# Utah is now statewide LE



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Good luck.


-DallanC


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

:-(


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

Where did you see that info?


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> Where did you see that info?


Because we are listening to it live online and some of us are also sitting at the meeting.

Option 2 is passed and done.

Archers are not able to hunt state wide anymore


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Now I wonder how they are going to deal with Bonus points vs Preference Pts. They need to just phase out Preference Pts, its stupid to have multiple systems.


-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

Archers are not able to hunt state wide anymore


did they shorten the season as well?


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| 

I can not say that I am sad. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

And I also can not wait to hear all the SUPER Whining from all the bowhunters!! :twisted:


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Extended Wasatch just got alot better!!!!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

utfireman said:


> Extended Wasatch just got alot more crowded!!!!


Fixed it for you.

-DallanC


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

One thing I am thankful for is they did this before I got my kid hooked on big game hunting because now the deer hunt will be as big a joke as the elk hunt. I choose not to participate in this fallacy any longer. I am done supporting Utahs wildlife mgmt or should I say hunter management. I will just buy a hunting video game.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Works for me,,,,
Buy point for 2 or 3 years and actually hunt were there are some nice bucks :!:


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

How so? Dedicated hunters cant hunt it, and other archery hunters wont be able to. Only those with that archery permit will be allowed to hunt it.


16,000 archery hunters into 29 units equals 551 archery hunters per unit.

I have 3 deer points already, looks like I will have a great hunt in a couple of years.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

Is it going to be the same you choose between deer, elk, speed goat? Or since its LE you can put in for elk as well?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Works for me,,,,
> Buy point for 2 or 3 years and actually hunt were there are some nice bucks :!:


There are nice bucks in the Bookcliffs... remind me, how many points does it take to draw again? 7? 8?

The better the bucks get in an area, the more people wanting to hunt there and the more applications, the longer the wait.

IMO poaching is going to skyrocket. Option 2 removes minimum $700k, and it could be double that, from the DWR budget, we all agree there arent enough officers currently to enforce existing units. Jim K actually said they might have to reduce officers and services to meet the future diminished budget.

-DallanC


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Works for me,,,,
> Buy point for 2 or 3 years and actually hunt were there are some nice bucks :!:


Does the top of your head get sore after kneeling under Dons desk? You can't see the forest for the trees. You might get to see one extra buck per day in a couple years but you only get to hunt every 3-5 yrs.Eventually managing for more bucks will actually mean less bucks as well as a smaller herd. MF'ers like you that think hunting is about inches make me want to puke in my mouth.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

As someone who attended this joke of a Wildlife Board meeting, the board already had their minds made, probably months ago. The motion presented was read from a prepared statement!! Not too happy right now!!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

The sad part about this is that the decision was made yesterday and leak last night as I herd first hand from a former board member.

Another BS decision is to extend more limited entry status in the Range Creek area while allowing property owners general status on their hunting rights.

I know several FNAWS and SFW members who are not happy with the outcome of today’s decisions. Saturday night at the FNAWS banquet may get interesting.
Big


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

utfireman said:


> I have 3 deer points already, looks like I will have a great hunt in a couple of years.


I'm sure you will. So will others. But, what about your kids? And my kids?

hunting opportunity just took a turn in the wrong direction. It is becoming more, and more a rich-man's sport, very similar to the way it is in Europe. This is a sad day.

On the bright side, it sure makes it easier for me to plan trips to Canada in the fall. No more trying to divide up money / vacation time / resources. It all goes to fish now!


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

> Eventually managing for more bucks will actually mean less bucks as well as a smaller herd. MF'ers like you that think hunting is about inches make me want to puke in my mouth.


Did you even listen to the broadcast?. It was mentioned over and over that this is jsut a small step into helping the herds.

It was stressed over and over from the wildlife board that we need to do more for decreasing fawn mortality, increasing predator harvest and decreasing road mortality, and that we need to step up our programs to acomplish those three things. Doing those three things, with the habitat projects in place, and reduced hunter harvest will help our herds.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Now I would expect deer points, "limited entry and preference" will be combined
into one system..

It will still be a long wait for the Henrys, Books, San Juan, etc....

But there's going to be some sleepers come on REAL quick!!
Only 2 or 3 years with limited buck harvest and place like Manti or boulder could
get SMOKE'in hot for bigger deer..............I'll be watching for my hot spot..


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Did you even listen to the broadcast?. It was mentioned over and over that this is jsut a small step into helping the herds.
> 
> *It was stressed over and over from the wildlife board that we need to do more for decreasing fawn mortality, increasing predator harvest and decreasing road mortality*, and that we need to step up our programs to acomplish those three things. Doing those three things, with the habitat projects in place, and reduced hunter harvest will help our herds.


So why the change to 29 units, shorter archery season, no more statewide archery hunt, and limit buck tags? How does any of that accomplish decreasing fawn mortality, increasing predator harvest, and decreasing road mortality?

I heard the WB say the same things -- which confuses me because the issue at had was a hunting change that only focuses on growing more bucks.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Going to be fun competing with those 3000 lifetime license holders that get to check a box to determine which LE unit they want their free tag in. They get their tag every year. 


-DallanC


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

> I'm sure you will. So will others. But, what about your kids? And my kids?


I don't feel like I have to hunt deer every year, Infact I have a DH tag and I am starting my 3rd year, and I have yet to pick up a weapon and go out hunting. I go camping every fall towards the end of October. It's not the hunt that draws me to camp at that time, its the group of friends. Out of 30 friends, maybe 5 have a deer tag!

There are many other forms of hunting that can be used to get a kid involve with hunting that doesnt require as much work as deer hunting.

And if that doesn't work, the state increased the spike tags back up this past year. There is still lots of hunting to go around to get kids involved. To base youth recruitment solely on the deer hunt is both wrong and stupid.


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

The state will still have LE deer units, the whole state is not LE.....there are 29 general units...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

utfireman said:


> To base youth recruitment solely on the deer hunt is both wrong and stupid.


it certainly fits into the equation, and cannot be left out. Opportunity has been limited in a system that was already restricted. That certainly is not a good thing.



andy said:


> the whole state is not LE.....there are 29 general units...


29 (or more) general units with a LIMITED number of tags that must be drawn. Sounds like LE to me...


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

......THE LE POINT SYSTEM WILL REMAIN AS IS.......the 29 units are general tags, who cares what is sounds like, the point pools are different...Lifetime license guys cannot get a BC or Henries tag now, those units are LIMITED ENTRY


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Andy -- think longer term. Think 20 years down the road.

We'll have two systems. In one system it will take 15 points to draw a tag on a LE unit. In the other system it will take 15 points to draw a tag for a general unit. Makes a ton of sense to have two systems.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Andymansavage said:


> The state will still have LE deer units, the whole state is not LE.....there are 29 general units...


Rediculous... by what metric are you using to define "Limited entry"? Is it limited or not? I cant imagine how people still feel any of these new units are somehow general units. Its a small defined area with a cap on the total number of tags available to the public via a drawing. No difference between a central micro region and say, the Vernon.

-DallanC


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

Not arguing that, I'm just saying that the premise of this thread is false. I have no idea how things will end up in the future, but saying that the whole state is "LE" now is not accurate.


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Andymansavage said:
> 
> 
> > The state will still have LE deer units, the whole state is not LE.....there are 29 general units...
> ...


By the definition on my big game application every year.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I believe in a few years you will see the Lifetime License tag going away.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Andymansavage said:


> By the definition on my big game application every year.


What on earth does last years application have to do with the entirely new system created and voted on only an a hour ago?

-DallanC


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

There will be alot more tage for the micro unit then the vernon I would imagine. Which would make the vernon a more popular place to hunt then the 29 units.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I believe in a few years you will see the Lifetime License tag going away.


Yup,,The lifetime tag holders are all older hunters for the most part...
They stopped selling those about 20 years ago..


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

> it certainly fits into the equation, and cannot be left out. Opportunity has been limited in a system that was already restricted. That certainly is not a good thing.


I have spent alot of time with the youth, both as an advisor and as a recruiter for the military. And not once did I hear young people talk about the hunts, everyone talked about the new Xbox or the new gaming system. Society as a whole has gone away from hunting and it will continue that way. No matter how much opportunity you throw at the youth, there is to many other options out there to grab their interest.

I have had many friends and coworkers get away from hunting, reason for it is they were tired of seeing little to no bucks. I have never had my friends say they quit hunting due to the lack of getting a tag.

We can argue about this all day long but I am glad to see it change, add this change to the other 3 items mentioned above and the herds will improve, and hunter enjoyment will increase as well. Get dads excited to hunt again, and maybe just maybe they will be able to pass that excitment off onto thier kids.



> the whole state is not LE.....there are 29 general units...


The state has been LE for deer the past 2 years, that happened when tags were no longer available to be sold over the counter.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I would love to see the preference point and the bonus points combined, there will always be area's that will be better then others, and those area's will take longer to draw. Just like in Colorado there is some areas that will take 12 years to draw and other areas you can draw each year.

Now we have the best of both worlds! PICK YOUR POISON


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

utfireman said:


> I have never had my friends say they quit hunting due to the lack of getting a tag.


I've heard many people say they quit hunting because they didn't draw a tag. As soon as the State went to a draw system, people stopped hunting.

I will certainly agree with you that society has gone away from hunting. This is a challenge that the DWR has -- competition with Xbox, etc. But, reducing opportunity is a horrible way to attempt to recruit new hunters.


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

You guys are making up your own definition of "LE"

LE tags have their own "bonus point" system

General tags have a "preference point" system

THIS IS NOT CHANGING

YOU CANNOT USE YOUR "PREFERENCE POINTS" FROM NOT DRAWING A SOUTHERN TAG THIS YEAR TO APPLY TOWARDS A BOOK CLIFFS TAG IN 2012.

Dallan, you are smarter than this.......I am not arguing ideals or thoughts......JUST STATING A FACT;

LE and GENERAL deer tags are NOT the same and that is NOT changing.....

holy shiz guys...


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

If I read that right this wont start tell 2012? yes or no!


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> If I read that right this wont start tell 2012? yes or no!


true


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

That is correct, it will not start until 2012.

Once tags could not be purchased over the counter BY DEFINITION all deer hunts in Utah became LIMITED ENTRY because there are a limited number of tags available. In other words, there were and are more hunters that want a tag than there are tags available.

The current "LE " areas will continue to be managed the same way and have their own bonus points. If you do not draw for a "general unit" in 2012, like for example unit 17 which might be the uintahs you would earn a preference point. In 2013, you would have 1 preference point which would give you twice the chance to draw the same unit. 

I would assume that we will have 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice hunts. So for instance I could select unit 17 as my first choice, unit 8 as my 2nd, and unit 22 as my 3rd. If i did not draw any of the 3 I would automatically earn a preference point to the next seasons GENERAL 29 units. 

Whether they are called LE or general they are all "limited" because of the number available.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

If I have my way this won't get implemented period. For anyone who said that the RAC and WB process is not a horse and pony show is full of **** and I would tell you that too your face. I was there all morning at the meeting, those guys had there mind made up before the meeting started, I will dare say two months ago they had there mind made up. They voted to get rid of statewide archery even though 4 out of 5 RAC's voted to keep it. 90% of our state wants to keep statewide archery and 4 bafoons on the WB can throw all that out the window. If option 2 is allowed to be implemented we are screwed people, well except for a few selfish people. Also the one ass hat WB member who said those who favor option 1 are being selfish and option 2 people care about the deer is full of ****. Even Anis shook his head in disbelief. I just sat in a meeting for four hours getting butt raped without the decency of a reach around.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

> Report this postReply with quoteRe: Utah is now statewide LE
> by Andymansavage » Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:18 pm
> 
> You guys are making up your own definition of "LE"
> ...


I am willing to bet you money that by the time this gets put into place in 2012, all of the units will be drawn out the same way, and that there will not be 2 seperate point pools.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> If I have my way this won't get implemented period. For anyone who said that the RAC and WB process is not a horse and pony show is full of **** and I would tell you that too your face. I was there all morning at the meeting, those guys had there mind made up before the meeting started, I will dare say two months ago they had there mind made up. They voted to get rid of statewide archery even though 4 out of 5 RAC's voted to keep it. 90% of our state wants to keep statewide archery and 4 bafoons on the WB can throw all that out the window. If option 2 is allowed to be implemented we are screwed people, well except for a few selfish people. Also the **** WB member who said those who favor option 1 are being selfish and option 2 people care about the deer is full of **** Even Anis shook his head in disbelief. I just sat in a meeting for four hours getting butt raped without the decency of a reach around.


Jahan, your holding back to much. Tell us how you really feel.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree utfireman,,,,

The point pools will be combine by 2012.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I am hoping that by 2012 the WB changes their mind again and sees the stupidity of what they are doing!


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

"I am willing to bet you money that by the time this gets put into place in 2012, all of the units will be drawn out the same way, and that there will not be 2 seperate point pools"

$500?


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

JAHAN WROTE:If option 2 is allowed to be implemented we are screwed people.

Why is this? I am not arguing just want your point. Is it because you wont hunt every year. I don't draw a tag every year the way it is right now. I can t be the only one. Its every other year. They didn't cut that many tags. I would say it might break up hunting camps but i imagine you can still put in as a group right? So you will all draw the same year. I think this will open the minds of hunters and they will see there is allot to still do in Utah while camping. We have lots of things to hunt. I don't see Wyoming and other micro states complaining. Can someone explain the Wasatch ext. Will this be its own unit just for archery?


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

I actually agree that the pools will be combined.....but in 5-10 years with a fair phase out for guys with lots of "bonus points", no way it will be done by 2012.....


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

UtahMountainMan said:


> That is correct, it will not start until 2012.
> 
> Once tags could not be purchased over the counter BY DEFINITION all deer hunts in Utah became LIMITED ENTRY because there are a limited number of tags available. In other words, there were and are more hunters that want a tag than there are tags available.
> 
> ...


Wow, I'm going to go explain this to my 4 year old, it will be easier...haha

and actually, you will get a "preference point" if you do not draw your FIRST choice in the new plan.....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

If you guys think this tag cut is the last, you may want to retire your bong for awhile.

These decisions have just set a precedence regarding what Utah will be managing for in the future regarding mule deer. Big antlered animals with less effort has now become the standard model for our state. If any of you are dissatisfied with our elk opportunity, expect the same with deer. Buck to doe ratio management is nothing more than age class management in disguise.

If I personally thought this would be the end of tag reductions and that raising buck to doe ratios was in the best interest of the deer herds and their potential growth, I'd go away from this issue forever, but that simply IS NOT THE CASE. We just kicked the boulder over the edge and it will just continue to gain momentum unless something bigger is placed in it's way.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

The one issue I see is allot of non resident hunters wanting a tag here in Utah in the next few years. I hope they keep them down to a minimal. Like they do now and not to up the numbers and less for us. Have you thought what you will do with the spar time you will have in Aug-Sept. Maybe Disney land hahaha


----------



## CP1 (Oct 1, 2007)

What we have now is:

Premium limited entry, 

AND

Limited entry,

is that a fare statement?????

any way you look at it hunter opportunity has been delt a harsh blow. I would really like to know what is going to happen to the wasatch extended hunt, can anyone please advise???


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

For now, it remains open to any archer with an archery tag and the certification. I wouldn't be surprised to see the extended units and seasons up for examination or action next November.


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

CP1 said:


> What we have now is:
> 
> Premium limited entry,
> 
> ...


No that is not an accurate or fair statement....

FOR DEER WE WILL HAVE;

Premium Limited entry;
(Henries and Pauns)

Limited entry;
(BC, Vernon, DT, etc..)

General Season;
29 new units


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

General season? If not everyone that puts in gets a tag....... wouldn't that be a LIMITED number of tags? hows that different from Limited entry?


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

I agree with andy


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

Stellarmike said:


> General season? If not everyone that puts in gets a tag....... wouldn't that be a LIMITED number of tags? hows that different from Limited entry?


my hell.....I am going outside to hammer nails into my toes...it will be easier on my brain than continuing this conversation....


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

Because the limited areas we have now are and will be measured for higher standards and lower tags. That makes them a limited tag to draw because more people desire that tag. We have been a draw unit for a couple years now when it comes to gen season. Your trying to argue a point that shouldn't be a topic right now.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> JAHAN WROTE:If option 2 is allowed to be implemented we are screwed people.
> 
> Why is this? They are going to cut 13,000ish tags right off the bat. Let me ask you this, how many times in the history of Utah hunting have we got back any tags that have been cut? I will answer that for you, 0! Once you lose opportunity it is gone forever and Anis admitted that in the meeting this morning.I am not arguing just want your point. Is it because you wont hunt every year. I wouldn't care if the tag cuts were for the benefit of the deer and that made me hunt every few years, but what option 2 accomplishes is more bucks and bigger bucks but doesn't do a single thing for the health of the herd. As you get more bucks you will see herd numbers slowly start dropping.I don't draw a tag every year the way it is right now. I can t be the only one. Its every other year. They didn't cut that many tags.13,000 tags now, who know how many later and we will never get them back. I would say it might break up hunting camps but i imagine you can still put in as a group right? I am not sure on the group hunting, but my assumption is they will do away with that. The popular units are going to be very difficult to draw. So you will all draw the same year. I think this will open the minds of hunters and they will see there is allot to still do in Utah while camping. We have lots of things to hunt. I don't see Wyoming and other micro states complaining. Start looking around, there are plenty starting to complain and it will get worse as there deer numbers keep shrinkingCan someone explain the Wasatch ext. Will this be its own unit just for archery?


As far as the extended I am not certain on that. I believe it will stay in place, but I wonder if they will make you put in for that unit if you want to hunt it in the extended.

Also as far as the definition of LE, these new tags will not have the classification of "LE" tags, but they will be exactly the same.


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

I am not arguing anything. Just stating that tags are more limited now than before.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It is LE, just a separate point pool, for now.........

I think the Southern boys are going to be a bit upset when they see the amount of tags allocated to their region(s) under the new plan. The areas with the higher buck to doe ratios and populations are pretty much all in the southern region and allocations are going to be determined by this. 

At 29/100, the SW desert could see substantial added pressure and buck harvest in the coming years.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

No matter how you want to look at it, its still a "limited entry". Limited amount of tags to a certain area only available to those lucky enough to "DRAW" it means limited entry. Pretty cut and dry if ya ask me. Guess I will join the thousands of new Elk hunters in 2012 lol this is going to have a much larger affect then I think any of us realize.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I believe that about 30,000 tags will be cut from the general pool. 13,000 was just an easier sell to the sheeple.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

here is a better way to say it

limited entry - has a limited waiting period of 3 years
Gen ses/ micro units- do not and will not


----------



## Andymansavage (Sep 19, 2008)

Sorry guys, I will go away. I was just saying that there are people in this thread that think that the new units are the same as the books and the Henries now and under equal definitions, conditions, and draw pools. I agree that EVENTUALLY the point pools will be combined, and that tags are more "limited" now. BUT as was voted today these are general season units and not "LE"..... Anyway, I'll just drop it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

FishlakeElkHunter said:


> o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-||
> 
> I can not say that I am sad. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> And I also can not wait to hear all the SUPER Whining from all the bowhunters!! :twisted:


No whining from me! I'll just concentrate on bowhunting elk and my grandkids will concentrate on the antlerless deer hunt. Those antlerless button/fawn bucks are looking tastier by the minute!


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

I have not been a elk hunter but agree I think I will give it a chance. 
JAHAN: you answered me very well it made sense. Thanks,
I wonder if they will still make a higher % go to youth. I still think it should be 14 years and up. For several reasons!


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

So it's done with... 29 units.... from what I've seen of boundaries they sure need worked on.. Driving up the ONLY road on a mountain and one unit is on the right and the other on the left sure seems dumb to me. But, I'm not Don so I can't change things....


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> here is a better way to say it
> 
> limited entry - has a limited waiting period of 3 years
> Gen ses/ micro units- do not and will not


You are correct. Also to add to your post LE classified units have even higher buck to doe ratios. Now the point I am trying to make is there will come a time in the near future if this option goes through where it will take more than five years to draw a tag. I will also venture a guess and say most units will take more than 2 years to draw. Essentially the micro units will become limited entry without the waiting period. :mrgreen:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> ... and my grandkids will concentrate on the antlerless deer hunt. Those antlerless button/fawn bucks are looking tastier by the minute!


Jezus... isnt that the base problem they are trying to fix??? More does, More fawns?

IMO they should stop ALL doe hunts until the herds recover.

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > ... and my grandkids will concentrate on the antlerless deer hunt. Those antlerless button/fawn bucks are looking tastier by the minute!
> ...


Didn't say we'd take a doe, fawn or otherwise. Only said those button/fawn BUCKS are looking tastier.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

I dont think I have ever seen this many people at one time browsing this form and 34 guest. NO MATTER WHAT SIDE YOUR ON HUNTING HAS CHANGED TODAY FOREVER!!!!!!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

The one good thing about all this like vapor eluded to is it is getting hunters involved which is never a bad thing.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

I am sick to my stomach as to what I witnessed today. It is bad enough that our Federal government is making knee-jerk reactive legislation, but when it is done on the local level that have a direct effect upon me it makes me so upset that I am nauseas. The Wildlife board went against 2/3's of the citizens of this state in the management of mule deer here in Utah. I am currently not a hunter, mainly due to the intensity of nursing school, there is no way I could hunt and attend school in the fall months, but I was sure planning on doing so once I graduated. Yet as what was decided today it is going to be very difficult to be worth my time, money, and effort to do so. Archery is now on a unit basis, and we now have 29 units, now I may or may not get to hunt the area(s) I wish. This makes it very difficult to invest into the equipment needed when I don't even know if I would be able to use that equipment. A chance that right now I am not willing to take. This is upsetting me more than I thought it would!!!


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Yonni said:


> I am sick to my stomach as to what I witnessed today. It is bad enough that our Federal government is making knee-jerk reactive legislation, but when it is done on the local level that have a direct effect upon me it makes me so upset that I am nauseas. The Wildlife board went against 2/3's of the citizens of this state in the management of mule deer here in Utah. I am currently not a hunter, mainly due to the intensity of nursing school, there is no way I could hunt and attend school in the fall months, but I was sure planning on doing so once I graduated. Yet as what was decided today it is going to be very difficult to be worth my time, money, and effort to do so. Archery is now on a unit basis, and we now have 29 units, now I may or may not get to hunt the area(s) I wish. This makes it very difficult to invest into the equipment needed when I don't even know if I would be able to use that equipment. A chance that right now I am not willing to take. This is upsetting me more than I thought it would!!!


Look on the bright side Yonni,you haven't invested 10's of thousands of dollars in equipment and weapons that have all but become obsolete today. The wildlife board is a fine example of necrotic tissue.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Wildlife board this is what I think! :O>>: -O\__- :RULES: O|* O|* O|* I don't think they listened to anything the public or the DWR had to say. What a joke. It is a sad day for deer hunters.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Alright Brothers, and we all like to hunt deer so I would consider you all brothers, now that this is done let me try to explain what is going to go down.

As President of BOU, I became concerned at the onset for our Members and Bowhunters period. Losing our statewide Opportunity was a loss without biological or social merit.

I was soon corrected in my way of thinking by someone that I have a great deal of respect for and consider wise beyond his years. He explained to me that this is simply another attempt to divide hunters and pit us against each other in essence doing the dirty work for Opt. 2 proponents and the WB.

I was taught that hunters can whine, complain, and piss and moan all we want about who gets to kill and how we kill BUCKS but at the end of the day we MUST CONSIDER WHAT IS BEST FOR WILDLIFE. So what happened today will have pretty much zero effect on our herds. It won't grow them any if at all. But it did further divide us as hunters of buck mule deer.

That being said I can pretty much promise you that in 2013 or 2014 you will see no improvement in deer numbers or bucks and the same knee jerk reaction will be made. 
This time you will have 29 different "Friends of the _insert unit name here_" that will tell all of us that we must cut numbers even further to get more big bucks. This is the door we've opened and the path that is now available.

Ask yourselves this one question; Is what we saw happen today GOOD FOR WILDLIFE???
IS WHAT IS COMING IN THE FUTURE GOOD FOR WILDLIFE??


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2010)

well there goes the last hunt utah had that was actually fun and something people looked forward to. they have screwed up the elk, deer, antelope and turkey hunting, and now its the general deer hunt. now that they have their foot in the door, it wont be long now until we have to draw for spots on WMAs or duck hunting permits. they will be limiting hunting for us until eventually hunting itself, doesnt exist any more.

congrats on your efforts WB, SFW, DWR and anyone who pushed for this. nothing good will come out of it. poaching will increase, the deer herd over time, will decrease and hunting opportunities will be less and less. -#&#*!- **O** O|*


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

kill_'em_all said:


> well there goes the last hunt utah had that was actually fun and something people looked forward to. they have screwed up the elk, deer, antelope and turkey hunting, and now its the general deer hunt. now that they have their foot in the door, it wont be long now until we have to draw for spots on WMAs or duck hunting permits. they will be limiting hunting for us until eventually hunting itself, doesnt exist any more.
> 
> congrats on your efforts *WB, SFW,* DWR and anyone who pushed for this. nothing good will come out of it. poaching will increase, the deer herd over time, will decrease and hunting opportunities will be less and less. -#&#*!- **O** O|*


I don't think anyone from the DWR supports this, I was sitting by several DNR employees and they were rolling their eyes quite a bit. I saw Anis shaking his head and having to bite his tongue on several different occasions. It will be interesting when they start actually trying to put this plan together and the oh crap moment hits of how much money they are going to lose, not good. SFW wants more predators killed and all this other work done, but they just cost the division millions of dollars, so how are they going to afford to actually do the improvements that will help the deer herd? o-||


----------



## .54 (Sep 24, 2007)

Poaching will definitely increase! Especially if they need to cut CO's to adapt to the loss of funds. What a bunch of crooks.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

.54 said:


> Poaching will definitely increase! Especially if they need to cut CO's to adapt to the loss of funds. What a bunch of crooks.


Ironically they just made a bunch more work for CO's, they have a hard time enforcing the regional units, how are they going to hire more CO's with no money? :O•-:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

For clarity, the DWR did not want this. The proponents were the 4 of 6 on the WB and SFW. 

It is very, very discouraging to witness the DWR's recommendations and biological facts shoved aside AGAIN on issues that have everything to do with their research and findings.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

.54 said:


> Poaching will definitely increase! Especially if they need to cut CO's to adapt to the loss of funds. What a bunch of crooks.


Yet they will need more Co's and more biologists to micro-manage these units. Where does the money amount needed stop to implement this new plan?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I certainly have a lot more respect for Anis after all of this. All of his fine work and words were like whispers in the air. WB did not hear a thing he said. 

I'm sure he feels like the rest of us now. Talking to the WB is like talking to a wall. Their agenda was set from the beginning, and now it is done.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

horsesma said:


> I certainly have a lot more respect for Anis after all of this. All of his fine work and words were like whispers in the air. WB did not hear a thing he said.
> 
> I'm sure he feels like the rest of us now. Talking to the WB is like talking to a wall. Their agenda was set from the beginning, and now it is done.


Agreed!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

horsesma said:


> I certainly have a lot more respect for Anis after all of this. All of his fine work and words were like whispers in the air. WB did not hear a thing he said.
> 
> I'm sure he feels like the rest of us now. Talking to the WB is like talking to a wall. Their agenda was set from the beginning, and now it is done.


Not only was it set, it was typed up and they copies to give out to the division. :shock:


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

So the few hundred that visit this board, and a few others, are informed of the way this decision was made. There are thousands of hunters in this state that may be in the dark and just accept thing the way they happen. The same thing happened with The Stream Access Bill. Will people protest this? How does the general public become aware they are being cornholed by a few people with their own personal interests as a priority?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm not surprised. I can't help but feel there is a black cloud over us. It is what it is. 

I haven't given up on my personal opinion but where do we go from here? Who will lead those of us that don't agree with this direction? An average Joe like me has no shot at changing anything without someone to lead the charge. I'd do it but I don't have the clout or credentials to be taken seriously.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Ahh! The end of the gypsy hunter and hot spotting. 

Now we can focus on improving our favorite unit. And our efforts wont be in vain. If you want to allow 10,000 hunters to hunt your unit then go lobby for it. This has been a long time coming don't act all surprised.


----------



## Pudge (Nov 24, 2009)

And I also can not wait to hear all the SUPER Whining from all the bowhunters!! 

I'm a bowhunter and I'm not whining. I want what best for the resource, not whats best for me.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

This is 100% political. The next step will be to combine general and LE points causing the entire state to be LE.

Now if I remember correctly there is a certain organization that gets a percentage of all LE tags to raffle. You thought the expo was exciting with 200 tags...Wait until the number is in the thousands. Somebody is going to get very wealthy over this :O•-: .


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Well, my wallet will stay shut for the state of Utah after I draw for my elk this year. I have too many points to give up for that, but once I have drawn I will NEVER hunt in this state again. My kids have more fun every other year for deer, and every year for antelope in Wyoming anyway! I may never buy a fishing license either, most of my vacations are out of state anyway.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

It was announced after lunch that a lot of the conversation through the morning wasn't recorded and didn't go out over the web because speakers weren't speaking into the mics.

Anybody who thinks they know "the plan" or how things are going to be must have access to decisions that the Board hasn't been given yet. The WB hasn't even figured out how the DH program will work, let alone the draw or anything else.

To clarify, what passed was NOT option #2. There are not 29 units. New unit boundaries (which are not yet determined) will be set according to where each deer "is born, lives its life and dies".

Each unit is to be managed separately according to its "unique" qualities, challenges and problems. Oh, except that they'll all have the same buck/doe objectives. And of course, the WB's ultimate control over all of those units, however many there's going to be, remains unchallenged.

Now sure, we could get all giddy and goose-bumpy about the great things that could be done under such a management plan. But for that matter, I could feel the same way thinking there could be a custom-made longbow for me under the Xmas tree...but I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

Believe me, I'm hoping for the best. Can't do much else at the moment and everything else I've been doing for the past several years just went down the toilet. But I know what I witnessed today.

I witnessed the SFW president ceremoniously hand the WB a big, fat check as part of his "comment". I wish I had a couple hundred grand to punctuate my comments.

I witnessed Del Brady tell me that because I don't support #2, I'm driven completely by self-interest. I would have responded, but there are rules about being respectful of other people's opinions at a Board meeting...at least rules that apply to little people like me and we were all warned that there were officers on hand (aka other little people) to escort us out if we broke the rules. Brady's on a higher plain of existence, I suppose.

I witnessed statewide archery, (the product of hours upon hours of work and consideration on the part of the public and the DWR, countless pages of writing and several public meetings), eliminated at the whim of a single man who gave it less thought than he gives his choice of socks to wear for the day. "I guess I'll vote for unit archery." And he did it without a single word of direct comment from the public.

I witnessed a Board member leave as soon as the vote was over. Obviously, he had more important places to be and his work was done.

I witnessed at least one board member try his best to effect a good decision, but I witnessed another try to shut him up with some bogus "Robert's Rules" objection even though the Board is not obligated to follow Robert's Rules, as clarified by legal counsel.

And yes, I witnessed the decision being read from a script...with no attribution to the author given. It definitely wasn't written by the board member who read it because on request for clarification, he wasn't even sure what he'd actually just read.

I witnessed a lot of DWR personnel caught flat-footed by the vote and scrambling to cover the bases. They were prepared for the possibility of losing a big hunk of revenue, of course. But now they also have a huge unfunded mandate. And as a legislator commented Tues night, if the DWR can dispense with this kind of funding, they'd better not ask the legislature for money.

For better or worse, the ramifications of today's decision run deeper than I think any one of us realize and nobody could possibly know the consequences. The fat lady ain't sung, yet...she hasn't even warmed up.

But having witnessed what I did today, I'm not real optimistic.

A little scotch and a good night's sleep might change my perspective. Maybe it will inspire me with a new approach because one thing's sure - what I've been doing is a waste of time and effort and today's experience has some educational value in it somewhere. That's about as hopeful as I can get.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

bigbr said:


> I know several FNAWS and SFW members who are not happy with the outcome of today's decisions. Saturday night at the FNAWS banquet may get interesting.
> Big


Can you write down their names and send me a list of who they are and contact information so that they can be directed as to where they need to put their frustrations - and some organizations that ARE looking out for the deer and general hunting populace?

The initials of the parent supporting organization who pushed for and made this change is SFW.

When a Wildlife Board goes totally contrary to the public vote as well as the DWR's Science and passes a "Change" scenario similar to the one we are working to dig out of from the Obama Administration... what can we expect for the future of our sport?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

utfireman said:


> Did you even listen to the broadcast?. It was mentioned over and over that this is jsut a small step into helping the herds.
> 
> It was stressed over and over from the wildlife board that we need to do more for decreasing fawn mortality, increasing predator harvest and decreasing road mortality, and that we need to step up our programs to acomplish those three things. Doing those three things, with the habitat projects in place, and reduced hunter harvest will help our herds.


Lets ask you the same question, did you actually read the recently implemented Mule Deer Plan that was just overridden? It had all of those issues you mention listed in great detail already... the only thing reduced harvest will accomplish is you may not get to hunt your preferred area - or possibly get a tag at all - while in and of itself REDUCED HUNTER NUMBERS WILL NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT IMPACT ON DEER HERD NUMBERS OR HEALTH.

Reduced buck harvest was repeatedly hammered home as NOT being an influence in herd recovery or growth... Let's all make sure we're reading the info before spouting please, shall we?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > I believe in a few years you will see the Lifetime License tag going away.
> ...


I resent that stereotype. Take it back!

If they do away with it they will have effectively taken two entire families out of their economic stimulous just within my immediate family. In like manner, they will be creating a trust issue that supercedes all of the BS I saw from the WB this morning.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I witnessed the SFW president ceremoniously hand the WB a big, fat check as part of his "comment". I wish I had a couple hundred grand to punctuate my comments.


Everything else aside, that was one of the most contemptible displays of arrogance and hubris that I've ever observed from anyone in my life. He, Byron Bateman, gets up in front of everyone, uses up his allotted time giving us SFW's reasons why the board should vote for Option 2, then goes way over his allotted time by saying he was way too busy to hang around for another chance to "comment" in the afternoon. Then he makes a big production of waving around a check for several hundred thousand dollars that he then hands to the board chairman.

Really, the sheer arrogance of that display was stunning. This turkey states flat out that SFW wants the board to vote for Option 2, then hands the board several hundred thousand dollars (which the chairman promptly accepts with a big cheesy smile and a groveling handshake). SFW was publicly buying votes. Really, there's no other way I can see to interpret it.

I'm telling you, any lingering respect I once had for SFW just went out the window.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I have read it, but never has the wildlife board taken to heart those three things. But you can see after their comments today that they are also starting to think outside of the box. There is personal feelings that get involved with voting but you get that with any politician.

No one has the correct answer and everyone has their own ideas on what needs to be done, but I will agree that the rac and wb process is broken.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> It was announced after lunch that a lot of the conversation through the morning wasn't recorded and didn't go out over the web because speakers weren't speaking into the mics.


No it was quite clear. I had to adjust my volume a couple times (some people talk quiet, other people nearly shouted into the mic), but it was all easy to understand.

-DallanC


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

While setting at the meeting today I took a few notes myself. Now these numbers might not be exact but they are really close, maybe off one in either direction. This is a break down of the sportsmen that actually showed up and got up and voiced their own comments.

Option 1- 5

Option 2- 15

Option 3- 2

Option 4 (Status Quo)-4

RAC Vote

Option 1- 2

Option 2- 3

Option 3- 0

Option 4- 0

Seems to me the WB voted in favor of what was represented by the public? I saw a group that is use to getting its way be turned away and they now seem pretty bitter.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

The WB already had their minds made up on the vote before the meeting even took place... As for voting with regards to what the majority of the hunters want, now thats a good joke!


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> The one issue I see is allot of non resident hunters wanting a tag here in Utah in the next few years. I hope they keep them down to a minimal. Like they do now and not to up the numbers and less for us. *Have you thought what you will do with the spare time you will have in Aug-Sept. Maybe Disney land hahaha*


I suspect you'll see an increase in fisherman afield during those months and the whole year for that matter. More fisherman = More fishing pressure, and down the road more fishing regulations because of it!  Sounds like this whole ordeal will ultimately affect fishing as well.. Dang double-edged sword I tell ya.. 

I love the deer hunt but I'm pretty sure my fishing time will increase now. I'll be saving my spare change so I can do a couple of dream hunts elsewhere.

Crazy.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Sounds like a fair plan there Mr. Sawsman...I just may be doing the same thing! The grand daughters have been bugging me to take them fishing more anyhoo. I see a new Barbie pole in the near future for my youngest! ;-)


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> While setting at the meeting today I took a few notes myself. Now these numbers might not be exact but they are really close, maybe off one in either direction. This is a break down of the sportsmen that actually showed up and got up and voiced their own comments.
> 
> Option 1- 5
> 
> ...


Then you were smokin' something in the parking lot before you came in...

You didn't hear a word Ernie Perkins said, did you? Didn't pay attention to what was voted in, either, because it wasn't option #2.

You also don't want to mention that most of the pro-2 boys were drawing pay to be there while the rest of us gave up a day's salary...in the Xmas season, no less.

Nor do you want to mention that Perkins offered a great compromise that truly reflected the will of the RACs.

Any pretense that this decision was in the least bit democratic can only be made by a fool or a liar.

Look, I can accept the vote based on who showed up. But I can't accept the vote based on a script that was obviously not written by the guy who read it or even written during the proceedings.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> LoneClarity said:
> 
> 
> > While setting at the meeting today I took a few notes myself. Now these numbers might not be exact but they are really close, maybe off one in either direction. This is a break down of the sportsmen that actually showed up and got up and voiced their own comments.
> ...


Yep, that about covers it.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The meeting was attended by quite a few "fools and liars".....


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

LONECLARITY = NOCREDIBILITY


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

BOU’s only focus is Bowhunting. Our mission is clear. Our passion is deep.

Really? My focus is on the deer herd!

BOU has the infrastructure that allows Bowhunters to influence policy for their individual areas and the support necessary to get the changes made through the statewide RAC system. 

Guess NOT!!!!!!

I know I was not paid to be there today? Please list who was paid to be there I am very intrested? Even a little pissed if I missed out some compensation for my Vac day!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I believe that about 30,000 tags will be cut from the general pool. 13,000 was just an easier sell to the sheeple.


I am suprized your the only one that said this....

When the bleeding starts, it not going to end! -)O(-


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> BOU's only focus is Bowhunting. Our mission is clear. Our passion is deep.
> 
> Really? My focus is on the deer herd!
> 
> ...


Again, you didn't hear a word that Ernie Perkins said, did you?

Bottom line, if you're trying to pass off the idea that the Board made its decision based on a poll of comments made at the meeting, you need to find some other idiot to sing to. You and I both know better and that's the rub. The Board decision was scripted and pre-arranged, regardless of comment, even comment from other board members. The public record demonstrates the truth of it.

You got a problem? Go argue with the record.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> Really? My focus is on the deer herd!


The trained, professional deer biologists at the UDWR say smaller units and higher buck/doe ratios won't help the deer herds at all. I'm assuming that you know more than they do? Right?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

LoneClarity said:


> RAC Vote
> 
> Option 1- 2
> 
> ...


Perfect example of smoke and mirrors. A vast majority of Utah hunters live in the northern and central regions. They attended the RAC's for those two regions and voiced their opinions there. The other 3 RAC's were attended, chaired, and voted on by locals of those regions, in other words the minority. If you applied the electorial college concept it wouldn't have even been close!

If you want to say that the RAC's voted 3-2 in favor of option 2 then fine but don't try to pass that off as the majority of hunters. That's flat out bulls--t!!


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

I think that its funny they are going to limit the public hunter's but I bet all the cwmu's in all of these areas still get all their tags what a joke.


----------



## RECURVE (Dec 1, 2010)

Right, and notice that there was no mention of a willingness to sacrifice the interest of tags to the SFW for the sake of the deer herds. CWMU's, Landowner's, Conservation's, everyone's typical alocated tags should be cut by the same percentage ,minimum, or revoked- it's all about what's the best for the deer that are "Born Live and Die" on a specific unit and total control right.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

eyecrazy said:


> I think that its funny they are going to limit the public hunter's but I bet all the cwmu's in all of these areas still get all their tags what a joke.


That was actually discussed around 3:30 as the meeting continued. Someone asked why the CWMU permit numbers are established NOW, when the other Gen and LE hunts wont have their permit numbers established until after the winter severity has been looked into.

They gave a lame answer about CWMU's needing more time to market their tags.

So the average hunter got his tags reduced but CWMU's did not.

-DallanC


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

did you know that the cwmu decides how many tags they get no biological input just a percentage of the unit if they have 20% of the unit they get 20% of the tags then the cwmu dicides if they want a 90/10 85/15 or 80/20 split if they do 90/10 then we the public get 100% of the cow doe tags lucky us


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Few points I want to make regarding the outcome of the meeting today.

- 30% of the hunting population made new policy for 100% of the hunters in Utah. North and Central RACs make up 70 % of the hunting population, which had voted for #1. Or should I say WB did what ever they wanted too. (Should I dare say what SFW wanted them to.)

- Because of lack of funding for Biologists and CO's, the management will be the same except add 3 more bucks per 100 does. In order for there to be a change of management you would have to have the biologists concentrate on just big game for these units and not everything else they have on their plate. The ones we have in place now will have the same responsibility over 3-4-5 different "Units,'' same as it is now. No more money = no change. For all those who think breaking it down to "units" will make a substantial difference are really up in the night. As far as funding, the state legislatior will not give more funding for more personel. 

- The system is broke, the WB in so many words said they could do what ever they wanted to today. That is wrong.

- IMO just like if you dont vote in government elections I dont think you really can complain. If you did not go to any RAC meetings, WB meetings or send some sort of response to a RAC member or WB board member on what you want for the state of Utah's deer herd, I really dont feel you have a leg to stand on. I was hopeing the WB meeting would have at least as many sportsman attened as the Northern RAC did, but it didn't and I was quite dissapointed. I have a job too and I took leave to go get bet over but at least I spoke my mind. On the same subject so did those that did not see the way I do and I respect them for that just dont agree with there "Antler Addiction kind of thinking.''

- This change has nothing to do with the health of the herds and everything to do with selfishness in my opinion. Concentrate on Herd # and the bucks will come along with it.

- My arm chair Biology thoughts are 4 things that will help the herd. Kill more ELK, Kill more predators, continue habitat restoration, start education on how to drive properly to avoid the "avoidable" Car-Deer collisions. Three of those items can be started on and implemented within a year. The other will take some time.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

LoneClarity said:


> While setting at the meeting today I took a few notes myself. Now these numbers might not be exact but they are really close, maybe off one in either direction. This is a break down of the sportsmen that actually showed up and got up and voiced their own comments.........


The sad part of this whole mess is that another generation of SPORTSMAN just got a dose of reality. Their individual voice means squat.

And as far as you commenting that individually we are only a SPORTSMAN if we show up, you my friend can stuff that up your ass.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

Whoa there sir, I did not say that only the sportsmen that showed up cared! I stated of those that were in attendence voiced their oppinions in the breakdown I showed. That does not mean others did not care. Some would like to believe that the only people that wanted option 2 were the ones there. That is not true many supporting every side of this mess were not there. I'm sorry that some disagree with the decision that was made yesterday. I believe it is the first step in helping our deer herds recover. Only a start, if we don't implement all ideas that have been addressed we will not be successful.

Your last comment is not one that I would consider "kind", maybe I just misread your intent?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

LoneClarity, first off there decision was made before the meeting started, if the scripted response wasn't evidence enough. Second, Northern and Central voted 22 in favor of Option 1 and 1 opposition and they were in favor of option three. Southeastern, Northeastern and Southern voted something like 18 for option 2 and 7 against. Assumption is those that voted against option 2 were for either on of the other options or status quo, but it is clear they were not in favor of option two. So by my calculations, even the majority of RAC members voted against option 2. Only one RAC voted for getting rid of statewide archery, so roughly 90% of the people were in favor of leaving statewide archery yet 10% got there way.

It was obvious SFW packed the house, which is fine, that is the way the game is played, but our opinions yesterday were not considered, well besides the SFW president waving around a $300k check, talk about disrespectful and unprofessional. SFW planted this seed a long time ago, this is not something that happened overnight. Did you notice how Don just sat in the back and watch their plan unfold perfectly. Did anyone else think it was ironic he didn't get up to speak? He never misses an opportunity to speak, he knew it wasn't necessary and for the good deeds done by the board they will all be rewarded with some fully guided hunt, except Ernie and Bill. :O•-:

Lone give me a good reason why statewide archery should go away and because it isn't fair is not a good answer. Show me biological evidence that keeping statewide archery will do a **** thing to hurt the population of deer. Lastly anyone who thinks option 2 will help out the deer herds is an idiot plain and simple. None of the proposed options would of helped the deer herds, what is going to help the deer herd is the other parts of the management plan which is basically identical to the previous deer management plan. If you don't believe me look into it yourself. 

Here is my fear, option 2 is implemented and focus is placed where is should be on predator control, habitat, ect. Deer herds start to grow, not because of option 2, but because of the other items mentioned and option 2 crowd declares victory and says we told you so even though in the long run option 2 will be the worst option for the deer. If status quo would of been proposed and all the other stuff done as needed, you would of saw more deer in the future, but oh well, we will never know.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

The status qou has got us to were we are now! The plan that has developed last year can still be implimented on a 29 unit system. No reason to not? SFW was not the only people supporting option 2. The Northern RAC only had 12 sportsmen make comments. The other Racs had close to 40 in each meeting. Those sportsmen heavily favored option 2. Numbers can be presented I'm favor of both sides is my point.

Statewide archery, hmmmm. I'm really not sure how I feel about that. I will say that with statewide archery there was a possibility to overhunt some areas. That is a real possability whether bowhunters agree or not. My true feeling is that I hope with 29 units that they will create more archery only units and I'm really ok if they give a higher # of archery tags statewide. I'm originally a die hard archer and have drifted away in recent years for various reasons.

I will say this, I have been very pro option 2. However I can promise you this, if option 2 would have not passed it would have not caused be to boycott hunting deer. I would 
have still worked hard a voiced my opions on what will help our herds. I would still go 
to the expo and piut in for hunts (donate!!!). Do I agree with SFW always, not even close , but they still do some good and we need help from all sportsmen if we are going 
to save our deer herds. I understand some sportsmen are upset but I sure hope we can
still come together to help our herds. Keep our focus on helping our deer if this many sportsmen had showed thisuch passion and anger years ago our herds would probably be in a condition that would even bring tag cuts into the picture?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

This will help our deer herds do what? How does buck management help deer make more fawns? How does buck management help a deer survive the winter or not get hit by a car or evade a cougar attack? 

If you guys would realize that instead of cutting 13,000 tags and worrying about units, it you increased fawn survival rates by 25% you would increase the number of bucks by 25%. That makes much more sense than worrying about increasing a buck to doe ratio by 3:100.

Bottom line is the trophy quality is most important, and herd health is second. The decision made yesterday was a trophy hunting decision. They'll worry about herd health later.

Why is it so hard to see the paradox of "we are saving opportunity by cutting it". Makes as much sense as wiping before you poop man.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

You know Clarity you really need to take the rose colored glasses off. Nevada has been on a micro unit management plan at least since the '80's that I know of. I killed my first deer there at the age of 12. You know that was the only tag I drew there and I came back to Utah at 16. They are going to cut 11,000-13,000 tags initially and I would be willing to bet almost anything those cuts will continue annually until SFW can get 15,000-30,000 dollars for every auction tag the board gives them. I can't believe anybody is so ignorant as to think that check yesterday was anything other than a blatant payoff. If you really believe that then there is going to be a sonic boom when you pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## thrillathehunt (Nov 10, 2007)

Like the majority of you, I am extremely disappointed with the way the "process" played out . . . there are very few things that cause me to lose sleep, but this is one I'll be losing sleep over for some time.

I have long recognized in Don and SFW, a self-dealing organization who is only interested in securing the best interests of Don and his cronies . . . and the rest of the world be damned. Well, they won big again:

* Now there are fewer tags available to hunt, so the tags and opportunities he and his cronies pimp out just got more valuable

* There will be a perception of more/bigger bucks in the state's deer herd -- so the tags and opportunities he and his cronies pimp out just got more valuable

* He cut $800,000 from an already inadequate DWR budget, so his realtive value to the DWR -- and the DWR's reliance on the funds from tags and opportunities SFW pimps through the Expo -- just got more important/more vital to their mission

* Create greater division and rancor among hunters, which makes SFW appear like they are a legitimate voice of hunters -- and makes it much easier for them to continue to push their agenda when there isn't an unified front to combat them

* Removed 13,000 or more "blue collar" hunters from the hunting ranks . . . 13,000 fewer hunters to voice their disapproval with SFW's agenda and oppose their elitist initiatives

A couple of other thoughts:

1) For the record, I wrote a personal email to every member of all five RACs and to each member of the Wildlife Board using reason, evidence and personal experience to speak against option 2. I was not able to attend yesterday's meeting, however. -- My history of trying to get involved and make a difference in the RAC/WB process has been frustrating to say the least -- almost without exception, every time I have efforted to get involved and give my input through the established process over the years, I have experienced what happened here . . . a predetermined outcome and a blatant disregard for the input of the general public.

2) Regarding what I believe was an absolutely stupid decision to make archers pick a unit -- I wish someone had tag teamed with Anis to use the extended unit as an example -- What unit gets the most hunter days per square mile in the state? The WF extended. What unit has the most liberal season dates? The WF extended. What do the buck to doe ratios in the WF extended south of I-80 look like? Pretty darn good. Are there any big bucks on the unit? A heck of alot. So lets review -- a four month season, more hunting pressure in a smaller geographic area than anywhere else in the state, and still a unit with great buck to doe ratios and huge bucks -- tell me again what the biological rationale is for doing away with statewide archery???

3) Because this process was obviously political, I think the only way to undo it is for us to get organized and get political back. I remember reading someone say in another thread that hunters as a group are too small to pack any punch or apply any pressure to the Governor -- I disagree. I don't think there is a good way to put something hunting related on the ballot . . . but, look at it this way . . . each of us has people in our immediate sphere of influence who we can rally to support our cause. My mom doesn't hunt, my dad doesn't hunt anymore (he's 76), my sister doesn't hunt, and my brother very rarely hunts -- but they all vote. And, if there were a petition saying "Gary, the public is getting hosed with the WB's BS deer hunting decision, if you don't get involved and get it fixed, you can plan on getting ousted by us in two years" -- I could get each of those family members and my sibling's spouses to sign it. I think I could get another 8 signatures from my wife's family.

So, from 1 hunter, I can come up with the threat of 16 votes just from my immediate family. The rub, of course, is getting enough of the wronged and disgruntled 70,000 deer hunters to buy into the program and follow suit. But . . . if you could get half of that group to get a handful of signatures . . . then you are talking about hundreds of thousands of threatened votes -- enough to change an election, even on a statewide race like the Governorship.

Realistically, at some point the plan breaks down because there may not be a political alternative candidate for us to rally around -- but if the threat of action is large enough and loud enough, and if the governor is getting an ear full from our local legislative representatives . . . maybe it is enough to spur some action. 

Maybe it is all pie in the sky, but I am mad enough about the process and passionate enough about the issue to not be content with giving up the fight and walking away. I'd like to believe there are others willing to fight as well . . .


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

LoneClarity said:


> Whoa there sir, I did not say that only the sportsmen that showed up cared! I stated of those that were in attendence voiced their oppinions in the breakdown I showed. That does not mean others did not care. Some would like to believe that the only people that wanted option 2 were the ones there. That is not true many supporting every side of this mess were not there. I'm sorry that some disagree with the decision that was made yesterday. I believe it is the first step in helping our deer herds recover. Only a start, if we don't implement all ideas that have been addressed we will not be successful.
> 
> Your last comment is not one that I would consider "kind", maybe I just misread your intent?


You are right, my comment was not kind. If I miss read your intent then I will apologize. But I read your comment as only those that care will show up. And that is far from the truth. Personally I used to go to these type of meetings, but I did soon find out that my comments meant nothing to those conducting. So I no longer waste my time attending such meetings. This does not mean that I don't care or that I don't donate in some other way.

I can appreciate that this is an emotional issue and can respect others different views, but I will not stand by and be looked down upon because I'm not in some special group or class of hunter.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> The status qou has got us to were we are now! How do we know that the latest management plan that was implemented almost two years ago wouldn't of worked, it is nearly identical to the current one except the option 2 part. The plan that has developed last year can still be implimented on a 29 unit system. No reason to not? SFW was not the only people supporting option 2.I agree The Northern RAC only had 12 sportsmen make comments.But they received 100's of emails. Just because someone wasn't in the audience doesn't mean they didn't email the RAC members to voice their opinion. The other Racs had close to 40 in each meeting. Those sportsmen heavily favored option 2. Numbers can be presented I'm favor of both sides is my point.
> 
> Statewide archery, hmmmm. I'm really not sure how I feel about that. I will say that with statewide archery there was a possibility to overhunt some areas. I disagree, have archery hunters overhunted the Wasatch Front? That is a real possability whether bowhunters agree or not. My true feeling is that I hope with 29 units that they will create more archery only units and I'm really ok if they give a higher # of archery tags statewide. I'm originally a die hard archer and have drifted away in recent years for various reasons.
> 
> ...


I agree that we should of done something long ago, but they tried two years ago and were not given a chance to let it work. This fix is not going to happen overnight, you can't implement a plan and not give it even a year to work.


----------



## WEK (Dec 3, 2010)

Before I say this, a few things: First, this is not my first post, I'm on this forum all the time. I have not posted in a long time, however, and my old username isn't working. Second, I am not in favor of what the WB did. 

Now, my primary point: The fact that the statement was prepared and read does not mean the decision was made before the meeting. It may have been, but that is definitely not proof. As one who has served on several committees that operate in a similar fashion to the WB, let me point out that often what happens is the communications director (or similar) for the body making the decision will pre-draft a decision statement for each option. Then, when the vote is taken and the decision is made, they read the decision statement that corresponds with the winning option. 

I'm not saying that the decision wasn't unofficially made ahead of time in this case. I don't know--it very well may have been. But several people are jumping on the prepared statement as strong evidence of that fact, and knowing how these things often work, I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion. 

WEK


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

WEK said:


> Before I say this, a few things: First, this is not my first post, I'm on this forum all the time. I have not posted in a long time, however, and my old username isn't working. Second, I am not in favor of what the WB did.
> 
> Now, my primary point: The fact that the statement was prepared and read does not mean the decision was made before the meeting. It may have been, but that is definitely not proof. As an attorney, and as one who has served on several committees that operate in a similar fashion to the WB, let me point out that often what happens is the communications director (or similar) for the body making the decision will pre-draft a decision statement for each option. Then, when the vote is taken and the decision is made, they read the decision statement that corresponds with the winning option.
> 
> ...


The reason I came to this conclusion is this:

1. It was typed up and had a copy to give to the DWR.
2. There were bits and pieces added that were well thought out, not on the back of a napkin type deal.
3. Ernie knew what was going to happen and came with his amendment to the prepared statement.

I see what you are saying, but these guys didn't have anything prepared for Option 1 or 2. This decision was made several months ago when the WB directed the division to propose this option. A little side not, the WB just told the division to prepare a micro managed option, they made no mention of the other options. The DWR had to prepare these other options, I truly believe they were just hoping to put only one option through and make it even easier.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

WEK said:


> Before I say this, a few things: First, this is not my first post, I'm on this forum all the time. I have not posted in a long time, however, and my old username isn't working. Second, I am not in favor of what the WB did.
> 
> Now, my primary point: The fact that the statement was prepared and read does not mean the decision was made before the meeting. It may have been, but that is definitely not proof. As one who has served on several committees that operate in a similar fashion to the WB, let me point out that often what happens is the communications director (or similar) for the body making the decision will pre-draft a decision statement for each option. Then, when the vote is taken and the decision is made, they read the decision statement that corresponds with the winning option.
> 
> ...


Taken by itself you have a point but add up all of the other factors it's hard not to believe that it was a forgone conslusion. There were too many things that happened that made one feel as if we were watching a scripted play rather than seeing a board that was grappling with what to do.


----------



## WEK (Dec 3, 2010)

jahan said:


> The reason I came to this conclusion is this:
> 
> 1. It was typed up and had a copy to give to the DWR.
> 2. There were bits and pieces added that were well thought out, not on the back of a napkin type deal.
> ...


I should have been clearer. The decision statements for each option are often drafted before the meeting even takes place, then they read the one that corresponds with the result of the meeting. When you say they were distributed to the "DWR," what do you mean? Do you mean the WB or all DWR employees, or something else? If they gave it to DWR employees, and they only gave that one decision statement, THEN I think it's safe to conclude the decision was made ahead of time. But if they were only given to the WB, how do we know they didn't give them the others as well, or that they waited until the decision was made before giving them particular statement for the option that was chosen?

WEK


----------



## WEK (Dec 3, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Taken by itself you have a point but add up all of the other factors it's hard not to believe that it was a forgone conslusion. There were too many things that happened that made one feel as if we were watching a scripted play rather than seeing a board that was grappling with what to do.


That's really unfortunate. When a body makes a decision in such a way as it appears not to follow the rules, it often leads to enforcement problems. People that view the decision as less than legitimate are sometimes more likely to break rules they believe were improperly made in the first place. If that happens here, it's only going to compound the already complicated task of trying to police 29 separate units.

WEK


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

WEK said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I came to this conclusion is this:
> ...


I should of also been more clear, instead of statement that should read motion. From the motion made by this particular member and a couple others, their decision was made a long time ago. It is purely speculation on my part, I don't have any evidence that they didn't have a motion prepared for the other options.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

Why is it so hard to see the paradox of "we are saving opportunity by cutting it". Makes as much sense as wiping before you poop man.

The only problem with that comment is that we have been walking around with a poopy diaper for the last 20 years!!!! Option 2 is just a little heavier duty wet wipe than the other Options.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> Why is it so hard to see the paradox of "we are saving opportunity by cutting it". Makes as much sense as wiping before you poop man.
> 
> The only problem with that comment is that we have been walking around with a poopy diaper for the last 20 years!!!! Option 2 is just a little heavier duty wet wipe than the other Options.


I am not going to lie, I laughed at your analogy, even if it isn't correct. :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

LoneClarity said:


> Why is it so hard to see the paradox of "we are saving opportunity by cutting it". Makes as much sense as wiping before you poop man.
> 
> The only problem with that comment is that we have been walking around with a poopy diaper for the last 20 years!!!! Option 2 is just a little heavier duty wet wipe than the other Options.


Can you articulate for me how option 2 will help?

Also could you please correct my below flaws because based on my logic option 2 will do NOTHING for us:

1 - By cutting tags/micro managing where we kill bucks we hope to increase buck to doe ratios.
2 - Increasing buck to doe ratios will not increase doe and fawn counts which means the herd will not grow beyond what it is today, which means no additional does will be having fawns. In other words fawn production will not increase.
3 - Once we increase buck to doe ratios we can never restore lost tags because then it will drop buck to doe ratios back down due in part to reasons mentioned in number 2 above.
4 - More bucks means potentially more mature bucks to hang on your wall.
5 - Only real fix so more bucks exist and hunter opportunity remains is by increasing fawn survival rates.
6 - NONE of the recent options, including 2, does anything to address number 5 above.

We can throw around funny analogies but this is what it all comes down to and based on what I see above option 2 doesn't even help a little bit. Please help me see where I have gone astray!


----------



## RobK (Jul 3, 2008)

PBH said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> > I have never had my friends say they quit hunting due to the lack of getting a tag.
> ...


 I know they just lost my son and i , this last season was our LAST . We are going to only hunt small game ,waterfowl and birds from here on out . Just not worth it to me . I have never tried to draw for any big game hunt and not going to start now .If i do hunt big game , I will just go hunt Idaho every now and then in the 4 point or better zone .


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

RobK said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > utfireman said:
> ...


Why quit hunting big game? You can still hunt big game every year if you want to right. I dont like the "#2" option either but its not stopping me from hunting big game. Putting in for tags is not that hard. Finding other big game to hunt is as easy as buying a archery elk tag. It is also not hard to get antlerless hunts in utah or anywhere else. I hunted doe antelope in wyoming this year, had a great time, filled my tag, spent time with family, and it was cheap!!

RobK are the idaho tags you talked about over the counter? And to everyone else who says they are done hunting big game in utah? WHY?

I want to hunt deer every year but I have not and I did not quit. I just adapted.


----------

