> Where did you get this sampling again?


The survey that you speak of was not the best survey, not scientific, holds little weight with anybody and was certainly posted on a site with a specific following of hunters however the results do support, for the most part, your/my perpsective that the recent changes favored a minority rather than the majority.

Check out the results in Goofy's post once again.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> You relate and understand well what is happening with the Wasatch front deer herd,,
> But TOTALLY miss the point that Utah's deer ,not long ago, WERE LIKE THAT EVERYWERE!
> There used to be GREAT deer herds on Boulder, THERE GONE!
> Pavhant,, THERE GONE,,,,,,LA SAL,,THERE GONE!,,,SW Desert,,,THERE GONE!! the list gos on.
> ...


but the agenda/people you are backing will not stop until our deer herds are as messed up as our elk herds with once in a life time draws ect.

goofy I dont think you or I will agree on anything because you miss the whole point on the state of our deer herds. You think the deer are gone because of the hunters shooting the bucks. You however imho dont have a clue why the deer herds are declining as a whole. this is just the way I see it. have a good one Im out to shovel the snow. :mrgreen:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Guys I have said I believe there are other options to prevent tag cuts. So yes I still thing 29 unit system will work with current numbers if other issues were addressed. 

I asked Anis personally if we lose controll of hunters in the Region system once the hunts start. His answer was yes. Every hunter can jump onto any unit in that region and that could cause an issue, but he didn't feel that would ever happen. That is a big gamble! Too big in my opinion. I have seen years the snow piled up and certain areas and units get hammered. 

I have seen the DWR gamble like this on the Fishlake Elk herd. They said anybody that bought a spike tag could also buy a cow tag OTC. Their theory was most hunters would stay in there usually areas and they would not see an increase on the Fishlake. WRONG!!!!!! Self monitoring elk hunters shot out the entire unit!!!!! To the point of having to close all the elk hunting on that unit for several years. 

We need to have control of all our units and not hope and gamble that hunters self monitor and distribute themselves. To think other wise is irresponsible as we have shown the inability to do it in the past. If one unit is struggling the correct thing to do is not to just shift the pressure onto surrounding units. This is not the right answer! If that reasoning does not make sense to some I am sorry, but you will not change my mind. Just because you are the majority does not mean you are always right! Right is Right and I'll always fight for what I think is right!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> You ought to take a look at 2lumpys post on MM. It really is right up your alley about taking action. If you really read what he is saying and don't try and twist in all the what ifs and hidden agenda crap it can only help. Let me know what you think and what you ideas are! SW and I usually disagree but I really liked some of his ideas.


I went and read "2lumpys" post on MM. Here is what I came away with.

The first part of his post seemed to be addressing organization, interaction between different users and working with those sources to attack areas that are a threat to deer. All of which are great, but could have been done under the current committee plan. So why was it not? 29 hunting units is not needed to do everything that he listed.

The second part personally bothers me. Sounds like way to much about "local" control. I see this as similar as to what happens with HOA's. It starts out with good intentions, the rule/regulations benefit the whole, but over time comes down to rule by a few.

Personally I detest micro-management of anything. I cannot think of any situation where micro-managing has benefited a problem in the long run. All I see are more wedges being drive between hunters. The simple fact is, we need to focus and fix the problems. Not create new ones by knee jerk reactions that have no benefit to solving the problem.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> *I have seen years the snow piled up and certain areas and units get hammered.*
> So the bucks get hammered one year. So what. You are shooting bucks. You are not killing the herd. What do you think is going to happen with micro units?
> 
> I have seen the DWR gamble like this on the Fishlake Elk herd. They said anybody that bought a spike tag could also buy a cow tag OTC. Their theory was most hunters would stay in there usually areas and they would not see an increase on the Fishlake. WRONG!!!!!! Self monitoring elk hunters shot out the entire unit!!!!! To the point of having to close all the elk hunting on that unit for several years. Lesson learned, be careful with the tagges that control the herd, i.e. "female".
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

goofy I dont think you or I will agree on anything because you miss the whole point on the state of our deer herds. You think the deer are gone because of the hunters shooting the bucks. You however imho dont have a clue why the deer herds are declining as a whole. this is just the way I see it. have a good one Im out to shovel the snow. :mrgreen:[/quote]

GEEEEZ's,,,,I do not think general deer herds are gone due to hunting,,,,,,,

And I agree , Elk are a main player in the decreased numbers, along with habitat,
Road kill, and pr editors.......OMG is this going to get interesting when wolves take
hold in Utah,,,,,,,,,You guy stressed on predators aint seen no thin yet!

Here's what I know about hunters and rifle general season,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There's more orange on the hill than there are deer.....
And ,,Thats why I don't wast my time on it.....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

No greed on my part. I really do not understand this comment that is thrown at myself and others that supported Option 2. I see your position as greed from future hunting for my kids and their kids. 

So what you hammer the bucks for one season? WOW that is exactly what scares me about those that would put no limitations on each unit. That comment alone should be enough to validate unit control. Man I really can not believe that is position that any sportsman would take. -)O(-


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> Everybody keeps saying we are losing hunters, were are they going?


They picked up archery hunting.So if they don't draw there rifle tag or muzzy tag they can get a archery tag and hunt still.Give them three try's to get a tag and people are starting to put the northern are for there third choice to hunt.That why the tags are going in the draw now and if you want to hunt you have put in for the draw.

I don't care for the inch.When I want my big deer I will put in for the book cliff and hunt them there.Same with elk I will go put in for a LE tag for the inch. In tell then My family and I in joy eating deer and elk steaks. doring the summer.Plus we love getting out as a family and hunting together. Opt 2 can kiss my white a$$ and the WB can take Opt 2 and shove it up there a$$.People that say they talk for all hunters are not talking for me.Leave it how it is.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> The comments about option 2 is only for the trophy hunter is not true at all. Look at how many hunters are shooting the first buck they see or the first average 2 or 3 year old buck out on the Bookcliffs and Vernon units. Maybe because they don't have the time to hunt long and they want a nice deer.They are putting in for these units not to kill the biggest buck on the mountain. not true I know when I draw that tag I wont be looking for the biggest buck on the mountain.I will look for a nice buck and take him.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> No greed on my part. I really do not understand this comment that is thrown at myself and others that supported Option 2. I see your position as greed from future hunting for my kids and their kids. It was not my intent to offend you or others that support option2. My opinion and belief is that most supporters of option 2 have an underlying reason for support of option 2, which has nothing to do with building the herd. Those reasons are greedy to me. My personal position supports building the herd through fixing the problem, not some option that does nothing to fix said problems.
> 
> So what you hammer the bucks for one season? WOW that is exactly what scares me about those that would put no limitations on each unit. That comment alone should be enough to validate unit control. Man I really can not believe that is position that any sportsman would take. -)O(-  Good heavens. You some how think that going to micro units and then having a bad storm push all the deer to a small spot is not going to happen with said micro units. Those hunters for that micro unit are going to flock to that spot. Every once in a while it happens and will continue to happen. The simple fact is you are already controlling the number of hunters. That is a safety net. If all the hunters run to one area, that means other areas are going to see higher survival. And if you think that the following year the DWR is going to lower the number of permits without addressing what it will cost them you have another thing coming. As far as being a sportsman, I care as much about my fellow sportman as I do about the animals. It is a balance that can happen.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> pr editors.......


It looks like you couldn't bring yourself to say predators. As a houndsman I'm sure it was hard. :mrgreen:

I think that was funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here's what I know about hunters and rifle general season,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> There's more orange on the hill than there are deer.....
> And ,,Thats why I don't wast my time on it.....


So then *DON'T HUNT* the general season and let those that are content to hunt the general season do so?!?!


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

GREEDY.................




I think greedy is thinking you have the right to have a deer tag every year...... Dont get me wrong I love hunting as a family, but reducing 13,000 tags will increase the deer herds. They might be bucks, but it will still increase the deer herds. Its a step. I love to hunt every year too, but I am willing to sacrafice for others to have a chance and for the deer to come back. I think the GREED goes both ways. And I am not a horn hunter, I have spent the last three years helping family and friends get their first deer and spend no time looking where I want to hunt. So I think that I am not greedy. So before you think that everyone for OPTION #2 is GREEDY think about your self as being greedy wanting to have a TAG every year


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> GREEDY.................
> 
> I think greedy is thinking you have the right to have a deer tag every year...... Dont get me wrong I love hunting as a family, but reducing 13,000 tags will increase the deer herds. They might be bucks, but it will still increase the deer herds. Its a step. I love to hunt every year too, but I am willing to sacrafice for others to have a chance and for the deer to come back. I think the GREED goes both ways. And I am not a horn hunter, I have spent the last three years helping family and friends get their first deer and spend no time looking where I want to hunt. So I think that I am not greedy. So before you think that everyone for OPTION #2 is GREEDY think about your self as being greedy wanting to have a TAG every year


What a load of a stink pile! Please, tell us how more bucks will mean more deer, short term AND long term?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

dark_cloud said:


> GREEDY.................
> 
> I think greedy is thinking you have the right to have a deer tag every year...... Nobody said that. You are twisting our words.  Dont get me wrong I love hunting as a family, but reducing 13,000 tags will increase the deer herds. They might be bucks, but it will still increase the deer herds. It won't increase anything. Any buck killed must first be alive, doesn't matter when it's killed. All this does is ration what you have, leaves it in the oven a little longer is all. You don't have more of them. To increase you have to produce more than you have now, not let what you have live longer. Its a step. I love to hunt every year too, but I am willing to sacrafice for others to have a chance and for the deer to come back. Again you understand that letting some bucks live doesn't make more of them right? It just saves them for a later harvest. I think the GREED goes both ways. And I am not a horn hunter, I have spent the last three years helping family and friends get their first deer and spend no time looking where I want to hunt. So I think that I am not greedy. So before you think that everyone for OPTION #2 is GREEDY think about your self as being greedy wanting to have a TAG every yearI am ALL for cutting tags and limiting opportunity if it helps the resource. There is nothing in this plan that does anything but a grow a few bigger bucks NOTHING! That's not greed in the slightest sense.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what I know about hunters and rifle general season,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ...


I wont,,,,for 3 or 4 years,,,Just buy deer points.. 

Cash them in when I see which one of the new 29 units
I'm liking the most in a few years..


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> Dont get me wrong I love hunting as a family, but reducing 13,000 tags will increase the deer herds. They might be bucks, but it will still increase the deer herds.


No, not necessarily, and it would depend on whether or not buck harvest, for a given herd population, is additive or compensatory to total mortality.

Deer herd number are decreasing due to several reasons. The herds are arguably at a state of equilibrium or balance with what the current habitat is capable of sustaining, and this balance is affected by everything from winter feed to predators. This equilibrium amounts to carrying capacity.

If a deer herd is at carrying capacity for the existing habitat, and the UDWR says this most likely is the case in many areas, then increasing the number of bucks will come at the expense of fewer does and, especially, fawns failing to make it through the winter.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

All this back and forth sure does remind me of all the bipartisanship crap that goes on in politics. I think most of you can agree to disagree. :O•-: I think we can all agree it would be nice if the WB could just stick with a plan for a few years in a row. I hunt a recovery unit and in the last couple years it has gone from 1) a five day hunt 2) a five day delayed opener 3) a three day standard opener 4) Now back to a five day and will next be a LE, no matter what option is picked.


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

More bucks could help if it improves the active does being impregnated on their first cycle. This would in turn have all the fawns being born early and close to the same time, hence improving fawn production and survival.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SLCMULEY said:


> More bucks could help if it improves the active does being impregnated on their first cycle. This would in turn have all the fawns being born early and close to the same time, hence improving fawn production and survival.


There have been ZERO cases that has proven this to be true.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> GREEDY.................
> 
> I think greedy is thinking you have the right to have a deer tag every year...... Dont get me wrong I love hunting as a family, but reducing 13,000 tags will increase the deer herds. They might be bucks, but it will still increase the deer herds. Its a step. I love to hunt every year too, but I am willing to sacrafice for others to have a chance and for the deer to come back. I think the GREED goes both ways. And I am not a horn hunter, I have spent the last three years helping family and friends get their first deer and spend no time looking where I want to hunt. So I think that I am not greedy. So before you think that everyone for OPTION #2 is GREEDY think about your self as being greedy wanting to have a TAG every year


I contend that greed is at the root of both sides of the argument. Selfishness is at the root of any single action made by any given creature on this green earth. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial or ignorant. Now, selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing, for example; charity. If I hand a $100 bill to someone in need, it's a win/win. My motivation was to feel good about myself (greed), while serving another human being.

Example B; The guy sitting next to me at burger King gets up to take a pee and I nab half of his fries, backwash in his Diet Coke and tell his six year old son that if he tells his dad when he comes back, I'm going to kill the easter bunny. Win/Lose.

Then, we find ourselves analyzing philosophy, ie. what greed means to me is not synonymous with what greed means to my neighbor, Gertrude. Gertrude finds it perfectly acceptable to help herself to my yard tools, the use of my garbage cans and let's her kids ride their skateboards in my driveway. I on the other hand, find it intrusive and self serving for her to do so, because it doesn't fall within the philosophical boundaries that I have. Does she think she is greedy? Probably not, because knowing her, she'd probably cease to do these things if she thought otherwise. But I still think she's greedy. Did she steal my garbage cans and yard tools? I say yes, she probably likes the term "borrowed", but since they are not her tools, I believe I'll be the one making that assertion.

Please call your representatives today and demand that the wildlife board return your _stolen_ yard tools and garbage can.

Thanks, I'll be playing here all week. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

Back to the deer.

I think raising buck to doe ratios could honestly be construed as greedy, or the reduction in buck tags to achieve such an objective. 29 units, 400 units, 5000 units, it really doesn't matter if the real issues aren't addressed, and by "addressed", I mean actually doing something about it.

I also object to local control over management of certain units. I think information being distributed and originating at a local level is good, but the animals belong to all of us, (except for Jahan, because he doesn't pay taxes.) and therefore should be managed according to the wishes of all of the hunting populace, not a small community group, whether it be a group from Park Valley, Loah, Milford or anywhere else in Utah.

Everyone is blue in the face and the bottom line is that one somehow sees sense in reducing tags, which I see as nothing more than a desire to see bigger and more bucks in lieu of opportunity, or you don't. It comes down to what you want out of a hunt, for yourself, your family and future generations. These are the disputable items, whether it be tag cuts or micromanagement, it comes down to personal preference.

Having said that, I believe that management practices as a whole, at least the social ones should be a reflection of public desire. Currently and historically for the past 20 years or so, I do not believe that they are an overall reflection of public wishes. Our state is managed according to the minority voice, which inevitably is heard, because this voice shows up time and time again. Is this wrong? Mmmm, sort of. The overwhelming majority of people that volunteer time, show up to RAC meetings etc. are on the "diehard" end of the spectrum, myself included. I don't play video games, I seldom go to movies and pretty much every vacation day and extra dollar(s) go to things that are geared towards the outdoors and wildlife. Am I the average person? No. Should my opinion or wishes be heard over others? Again, I say no.

In this country, we have a few things I see as being out of hand and against the very things that I believe our country stands for. I have an above average income, should my vote count more than someone who makes less than me? Should the guy who more than me have 3 votes to my one? 
NO

But that's he way wildlife issues in Utah wind up going. The minority is making the rules and ignoring they who don't have the means or are simply not showing up. Again, is their opinion and vote any less valuable or important? Last time I checked their tag fees were the same as mine.

The indisputable are things that will actually increase deer populations, not a surplus of bucks that would diminish the second they actually did increase tag allotments, which I personally think is a silly pipe dream being sold by the buckets, but actually increase overall herd numbers.

We all know what these things are, but there are to many hands in the cookie jar to have most of these things comet to fruition in todays climate.

We can't control weather, which is a huge limiting factor, but we can control habitat to a certain degree, we can control:

*Antler-less harvest* But landowners, agricultural or suburban have their hand in the jar.

*Cougar numbers*, Houndsmen have their hand in the jar. Eliminating an extra 100 cougars this year will stand to save more deer than 13000 hunters would ever harvest, even on the best of years. Leaving more does to bred and more bucks to hunt. The compounded numbers from saving these deer could be huge.

*Coyote numbers*, We sure could do a hell of a lot more coyote control with the revenue from 13000 tags, P&R funds and license sales. There are many creative ways to implement this. Again, more deer on the range, more bucks compounded yearly.

*Highway mortality*, again, tag sales could easily pay for many projects that could save many deer, in turn creating more bucks to hunt.

*Elk numbers*? Well, there's a reason there are 0 elk objectives on the Paunsi and the Henry's. Unfortunately, the vocal minority will again get their way, much to the detriment of declining mule deer, by raising age objectives, as well as statewide elk objectives for the new five year plan that will be in place this spring.
All things that would indisputably grow more deer than cutting tag numbers. Hell, swing away at me for this one, but I believe the net result would be positive if we gave out 15000 more tags than we currently do and allocate these moneys to one of the aforementioned items. By my calculations, it'd be several million dollars.

Instead, what we stand to do is decrease revenue, decrease our support base, diminish trust in the system that's supposed to be taking care of our animals and interests, in lieu of seeing 1 or 2 bucks more during a deer season that will come less frequently.

In order to receive P&R funds, the division/board is required to adhere to a 5 year plan, which they have not done for quite some time. I yearn for the day when the results of such a plan can actually be validated, because they actually stuck to it and were able to realize and accurately analyze the results.

Lastly, regardless of your philosophy regarding this particular deer issue, I cannot see a way to get past the fashion in which this came about and the completely un-American standards by which our wildlife board and the system they are a part of operate.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

If there is 13,000 less hunters, it means there will be more deer by less harvest. Not sure what the average success ratio is for rifle but say its 20% thats 2600 deer saved. I also said it was a START, a deer is a deer. You make it sound like we should manage for does only, get real. It has to START somewhere. I am not saying that option 2 is the best answer, but neither is giving the same tags out year after year either. Something has to change, what we have been doing is not working......Everybody is more concerned with getting a tag then doing anything to help the herd. All I keep reading is option 2 wont work, its only for bucks. Less hunters pushing the mountain means less presure on the deer period. You want to help the deer herd out, stop shooting deer. We need to stop the doe permits, kill more coyotes figure out migration crossings for the deer, but those take money and good luck with that in this state. Everybody wants a piece of the pie, the pie isnt big enough anymore. So maybe you guys that are so educated can run the deer herd the way you want, oh wait thats how its been run and the deer numbers are dropping and fast... Keep it the same, no wait lets add more tags, kill more bucks. Maybe that way there will be more sage brush for the does and fawns to eat during the winter.. You show me how keeping the same deer tags is going to SAVE the does and fawns. We need more money, and yes as I am typeing this I realize 13,000 tags lost is money lost, but you still have to draw the line somewhere. Its an ongoing battle and no matter how it ends up not everybody is going to be happy. I like option #2 and I am NOT a Trophy hunter. Should we just keep it the same until all the deer are gone or what should we do?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> You show me how keeping the same deer tags is going to SAVE the does and fawns


On the flip side, show me how killing less bucks will do the same.

Neither will! The only difference is cutting hunters out of the game, so others can see a few more bucks and potentially a few more inches of antler.

Hey, If the biological consensus was that having a surplus of mature bucks was the answer to growing more deer. Hell, if the social consensus was in line, I'd be all over it.

Can anyone say mandatory survey and harvest reporting?


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

More bucks also could mean more does being pregnant, thus more fawns. Not all does are bred, maybe lack of mature bucks during the rut? I dont know? But thats better then saying less bucks means more deer :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Less than what?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

dark_cloud said:


> I am willing to sacrafice for others to have a chance and for the deer to come back....


If you are for the deer coming back, then support something that builds the herd as a whole and not some band-aid.

You talk about sacraficing for others to have a chance, but then you take that chance away.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> If there is 13,000 less hunters, it means there will be more deer by less harvest.


I tried to explain how this isn't necessarily the case a page back. I suggest reading up on the difference between additive and compensatory mortality in wildlife populations.

Just an example: if the maximum carrying capacity of the habitat is, say, 10,000 members of a given species and 9,000 of them are adult females or juveniles and 1,000 are adult males, increasing the number of males to 1,500 will cause a reduction in the number of females by 500, which maintains the 10,000 member maximum.

Mule deer, being prolific breeders that frequently give birth to twins nearly every good year, form herds that usually exist right at or just below carrying capacity. This is a species survival strategy that lets them bounce back quickly after bad winters with high mortality.

Unfortunately, habitat degradation, increased predators and other factors have resulted in Utah mule deer habitat that currently has a lower carrying capacity than it did 20 or 40 years ago. In other words, except on those units that are below carrying capacity, and the UDWR says there are likely a few, increasing the buck-to-doe ratios won't increase the total number of deer, it will simply increase the number of bucks and result in a correspondingly lower number of does and fawns.

Just for the sake of simplicity and clarity, I'll dumb it down even further. Let's say I can grow just enough hay to feed 500 head of cattle each year. Half are Holsteins and half are Jerseys. Let's say I really like the Jerseys and want more of them, so I go out and buy a 100 more head. Well, the trouble is I don't have enough hay to feed 600 head of cattle, so there's not enough food to go around, and some starve (unless I sell them), bringing the total number in the herd back down to the 500 that my yearly hay crop can support.



SLCMULEY said:


> More bucks could help if it improves the active does being impregnated on their first cycle. This would in turn have all the fawns being born early and close to the same time, hence improving fawn production and survival.


Yeah, that might be the case "if." It's an interesting idea, but I know of no studies that either support or refute it. It could be a good subject for a university-sponsored study, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a practical way for a study like that to be done.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I contend that greed is at the root of both sides of the argument. Selfishness is at the root of any single action made by any given creature on this green earth. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial or ignorant. Now, selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing, for example; charity. If I hand a $100 bill to someone in need, it's a win/win. My motivation was to feel good about myself (greed), while serving another human being.
> 
> Example B; The guy sitting next to me at burger King gets up to take a pee and I nab half of his fries, backwash in his Diet Coke and tell his six year old son that if he tells his dad when he comes back, I'm going to kill the easter bunny. Win/Lose.
> 
> ...


Now that was well said. A+


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

So basicly we can issue the same tags or more and kill more deer, the deer can manage themselves. They know exactly how many of them there are and they produce fawns accordingly? :roll:


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> So basicly we can issue the same tags or more and kill more deer, the deer can manage themselves. They know exactly how many of them there are and they produce fawns accordingly? :roll:


Geech! No, of course not. The available food, weather, predators, vehicle mortality, etc., limits their population from increasing beyond the maximum number that the habitat can sustain, not deer-initiated birth control.

A basic biology principle: populations of most species increase in numbers until they reach the maximum sustainable size that their habitat allows, then the population stabilizes and levels out at that equilibrium point where mortality roughly equals births. If the habitat declines, the maximum number that can be supported declines, and the population shrinks.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> So basicly we can issue the same tags or more and kill more deer, the deer can manage themselves. They know exactly how many of them there are and they produce fawns accordingly? :roll:


IF, work is done elsewhere with the revenue. And not "kill more deer", kill more bucks. They have triggers in the current plan that will reduce volumes of tags from the specific unit that fall below 15:100, they would still exist and displace/disperse hunters into other areas of the state. It's not like 3000 hunters from the Stansbury unit are going to flock to 9 mile canyon.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

dark_cloud said:


> Something has to change, what we have been doing is not working......I wish people would stop acting like nothing is being done. There has been a bunch done. But it does take time to show the fruits. To knee jerk every two years is stupid.Everybody is more concerned with getting a tag then doing anything to help the herd. All I keep reading is option 2 wont work, its only for bucks. Less hunters pushing the mountain means less presure on the deer period. You want to help the deer herd out, stop shooting deer. Now you're telling us that the hunting pressure is to much. We need to stop the doe permits, kill more coyotes figure out migration crossings for the deer, but those take money and good luck with that in this state. Especially when we have people trying to take more money away. Everybody wants a piece of the pie, the pie isnt big enough anymore. So maybe you guys that are so educated can run the deer herd the way you want, oh wait thats how its been run and the deer numbers are dropping and fast... You carve-up people have been carving since '95. You removed 110,000 hunters from the field of deer hunting. You have removed almost half the huntable state to LE hunts. To your way of thinking we should be stepping all over bucks. Keep it the same, no wait lets add more tags, kill more bucks. Maybe that way there will be more sage brush for the does and fawns to eat during the winter.. You show me how keeping the same deer tags is going to SAVE the does and fawns. We need more money, and yes as I am typeing this I realize 13,000 tags lost is money lost, but you still have to draw the line somewhere. Its an ongoing battle and no matter how it ends up not everybody is going to be happy. I like option #2 and I am NOT a Trophy hunter. Should we just keep it the same until all the deer are gone or what should we do?What we should do is fix the problem.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

88,000 removed themselves. I'm guessing it wasn't because they were so successful they got tired of shooting bucks?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

dark_cloud said:


> So basicly we can issue the same tags or more and kill more deer, the deer can manage themselves. They know exactly how many of them there are and they produce fawns accordingly? :roll:


No, basically we can stop blaming hunters as the single source of the problem with the decline of the deer herds. We can stop expecting to see 60 bucks on the mountain side in a morning and have the whole mountain to yourself.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> 88,000 removed themselves. I'm guessing it wasn't because they were so successful they got tired of shooting bucks?


Probably got tired of standing in line.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm sure alot did get tired of standing in line for an October camping permit.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

The long this debate goes on, the more I'm leaning towards Muley73's views. I personally think hunter recrutment will still be there if more mature bucks are being seen in the field. I also think that it's very possible that some sub units in the South could be drawn ever year or every other year. Where now it's every 3 years to get a Southern tag.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I'm sure alot did get tired of standing in line for an October camping permit.


Sorry no permits where required to go camping.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> The long this debate goes on, the more I'm leaning towards Muley73's views. I personally think hunter recrutment will still be there if more mature bucks are being seen in the field. I also think that it's very possible that some sub units in the South could be drawn ever year or every other year. Where now it's every 3 years to get a Southern tag.


The only way you will draw a tag every year or every other year will maybe if you drawn an archery tag or we loose hunters from the draw. Then you will have guys like me that only have been putting in for one choice. Now I will start filling up my choices. And you think your odds are going to be better without loosing hunters. All you need to look at is the LE hunts to see how the drawings are going to go. It's going to get harder not easier.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've said it before, I have heard more hunters in the last 2 months say they are
DONE hunting deer in Utah than I did back in 1993/94.......

13,000 less permits will probably be a non factor with changes going down and
hunters tired of not seeing deer..The permit demand will increase only when
there is MORE deer (bucks) to hunt.

The debate about which units are at carrying capacity and possible Sub-units
is EXACTLY why opt 2 and unit management is needed for deer................

Said this before too,,,,,DEER ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE,,,,more limited NOW 
than they were just 2 or 3 years ago,,,,,,

Another BEAMING factor happening as I type ,,,I've been out this morning and
the SNOW depths are UNREAL in central Utah,,,Indianola south to Manti..
SF canyon Thistle to Price....What deer are left having a VERY DIFFICULT time
moving around in 2 - 3 feet of snow...Some getting on the highways were the
snow is plowed and getting hit by vehicles,,,,at least a dozen new dead on hwy 6 today.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow is all I have to say, dark_cloud did you even read anything anyone has written? I won't waste my energy, I will just agree to disagree with you. 

Ridgetop, I rode down with you and Wes to one of the elk meetings, and from the bit of talking we did you are clearly a trophy hunter and a hell of a hunter. In my opinion that says a lot of why you and Goofy like this new option, it WILL grow more and bigger bucks, but WILL NOT grow the herd. So lets all quit lieing to ourselves, the majority of Option 2 supporters like seeing bigger and more bucks, nothing wrong with that, but don't try and cover it up by saying that is will help the herd. I agree with everything Tye said (except for me not paying Taxes :mrgreen: ), I am more concerned and bugged by the broken system that got us here. Ridgetop, you said it yourself and I agree 100% with it, we need to allow something to work long enough to see if it acutally will work. I come from a scientific background and all the evidence that I see shows Option 2 will not help the herds out.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I've said it before, I have heard more hunters in the last 2 months say they are
> DONE hunting deer in Utah than I did back in 1993/94.......
> 
> 13,000 less permits will probably be a non factor with changes going down and
> ...


I understand the desire to make things better, I REALLY do since I feel the same way. But this is a trophy mentality and I will prove it.

In 1995 there were 97,823 general deer hunters in Utah. They killed 24,595 bucks. That's a success ratio of 25%.

In 2000 there were 94,304 hunter and they killed 30,728 bucks for a success ratio of 33%.

In 2005 there were 81,204 hunters and they killed 19,688 bucks for a success ratio of 24%.

In 2009 there were 80,470 hunters and they killed 22,964 bucks for a success ratio of 28%.

If people aren't seeing deer where is the decline in success rates? Why are people still killing deer on the deer hunts? Who cares about how many deer we are seeing, let's talk about how many we are harvesting. That should be the ultimate barometer of the state of deer hunting right? After all we hunt them so harvest rates should be the ultimate guage here. We've talked about population numbers as well. Estimates show that we have more deer now than we did in 1994 by more than roughly 40,000 animals.

All the numbers say that the idea that the deer are in sharp decline is simply false. I'm on board with making improvements but this hysteria is nothing more than propeganda being spread at local coffee shops, on internet forums, and at $100 a plate banquets and fueled by a few peoples desire to see more mature bucks, because that's what we're really saying, is that there aren't enough big bucks to chase. The LE mentality of high success, lots of big bucks and low hunting pressure is slowly warping our perception of what hunting is.

You guys question the population numbers yet success rates back up those estimates. There is nothing terribly alarming going on with deer but a bunch of folks, the minority mind you, yelling and screaming that the deer are on a sharp decline. I suspect that these rumors are feeding on themselves fueled by a trophy mentality.

Am I a tad angry about it? Yes. Why? because I have been fed the same BS for 2 or 3 years now by folks in my circle and when I did my research I found that most of what I had been told was false. I felt manipulated, used, and insulted that people would use my voice to further thier agenda based on false data. When you get it in your head there are less deer, you sure seem to see less deer. I experiencd that first hand until I compared my notes from years past. It's mental, it's perceived folks. Use your common sense, look at the population estimates, look at succes rates, look at all the pictures posted on these forums of both harvested and living animals. There are still plenty of deer in Utah!!!!

Whoosh, I feel better now.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

hey Bullsnot,,,,,,,want to make a little wager on the upcoming sucess rates
and deer herd numbers coming out for 2010???

I'm betting on decline,,,,,both issues.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> hey Bullsnot,,,,,,,want to make a little wager on the upcoming sucess rates
> and deer herd numbers coming out for 2010???
> 
> I'm betting on decline,,,,,both issues.


Not a chance!!! Shortened hunts combined with terrible weather, I'm betting on low success. Make no mistake though it will have everything to do with the conditions this year, not deer numbers. Then the way this winter started, I believe we will lose some.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

This year was more difficult than most years... it took me 3 days to tag my ML buck (missed one shot opening day grrrrr), it took my wife a full 8 hours to tag her rifle buck. Saw several bucks every day out hunting.

When you hear of people that arent seeing deer... remember a signifcant percentage of hunters SUCK at hunting. some guys wont see a buck that crosses in front of their truck.

-DallanC


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> When you hear of people that arent seeing deer... remember a signifcant percentage of hunters SUCK at hunting. some guys wont see a buck that crosses in front of their truck.
> 
> -DallanC


Amen to that!

If you want to be a "trophy hunter" and shoot a big buck, and you haven't seen any on the general season for the last 4-5 years, 3 more bucks per 100 is still not going to solve your problem.

You better just keep putting in for that Henries tag.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Goofy I have to laugh at you sometimes.... I can agree with somethings you post and others... not... But this? R ya Serious? No dahh that there will be a decline, that is the trend and the problem we have... The Deer, all Deer, that ones with nuts and no nuts, are struggling and all these plans voted on do nothing to help them, and for sure not option 2! And you wagering on somethings failure? Not to classy... You would think being a sportsman (term used so lightly) would be for the betterment of the herd..... -)O(-



goofy elk said:


> hey Bullsnot,,,,,,,want to make a little wager on the upcoming sucess rates
> and deer herd numbers coming out for 2010???
> 
> I'm betting on decline,,,,,both issues.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Bullsnot why did you not use the 2008 harvest #s?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

You declining deer herd daughters need to go to this link and read post #70...

Nebo 12000 holds a chair on the central RAC.....

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 21057.html

And an other thing,,,,,,,Most of the guys I've heard comment about not hunting
general season deer are FAR FROM HUNTERS THAT SUCK at hunting!!

The ones I know that are looking at different options for deer are GOOD hunters,,,

Not the ones that get deer tags to,,,Get away, drink beer, road hunt a little, and
tell BS stories around a camp fire all night, This group hasn't even heard the
term,,,,"option 2" yet...Or COULD CARE LESS how many deer they are seeing..
OR going to quite because of deer numbers...................

That's right,,The ones that suck at hunting, go hunting for other reasons than to hunt..
I'm sure you guys all know a few like that....


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> hey Bullsnot,,,,,,,want to make a little wager on the upcoming sucess rates
> and deer herd numbers coming out for 2010???
> 
> I'm betting on decline,,,,,both issues.


I bet you forgot to factor in the 3-day hunts too..........

There where things done in 2010 to do just that lower success. So why would you expect any different.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Jahan, I for one have never said option 2 would increase the herds. From the beginning, speaking of several years ago. I thought it is really dumb how the DWR manages the deer herds by letting the hunters doing it themselves and potentionally over hunting an area. Like Muley73 was trying to explain before. So when the idea came up with the idea of manually contolling the hunters and spreading them out more evenly. I was on board with the idea. You guys are reading more into it than needs to be. Like I also said before, I will be very sad not to hunt ever year, if it comes to that but unlike many of you that have a constant negitive additude about this whole thing. I'm trying to keep a possitive outlook, no matter what the situation is.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Koby, keep your positive outlook, but try and mix some reality in as well. This IS the first step toward statewide limited entry deer hunting. In order to get all the sub-units to buck:doe ratio objectives the number of permits will need to be reduced down somewhere in the 40,000-50,000 range. Crunch the numbers and show me how where/how I am wrong.

If you admit that what was passed won't increase deer populations increase, I am confused why you support it? Are we trying to manage deer FOR hunters or BY hunters? This is the heart of the debate, IMHO.

Also, like has been stated many times, the process of how this was implemented is beyond troubling. The biologists were completely ignored, the majority of hunters wishes were ignored, all but ONE special interest groups were ignored, and following the existing management plan that was implemented less than two years ago was ignored/dismissed. This should wake people up and tick them off.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> dark_cloud said:
> 
> 
> > You show me how keeping the same deer tags is going to SAVE the does and fawns
> ...


Why hasn't there been a survey sent out to *ALL* deer tag holders.
You guys keep referring to the majority but who is that. Your friends and family?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Bart, 40 or 50K tag reduction. In what time frame? There you go with the scare tactics again. Reminds me of a NRA message I got the other day. I don't understand why more tags can't be given out to the sub units that have a higher than 25:100 buck to doe ratio. We know there are a few of them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Absolutely RIGHT Koby,,Once herd numbers are identified correctly,
and buck to doe ratios are confirmed, more tags can be issued on a unit basis..

At some point when most, or all units reach,,Carrying capacity, and target goals
of buck to doe ratios we could see permit allocations rise significantly..

Its an issue of putting the number of tags into a unit that the deer herd can support..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Bart, 40 or 50K tag reduction. In what time frame? There you go with the scare tactics again. Reminds me of a NRA message I got the other day. I don't understand why more tags can't be given out to the sub units that have a higher than 25:100 buck to doe ratio. We know there are a few of them.


Scare tactics? Again? Excuse me! I did NOT say 40k-50k tag reduction, I said a TOTAL of 40k-50k tags being issued! Like I said, do the math, and show me where/how I am off, don't just accuse me of using 'scare tactics'. While you're at it, can you or goofy tell me how the SAME people currently badmouthing the DWR numbers will suddenly believe them when they assert a subunit is at/above 25:100 ratios?  :?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

ridgetop 
Bart is not using scare tatics! He is using personal knowlege and history from what has happed with everything else. When sfw said they want bookcliff quality state wide do you think they are kidding? All you have to do is see how many tags the bookcliffs issues and then apply that model to the rest of the state to see how many tags they will have to cut to achieve their goal. Don Peay has gone on record saying he wants the state to be managed for 100% success rate with trophy animals. WTH I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes. 

Then go a step further and look at how the whole LE elk thing turned out. SFW, dwr and the wildlife board all said when the elk herds are increased to caring capacity we will increase big bull tags accordingly. Now fast forward to today and what did they just do. THEY CUT THE BIG BULL TAGS and increased spike tags state wide. I guess this is the opportunity we all wanted. :| and they will have to CUT TAGS AGAIN when the void from the spike tags are felt all because they didnt kill more 400" bulls then they killed the year before! :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lets look at the Southern Region real quick, the Region currently with the highest buck:doe ratio: Per the 2009 data posted by the DWR the buck:doe ratio for this region is 18:100. Now using a 50:100 fawn:doe ratio and an estimated population of 86,800 deer that breaks down to 9300 bucks, 25,830 fawns, and 51,670 does. Keeping the population the same, in order to get to the 25:100 ratio that MUST be met before permit increases can happen, the numbers would be 12,400 bucks, 24,800 fawns, and 49,600 does. That is an increase of 3100 bucks, a decrease of 1030 fawns, and a decrease of 2070 does. With a 29% success rate, how many permits, region wide will need to be reduced to add an extra 3100 bucks into the mix? Remember, this is the region with the HIGHEST buck:doe ratio!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
I am not a member currently or ever of the SFW. For you to say that only one group want Option 2 is UNTRUE! I know it is hard for some to believe that but there is a large group of hunters out there that support option 2. Go back and listen to all the RACs and WB meeting. Then tell me how many sportsmen stood up and supported Option 2. Actual comments made were in favor of Option 2 over Option 1 or Option 3. Please tell me you don't believe they all did that because of the SFW? 

I listened to anti Option 2 guys call sportsmen to show up and voice there opposition. Guess what, more Option 2 guys showed up. Was the SFW out rounding up transients and giving them a hot meal and smokes to go to these meetings and read a prepared card? I guess that would fall in with the "bribe" theory! One question on the "bribe". Do you think that if the WB would have votes against Option 2 , that Byron would have not given them the check?????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> I am not a member currently or ever of the SFW. For you to say that only one group want Option 2 is UNTRUE! I know it is hard for some to believe that but there is a large group of hunters out there that support option 2. Go back and listen to all the RACs and WB meeting. Then tell me how many sportsmen stood up and supported Option 2. Actual comments made were in favor of Option 2 over Option 1 or Option 3. Please tell me you don't believe they all did that because of the SFW?
> 
> I listened to anti Option 2 guys call sportsmen to show up and voice there opposition. Guess what, more Option 2 guys showed up. Was the SFW out rounding up transients and giving them a hot meal and smokes to go to these meetings and read a prepared card? I guess that would fall in with the "bribe" theory! One question on the "bribe". Do you think that if the WB would have votes against Option 2 , that Byron would have not given them the check?????


Couple of real quick clarifications: You need to STOP taking things so personal and literal, and pay attention to what is actually being said! SFW is the ONLY organized group that supported what was passed, EVERY other organized group opposed it! Do you now understand?
Second, who knows what the outcome would have been if Bateman hadn't handed over 'blood' money, all I know is it was done in poor taste and was unethical. Add that to the WB having a pre-meeting plan already typed and printed BEFORE public input and the whole circus reeks of bad form.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
Nothing about this is personal to me. Either it will happen in 2012 and we'll move forward or it won't and we'll go from there. Either way I'll keep hunting and discussing my views. 

So I'm not suppose to take you literal? Does that mean you are not really meaning what you say at times? Please clarify next time so I'll know.

For Jake to not have anything prepared would have seemed weird to me. I would hope he did his research and formed an opinion before the last meeting. If something would have changes his mind who's to say he did not have prepared statements for Option 1 or Option 3? Being prepared is not anything but being professional in a important State appointed position. I would expect nothing less from any appointed official.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> Nothing about this is personal to me. Either it will happen in 2012 and we'll move forward or it won't and we'll go from there. Either way I'll keep hunting and discussing my views. As will I, and I hope all do likewise.
> 
> So I'm not suppose to take you literal? Does that mean you are not really meaning what you say at times? Please clarify next time so I'll know. I clearly stated GROUP, exactly what GROUP do you belong to that supported what was passed? I NEVER stated INDIVIDUALS were not on both sides of the issue. Is that clear enough? :?
> ...


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Well like you stated above. We'll never know. Either way to be unprepared without an opinion formed before the final meeting seems absurd to me. 

If you could see that this option would have passed without SFW backing would your stance still be the same? I know they supported it, but I'm just curious if it is more about that one group than anything else?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Its that ONE group has too much control. Its that ONE group that has around 5000 members in the state dictates what happens, while the rest of us are left spinning in the wind. I have stated clearly that my biggest complaint is how this was implemented, but I also do NOT like what was implemented. Taking opportunity away when it will do NOTHING to fix the actual problems that are suppressing deer populations is something that I find offensive. Managing wildlife FOR, instead of BY, hunters is wrong and NOT sportsmanlike.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Bart, 40 or 50K tag reduction. In what time frame? There you go with the scare tactics again. Reminds me of a NRA message I got the other day. I don't understand why more tags can't be given out to the sub units that have a higher than 25:100 buck to doe ratio. We know there are a few of them.
> ...


Bart, why such the attack mode all the time? If I didn't know you on a personal level, I would thing your quite the jerk! :lol: jk
I thought there was around 90K hunters. With only 40-50K tags issued. (IYHO) Wouldn't that be 40-50K reduced? I guess my math could be off. 
In the South, the Zion, Pine Valley and Southwest Desert all have higher than 20:100 buck to doe ratios but the those units going back to a 9 day season this year (against public input) that should lower the ratio in a big way.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I think going forward with unit management on deer provides the BEST opportunity
we've had YET to actually FIX deer herds.................................

You guys that say we were already managing "deer by the unit" are right,,
IF your referring to MANAGMENT on paper...

Its time now to look at every deer unit through a microscope and make the RIGHT
changes on individual units......Move forward, NOT leaving deer status quo..........
when we finish the 2011 season , we will have tried REGIONAL management for 18 years..
That's long enough...


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Goofy,
You could not be more correct!

Pro,
I understand what you are saying, but I feel too many food sportsman like yourself are too caught up in slaying the giant. Focus on what is hurting each deer herd right now is my number one concern. 29 units is a step in the right direction for doing this. If we don't move forward we will not be successful that is a fact.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> You guys that say we were already managing "deer by the unit" are right,,IF your referring to MANAGMENT on paper...


There's a ring of truth there, but let's get straight on a point of fact. The DWR has been doing everything within its budget and legal authority to implement management plan strategies.

They've also partnered with other agencies, organizations and the public whenever possible in efforts to maximize their effectiveness - efforts that are often obstructed or defeated by self-interested "sportsmen" who can't connect the dots. So to suggest that nothing's been done is just plain ignorant and an insult to the good folks who have actually been doing the work.

Still, we can do better...a lot better.

But the system is seriously messed up and to expect improved management under the circumstances makes no sense. We've invested all authority in 7 men. We expect them to responsibly carry the ridiculous workload of managing all protected wildlife without the benefit of any real checks or balances, no measures of accountability and very few guidelines.

With all due respect to the Board members and with sincere gratitude for their efforts, the result is a decision-making process that was designed to be bottom-up, but often operates top-down, directed by a body that changes its mind from one year to the next, admits to knee-jerk decisions that haven't been thought out or well planned and bawls as it ignores science.

If we want more bang for the buck, we need to take some personal responsibility as citizens and help these gentlemen be successful in their intended function. There are a number of relatively easy and immediate ways to do that.

A friend of mine recently suggested mandatory polling as part of the permit application process - eliminate the speculation about what the majority of us want. I doubt any WB member would object to having that sort of information at hand.

My personal favorite is to put the North American Wildlife Conservation Model into the state code. The DWR is already guided by these simple principles. Why not require the Board that directs their actions be guided by the same principles?
http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/HuntersCons ... /Model.htm


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I think going forward with unit management on deer provides the BEST opportunity
> we've had YET to actually FIX deer herds.................................
> 
> You guys that say we were already managing "deer by the unit" are right,,
> ...


Wrong!

As has been repeatedly said, the herds have absolutely _not_ been managed regionally for 18 years. It's the hunters who have been managed that way. The herds have been managed on a herd unit scale for many years now.

The only thing that's going to change is that hunters will be managed in ways that cut their numbers and spreads them around to better facilitate a few more percentage points of bucks in most of the herds. The actually management of the herds themselves is going to stay exactly the same as it has for years, because everything from habitat projects to herd estimates to predator control to range trend studies to long-term planning has already been happening on the unit scale or smaller. When it comes to deer, the UDWR doesn't, and hasn't for years, thought in terms of regional management and regional solutions - they think in terms of individual herd populations, and there's nothing in this new Wildlife Board-driven plan that changes that.

Hunters have mistakenly assumed that deer have been managed regionally because most hunter experience with deer is closely tied to their regional hunting experiences. There's nothing in this option 2 plan that will change the way the UDWR has been managing the deer. All that will change is fewer permit number, and those numbers will be juggled around in an effort to increase the percentage of bucks in the unit herds from the low teens to the high teens.

This won't help the deer herds (unless your idea of a better herd is one with a slightly higher percentage of bucks). This won't change the way the UDWR manages the herds (unless you count the negative effect of fewer permit dollars coming in). It won't lead to more deer. It won't improve habitat. It won't address vehicle mortality. It won't address invasive species. It won't give us better count surveys. It won't address predators. It won't address diseases. It won't address urban encroachment on winter ranges. It won't address range rehabilitation. It won't address winter kill. It won't address winter feeding, and it basically doesn't do a danged thing to improve the UDWR's ability to fix the underlying problems that are facing our herds.

It will, however, result in a slightly higher percentage of bucks in the herds that will compete with does and fawns for winter feed. And if you're lucky enough to get one of the reduced number of permits, it will provide a slightly higher percentage of bucks to shoot at. If that's what you want, great, you'll get just that. You won't, however, get more total deer or a change in the way that the UDWR has managed deer because there's nothing in these smaller hunting units that's going to make any difference there because this new plan doesn't switch the UDWR over to managing deer at a herd unit level since they already do just that. You'll see a few more bucks and their ratios to does will be evened out more effectively across the state, but that's really about it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Bart, why such the attack mode all the time? If I didn't know you on a personal level, I would thing your quite the jerk! :lol: jk
> I thought there was around 90K hunters. With only 40-50K tags issued. (IYHO) Wouldn't that be 40-50K reduced? I guess my math could be off.
> In the South, the Zion, Pine Valley and Southwest Desert all have higher than 20:100 buck to doe ratios but the those units going back to a 9 day season this year (against public input) that should lower the ratio in a big way.


Since you know me, you should know ny now that I AM a jerk! :O•-:

As for 'attack mode', correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't it YOU that accused ME of using scare tactics?  I am STILL waiting for you, goofy, Muley73, or any other supporters of what was passed to show where my numbers are off as far as eventual permit numbers. My guess, it will be a long wait.......

HunterGeek you are one smart cookie! You and Finn need to be on the WB instead of the yokels on there now.

Excellent link Finn, hopefully those who like what was passed will take the time to visit it.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

HunterGeek amd Finn, you have made great posts. Too bad it will fall on deaf ears. I have tried to stay away from these posts because nothing positive seems to come from on-line debates. Just had to say those posts were very well written.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Packout said:


> HunterGeek amd Finn, you have made great posts. Too bad it will fall on deaf ears. I have tried to stay away from these posts because nothing positive seems to come from on-line debates. Just had to say those posts were very well written.


I agree Packout. But, I do think there are still a LOT of ears that are listening, and learning...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > HunterGeek amd Finn, you have made great posts. Too bad it will fall on deaf ears. I have tried to stay away from these posts because nothing positive seems to come from on-line debates. Just had to say those posts were very well written.
> ...


I agree with stillhunterman. I personally have learned a lot from shared views of many on here, Packout being one of the main ones to have helped educate me. I have seen others on here completely alter their views after being shown the 'light'. I was once 100% in support of things I now 100% oppose. I recall thinking finn, Packout, wyoming2utah, HunterGeek, among others were battier than a three dollar bill. Now I find myself agreeing with them more and more. We MUST educate each other on the issues, on sound biology, on the bigger picture.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > Packout said:
> ...


+1 i have been educated as well and I was also one of the ones defending sfw on every issue only 3 years ago. I used to think if your not for hunting you might as well be peta. Well some of these organizations are better at dividing us up then peta could ever done. Its a shame if you ask me. If we managed our deer/elk herds for whats good for our herds we could have way better opportunity and a reasonable trophy quality.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Guys, I commend your efforts for trying to make a difference. I do have a word of advice. For those who are on the fence about these issues and have asked the tough questions. Instead of throwing sticks, stones and even mud at those asking simple questions about the pros and cons with these different options. To the point the fence sitter is knocked down to the other side. How about getting a step ladder and reaching out with a friendly hand helping the person down onto your side and not just climbing up onto the top of the ladder after the persons been knocked down and then chastise them even more from above. Just a thought. You just might get a little more support that way. I also have found this post to be somewhat educational and very entertaining. o-||


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I just have a hard time writting the same thing over and over again....... I need a permanent cut and paste option. Happy New Years boys.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OK..Packout, Finn, Pro, HG, WtoU,,,,,,
You tell me WHY your management ideas will NOT work under option 2?????

Then tell me how "your management" strategies wouldn't work better if
you could have control of hunter numbers in a specific unit???????????
Rather it be MORE tags or less???

Seems to me you "anti" option 2 guys would be better off IMBRACING
option 2 and put your fight into implement the strategies from the MDP...

Because that's where myself and others are at.......
The mule deer committees strategies will work PERFECT along with opt.2...
Right OR Wrong??????

Strategies:
a. Review individual herd unit management plans and revise where necessary to provide
consistency with this plan.
b. Support all habitat objectives and strategies in this plan to protect and improve mule
deer habitat including energy development mitigation in crucial mule deer habitat.
c. Manage predators on all units that are chronically below objective, and habitat is not
limiting, according to current predator management policy. (Appendix A).
d. Investigate and manage disease outbreaks that threaten mule deer populations. Adopt
a specific management plan for chronic wasting disease (CWD).
e. Work with Federal and state land management agencies to adopt seasonal closures or
travel restrictions to minimize human disturbance of wintering mule deer.
f. Use antlerless harvest as the primary tool to manage deer populations in specific areas
where range concerns or depredation problems exist.
g. Continue to monitor all mule deer populations annually to evaluate fawn production,
herd composition, and habitat use.
h. Implement a method to collect annual adult doe and fawn mortality estimates on
representative units statewide.
i. Use standardized, reliable population models to evaluate herd size and population
trends over time.
j. Work with UDOT, Universities, local conservation groups, and landowners to
minimize highway mortality by identifying locations of high deer-vehicle collisions
and erecting sufficient wildlife crossing structures in those locations. Evaluate the
effectiveness of the crossing structures over time and implement new technologies to
improve future wildlife crossing structures.
k. Implement research studies on specific herd units that are chronically below
population objective to identify problems and recommend solutions.
l. Support incentive programs for landowners that will encourage deer populations on
private lands such as the CWMU, landowner permit, and the Walk-In Access
programs.
m. Address all depredation problems in a timely and efficient manner to increase
landowner tolerance of migratory deer populations.
n. Work with municipalities to promote zoning that benefits mule deer on winter ranges
that have the potential to be developed.
o. Support law enforcement efforts to educate the public concerning poaching and reduce
illegal taking of deer.
p. Implement emergency feeding when needed in accordance with DWR feeding policy


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> Guys, I commend your efforts for trying to make a difference. I do have a word of advice. For those who are on the fence about these issues and have asked the tough questions. Instead of throwing sticks, stones and even mud at those asking simple questions about the pros and cons with these different options. To the point the fence sitter is knocked down to the other side. How about getting a step ladder and reaching out with a friendly hand helping the person down onto your side and not just climbing up onto the top of the ladder after the persons been knocked down and then chastise them even more from above. Just a thought. You just might get a little more support that way. I also have found this post to be somewhat educational and very entertaining. o-||


Yep, agree with ya there ridge!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Goofy,
I really would like the same question answered. I truly believe that there are many great ideas out there and they can be better implemented with micro managed units. I also believe we gave seen an increase in in these ideas since Option 2 has passed. 

My concern is alot of guys opposing change would oppose anything SFW is involved in. That is sad to me. I don't always agree with SFW, but I won't let that disagreement force me to not support what I believe is right. I believe this is not the case with some.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> OK..Packout, Finn, Pro, HG, WtoU,,,,,,
> You tell me WHY your management ideas will NOT work under option 2?????
> 
> Then tell me how "your management" strategies wouldn't work better if
> ...


For me, it comes down to two primary things:
1)The way it was implemented.
2)The lost opportunity that we will likely NEVER get back.

Until those two issues are rectified, I will not be happy nor will I simply lower my principles for the sake of being more 'agreeable'. Yes, I have no doubt I could sugar coat things better, but sometimes I believe people must be hit right between the eyes with reality. Taking hunter opportunity away, both in permit numbers and the size of the areas one is allowed to hunt, for reasons that are anything BUT based on biology and the welfare of the deer is unacceptable to me. Therefore, I can't just "IMBRACE" what was passed! I will only 'embrace' policies that focus on fixing the actual limiting factors and on ways to increase hunter opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> My concern is alot of guys opposing change would oppose anything SFW is involved in. That is sad to me. I don't always agree with SFW, but I won't let that disagreement force me to not support what I believe is right. I believe this is not the case with some.


You know, for someone who acts 'offended' by things I have said that supposedly made you look bad, you come up with some whoppers on your own. I ask you to identify ONE person on here you think fits your little scenario of opposing things simply because SFW is for it. Once you identify this ONE person, please list the reasons you have come to such an ABSURD conclusion. Thank you in advance.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Because that's where myself and others are at.......
> The mule deer committees strategies will work PERFECT along with opt.2...
> Right OR Wrong??????


Wrong! It crippled the DWR due to the budget issue! Now they have to attempt to do more with less! If they have to loose a single DWR field officer job due to option 2 we are worse off.

Jim K stated in the meeting they will work with the reduced budget and that includes a reduction in services.

-DallanC


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The law enforcement "field officer's" Budget comes from the general funds
portion of the budget,,,,,,,,,TAX DOLLARs,,,,,,,,,,,Not from license sales.

Here's a break down of the 2010 budget....

DWR's annual budget for fiscal year 2010 was about $67 million. DWR receives the following types of revenue:

Restricted funds: The majority of DWR's revenue is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and permits. These funds are restricted for exclusive use by DWR and cannot be transferred to other state agencies. One hundred percent of the license dollars collected stay within the DWR to carry out the division's mission to conserve and protect the wildlife of Utah. Funding overages or shortages are managed through an interest-bearing account maintained by the State Treasurer. Other types of funding in this category are revenues from Certificates of Registration (CORs), donations, wildlife license plates and miscellaneous fees.

Federal funds: Each year, the DWR receives federal funds for wildlife, sportfish and sensitive and endangered species. Federal funds for the wildlife and sport fish programs come from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The DWR receives revenue allocated by the USFWS from federal excise taxes on hunting and shooting equipment and fishing equipment and motorboat fuel. Each state's allocation is based on the state's hunting and fishing license sales and land area. These funds are generally matched with state funds in the ratio of 75 percent federal to 25 percent state funds.

Federal funding for sensitive and endangered species is generally distributed through grant requests. The DWR has received between $200,000 and $13 million annually for research and habitat protection for sensitive and endangered species. Other federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense, award funds to accomplish their agency goals on a contract basis.

Dedicated funds: Certain operations, such as Hardware Ranch, generate limited funds to be used only by the DWR. Contributions are also dedicated funds.

General funds: General funds (tax dollars) account for just over 11 percent of DWR's annual budget. These funds are used primarily for sensitive species, law enforcement, wildlife depredation and some fish hatchery programs. Because the legislature has indicated that the DWR should not use hunting or fishing license revenue to fund nongame species management, these funds help cover the costs of nongame management.

Sorry Dallan,,,,,take another shot.....


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> OK..Packout, Finn, Pro, HG, WtoU,,,,,,
> You tell me WHY your management ideas will NOT work under option 2?????
> 
> Then tell me how "your management" strategies wouldn't work better if
> ...


Most of the UDWR's management plans will still work under the Option 2 plan. Like I said, the Option 2 plan isn't about managing herds unit-by-unit- that's already being done. Instead, Option 2 is about controlling hunter numbers with the objective of growing a few more larger and older bucks in each herd unit. Even so, it's still possible to manage for for healthy deer herds, better habitat, better predator control, etc., and I'm certain those in charge will attempt to do just that since Option 2 doesn't really address those issues.

The Option 2 plan, however, won't increase the UDWR's ability to do their work. It only takes 10 or 12 bucks per hundred (according to the best studies available) to adequately impregnate all the does. There haven't been many units in the state to drop below that ratio, and when they have dropped too low, special hunting regs have usually been imposed. The Option 2 goal of 18 or more bucks per hundred, according to the professionals, does nothing to help the deer herds grow since no additional fawns will result from it.

What the Option 2 plan will do, however is:


Unnecessarily reduce hunter opportunity for the sake of a marginal increase in the number of bucks.[/*:m:1f1u1vgj]
These extra bucks will compete with does and fawns for limited winter habitat[/*:m:1f1u1vgj]
Reduced revenue to the DWR from fewer permits sales will do one of two things: decrease services or higher fees[/*:m:1f1u1vgj]
This whole Option 2 fiasco has also largely derailed the UDWR's preferred hunt restructuring plans that they had been working on for a couple of years. Not only were these plans derailed by the out-of-left-field and special-interest-driven Wildlife Board demands, the demands ran contrary to what the UDWR's surveys had indicated that the majority of their constituency actually wanted.

The Option 2 plan is not rooted in biological science. Instead, it's a political decision made by a bunch of over-the-hill political hacks who lack wildlife biology credentials and who, for all intents and purposes, seem firmly allied with the special interest groups that will benefit financially and influence-wise from bigger bucks and fewer permits for the average Joe hunter.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Sorry Dallan,,,,,take another shot.....


You directed this at DallanC, but I'll answer too. The restricted funds from the sale of hunting permits will decrease under the Option 2 plan. Restricted dollars, under state law, must be used for specific purposes. General fund dollars, for the most part, don't have these restrictions associated with them. This leaves the UDWR with several choices - one of which is to shift unrestricted dollars from their General Funds appropriation to pay for those essential programs hardest hit by the reduction in permit fees. This very well could result in a decreased law enforcement budget.

If I had to guess, however, the UDWR will make up for the decreased dollars coming in from permit sales by lobbying the legislature to increase the cost of the remaining permits.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Sorry Dallan,,,,,take another shot.....


I posted what Jim Karpowitz himself said during the WB meeting. You can go read / listen to those minutes yourself. You cannot deny he did say it, and that there could be a reduction in services due to the reduced license sales.

I reckon he knows more about the budget allocations than all of us combined.

-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro, 
I have commented on one issue that I felt should offend all sportsmen. Really? I have not commented on personal comments made toward myself or my dad. I listen to some guys on hear tell all Option 2 guys to stand up and just admit it is only about inches. Yet those same individuals seem to be more concerned with the power of the SFW than the real issues hurting our deer herds. 

Man, to say that is not a huge reason some are against Option 2 blows me away. Bart, if you really do not see that it surprises me!

Gentlemen, good luck on forming a new power organization and I hope you all save my deer herds. But I believe I'll fight my battles where the battle takes place for real. When and if you do get that change you are fighting for I'll see you there! Until then good luck!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Goofy- Hunter Geek made a decent post on the subject. 

I'll add- Option 2 can be implemented to go along with the current plan. The problem with this is that there will be very little change to the herd dynamics. Going from 14 to 18 bucks on some units and 18 to 18 bucks on others does little for the herd, but unnecessarily restricts hunters futher. Contrary to popular belief, the Mule Deer Committee did consider Unit by Unit buck management, but rejected it to try other avenues of controlling hunters. 

Of course you should understand that Option 2 did not pass the Board. Rather the Board passed wording which gives the Board the liberty to draw lines around herds at their wishes. The current 50 or so units and sub-units are now up in the air as to whether or not they will conotinue to be the areas which are used to manage our herds. If the Board decides to arribitrarily draw unit boundaries then the data collected by the UDWR over the past 20+ years becomes obsolite. 

The problem is the Board CHOSE not to follow through with a plan which was endorsed by SFW, MDF, BLM, UDWR, FS, UBA, BOU, CWMU, Public, RACs, and the Board itself. We have now divided ourselves, cut hunters from hunting (I never said killing). That is a travesty. All done in the name of "Helping Mule Deer", but it only helps mule deer bucks on some units. Those who pushed Option 2 could have pushed the Board to follow the Plan and check on how it is being implemented. 

And that is where the REAL problem with this change comes into play-- Special interests (not saying any group in particular) lobbying to manage according to their "Social" wishes. 

How will micro-management of hunters increase DEER populations on all units?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> I have commented on one issue that I felt should offend all sportsmen. Really? I have not commented on personal comments made toward myself or my dad. I listen to some guys on hear tell all Option 2 guys to stand up and just admit it is only about inches. Yet those same individuals seem to be more concerned with the power of the SFW than the real issues hurting our deer herds.
> 
> Man, to say that is not a huge reason some are against Option 2 blows me away. Bart, if you really do not see that it surprises me!
> ...


Like I asked, name ONE person that fits your label, just ONE. I also will focus my energy and resources on where things really happen and where the average schmo has a chance to get things fixed, and that is NOT via the RAC/WB process! This is all political, and it where we MUST focus in order to turn things around and get back to managing wildlife BY hunters instead of FOR hunters. The evidence is overwhelming that what was passed has NOTHING to do with biology, NOTHING to do with growing more deer, and NOTHING to promote a sustained/sustainable resource. Yet, people that support what was passed want to assert that those who oppose this vile pile of dung do so simply because of the ONE group that supports it. Utter nonsense!

I can surely relate to personal attacks my friend, I have experienced plenty myself. I don't lose any sleep over such. You, IMHO, are once again missing my point. Maybe I need to find better ways of communicating with you. Perhaps when we meet in person as planned I can better explain my points. Until then, I will try harder to be more clear with my posts. Have a good one, and stay warm. Its **** cold here in Tooele, I imagine its a tad bit colder in your neck of the woods. 8)


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Because that's where myself and others are at.......
> The mule deer committees strategies will work PERFECT along with opt.2...
> Right OR Wrong??????


The deer management strategies will work fine on the micro units. The hunter management portion of the plan is so bad it can't be salvaged. That part of the plan is a direct blow to deer hunters in Utah. One that many will never recover from. Again if it benefitted the deer then fine, but it doesn't.

The way the minimum buck to doe ratios are written create lots of problems. There is no way to preserve tags long term with that portion of the plan. The standards are too high starting with the minimum going right up to the 25:100 before tags come back. This plan was designed in a way that tags probably won't ever come back on most units once they fall below the 18 minimum.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Yeah I knew it passed.

I was reading some of the latest fence sitters posts just now, so as you put it


> "The deer management strategies will work fine on the micro units. The hunter management portion of the plan is so bad it can't be salvaged."


 , then are the groups coming together to fight the plan being putting into effect trying to jettision the whole thing or just rewrite the hunter management portion of it?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Mojo1 said:


> Yeah I knew it passed.
> 
> I was reading some of the latest fence sitters posts just now, so as you put it _"The deer management strategies will work fine on the micro units. The hunter management portion of the plan is so bad it can't be salvaged."_ , then are the groups coming together to fight the plan being putting into effect trying to jettision the whole thing or just rewrite the hunter management portion of it?


What plan? There WAS already in place a mule deer management plan, and it was doing things on a per micro-unit basis. Did you not notice different season lengths on several different micro units this year?

That 5 year plan got tossed out the window in favor of attempting to grow 3 more bucks per 100 does... but ignoring fawn recruitment and herd growth.

-DallanC


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> ...then are the groups coming together to fight the plan being putting into effect trying to jettision the whole thing or just rewrite the hunter management portion of it?


You're confusing somewhat separate things. There's the general deer management plan that was adopted in 2008. There are also the unit-by-unit management plans that were adopted in 2006 and specifically address the deer management issues in the individual deer herd units.

The Option 2 thing is mostly separate from these plans. The Option 2 plan is an additional plan that the Wildlife Board came up with and, despite UDWR objections, forced upon the UDWR in their last board meeting. The Option 2 plan doesn't invalidate the previous general or individual deer herd unit plans. The Option 2 plan isn't really about managing deer - it's about decreasing the number of hunters in an effort to to produce somewhat higher buck-to-doe ratios.

In a nutshell, the UDWR has managed deer by individual herd units for years but has managed deer hunters on a more regional basis. The Wildlife Board has mandated that the UDWR now manage hunters according to these smaller units. The Wildlife Board's goal in doing this is to more uniformly ensure an increased ratio of bucks to does across the state, and in order to do this, fewer bucks must be harvested so permit numbers must be decreased. In other words, there will be fewer but more expensive permits, and for those lucky enough to get permits, a few more and, possibly, larger bucks but more restricted areas in which they may hunt.

The UDWR says that this higher buck-to-doe ratio won't do anything to actually increase the size of the herds. Instead, it will only produce a few more bucks and will do so at the expense of hunter opportunity and increased competition with does and fawns for habitat resources.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks huntergeek for elaborating on what I was trying to say. In short the recent changes effect hunters but do nothing the improve deer herds (deer management). In simple terms we just eliminated the ability to deer hunt for 13,000 people so the remianing hunters may see a FEW more bucks while hunting.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Instead, it will only produce a few more bucks and will do so at the expense of hunter opportunity and increased competition with does and fawns for habitat resources.

If the extra bucks are going to compete with does and fawns for habitat, then so are extra does and fawns. You cant have both. If there is not habitat for extra bucks, then there is no habitat for extra does and fawns. If there is that much competition for habitat, then the deer herds are at capacity, and it doesnt have any room for any more deer period, does/fawns or bucks.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Guys I was reading this thread along with another and posting in it or at least I thought I did :lol: 

However the more I read, if you ask me it sounds like the typical political fix, come up with the greatest plan ever, fix nothing while muddling up things more, and then pat yourself on the back for doing something, all while pissing off everyone, that just about explain it in a nutshell? :O•-: 

how in the **** do you guys keep all this threads straight? :lol:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mojo1 said:


> how in the **** do you guys keep all this threads straight? :lol:


I had to hire help! :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Sure, you'd start to see health issues if you were grossly over capacity. 

What determines capacity? Available winter forage? Available thermal cover? summer forage? I'm sure there are areas that have great summer forage, but very limited winter forage and thermal cover and vice versa.

The issue with carrying excess bucks comes when a sever winter, drought or large scale unexpected die of arrives. The higher the percentage of bucks, beyond a solid number to ensure breeding of receptive does, the slower the herd or herds will rebound.

For example; Scenario A) In an area that has 1350 deer and a 35/100 buck to doe ratio (Assuming it's at capacity, because that's what we are discussing). has a 50% winter kill, with the average spanning across all segments of the deer population, you would end up with 175 bucks and 500 does, with residual offspring according to the number of does for years to follow. 

Scenario B) you have the same 1350 deer with a 15 to 100 buck to doe ratio. you would be left with 101 bucks and 574 does. This obviously is only 74 more does left after this scenario, but after 3 or 4 years, the numbers compounded would be quite different from Scenario A, at 500 does having fawns. 

This will obviously vary different areas where the fawn mortality rates are different, but in the end, no matter how you slice it, more does = faster recovery and more bucks to harvest after such an occurrence and based on results, it will happen fairly frequently.

We all get on here and talk about so many different issues created or negated by the recent changes, but really, the only net difference is a few more bucks on the landscape. Whether that is a good or bad biological step is definitely open to discussion other than our state biologists have stated that biologically, it's a net zero as far as deer numbers are concerned. I'm not sure what there is to argue.

Hunter disbursement for quality of hunt? Sure, but what exactly do the folks that buy deer tags in the state feel about this? How do the majority define "quality"? Do most want better antler size and less competition at the expense of not hunting as frequently?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SOOO true Tree,,There really IS NO right or wrong answers in 90% of
what has been discussed in these 1,298 deer management, option "whatever" threads..

Its more of a point of view,,,personal opinions,,, And that is what has split this 
into the opportunity versus quality issue.......................

I think you said it before Tree,,,,,,,,,,Greed on both sides,,,pretty much sums up the situation.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> huntergeek said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, it will only produce a few more bucks and will do so at the expense of hunter opportunity and increased competition with does and fawns for habitat resources.
> ...


That's true, but the carrying capacity isn't tightly fixed. Instead it's the result of almost everything from road fatalities to predation to disease to hunting pressure to drought to nutrition and so on. Carrying capacity is essentially the point at which an equilibrium exists between the number of animals dying and the number being born, and this balancing point is the combination of all these.

The real question is not whether or not more bucks will compete with does and fawn for habitat resources, but whether or not that competition is additive or compensatory in nature. If the displacement is additive, the size of the herd will decline in size just enough to reach a new equilibrium point that is limited by the poorer fawn production from fewer does and decreased first-year survival of fawns. If it's compensatory, this effect will be offset by the decreased significance of other limiting factors and the population will remain stable.

Even so, your point is well taken, and whether the effect is additive or compensatory is something with so many variables that it's difficult to determine ahead of time. The UDWR has stated in meetings that they believe that despite herd size objectives being larger than the current size that achieving those objectives will require increasing carrying capacity, and so their extensive habitat rehabilitation projects have focused on doing this.

If many of the herds in the state are, in fact, at or near their current multi-year carrying capacity of their habitats to support higher numbers, the effects of a higher buck-to-doe ratio will be additive in nature, and we can expect to see a slight reduction in total herd numbers as a result of decreased fawn production and survival. And as Treehugnhuntr mentioned, a delayed rebound in herd numbers after tough winters.

Still, what will actually happen in all of this is vague, plagued with unknown variables and will probably differ from one unit to the next. My best guess is that either way, the effects will be mostly negligible, so even though I mentioned it in my previous post as a consideration, I don't consider it to be the main one. It's just that I don't like gambling when both the known (decreased hunter opportunity and higher tag prices) and potential losses (decrease in total herd size) outweigh the potential gains (a slight increase in buck numbers).


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> SOOO true Tree,,There really IS NO right or wrong answers in 90% of
> what has been discussed in these 1,298 deer management, option "whatever" threads..
> 
> Its more of a point of view,,,personal opinions,,, And that is what has split this
> ...


I think you're right....BUT......if we are going to make changes to the deer hunting/management policies I think that they either need to a) benefit the wildlife or b) benefit a majority of hunters if there is no benefit to wildlife. I mean we are saying this is a social issue only right? So if we are going to make a change for hunters shouldn't most hunters agree with the change? It seems rather simple, rather elementary to me. And in this case I have seen ZERO evidence to suggest that the majority support the recent changes. To be fair there is nothing to say definitively the majority disagree with the changes but what indicators there are out there suggest that most people that understand the changes don't agree and those that do agree don't understand the changes and change their mind once they do.

I'm noticing more and more as time goes on the pro O2 guys are talking about the mirco units. The real loss in this plan is in the buck to doe ratios and the tag cuts.


----------

