# Good news for Utah’s deer hunt



## nochawk (Oct 26, 2007)

------------------------------------------

Good news for Utah’s deer hunt

I am pleased to announce Senate Bill 59, which removes the deer hunt start date out of State law (Code)and gives the Wildlife Board authority to set general season deer hunting dates, passed the House Natural Resources Standing Committee with favorable recommendation and is moving quite well through the legislative process. 

This was one of the major initiatives requested by the Cache Deer Herd Working Group (and by others during the past decade).

SB 59 in its original form completely transferred control to the Wildlife Board, but a substitute bill (compromise) was introduced in the Senate which allows a start date (or dates), but not earlier than October 1st.

The bill moved through the Senate very well, passing a final vote with 27 for, 0 against and 2 abstentions (or absent), and then moved to the House.

Yesterday the bill was passed out of the House committee with a favorable recommendation to the full house (vote 6 for. 3 against, and 6 absent). The Cattleman's Association opposed the bill at the hearing, while the Farm Bureau supported the compromise bill. Ernie Perkins, who attended the hearing believes all of the opposition votes were based upon "inconvenience" or disturbance to ranchers who hold late grazing permits on public land. One topic that was a significant part of the opposition was gates being left open by hunters.

Don Peay (SFW) spoke strongly and eloquently in support of the bill. Both Jim Karpowitz and Rick Woodard also provided fine input to the committee.

While the bill was passed favorably by committee; based on the votes, it still appears to be perceived with resistance by some organizations. 

The current start date was set when 250,000 hunters moved to the outdoors on the opening day of deer season. Now we have hunts that start in August and continue steadily thru October. Now there are only about 50,000 hunters afield during the general deer opener. The population dynamics of hunting have completely changed.

This being the last leg of the legislative process, SB 59 now moves to the House Floor for full debate. This is a critical time and imperative for sportsmen to contact their representatives, especially those legislators who may have little knowledge or understanding of the topic and its importance, or those who might hear from ranchers to vote no.

Some additional info you all need to be aware of: Committee Meetings will end early next week....probably Wednesday; the legislative reading calendar, if it hasn't been cleared, will be shortly, so when this occurs, it will be extremely difficult to track this or any other piece of legislation through the process. 
------------------------------------------


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

That is good news, well done all that helped.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the update hogan


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

alpinebowman said:


> Thanks for the update hogan


You mean nochawk. 

This finally is getting done thanks to lots of hard work and effort by many folks. Thanks to all who helped. Now I hope the House passes it, which it appears they have plenty of votes for a easy passage. Gov Huntsman as already stated he will sign it into law as soon as it hits his desk. This is a positive for sportsmen and wildlife.


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

Pro, aside from season date control what it the real underlining motive here?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

huntinco said:


> Pro, aside from season date control what it the real underlining motive here?


Not sure what you are asking. I think nochawk did an excellent job of explaining why this needed to be changed. This was/is a law that makes zero sense in todays world, it limits the ability to move season dates around. Moving season dates around allows for the possibility of increasing tags due to lower success rates, it allows the DWR to make policies based on what is best for wildlife/hunters and not just the livestock owners, it allows ALL season dates to be moved around to increase opportunity and improve quality of the hunt. You, as a CWMU operator, know that weather has a huge effect on hunter success. You also understand that having a 2 month time frame for your hunts gives you the ability to improve the hunting experience of your hunters. Right now the elk season dates, the antelope season dates, and the deer season dates for ALL weapon types is dictated by the rifle deer opener, which is set in the interest of cattlemen, not wildlife and/or hunters. 50 years ago it made more sense than it does today, but change is always met with resistance, I understand the opposition of the cattlemen, my dad is one that is not very excited about it, since he runs cattle on the Manti unit every year. But, when I explained to him how many hunters are on the mountain from mid-August on, he saw the light.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> alpinebowman said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the update hogan
> ...


woops my bad. thanks nochawk. It is going to be interesting to see what the DWR does with this new treat.


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

Why are Cattleman opposed to this & why did this come about?. Obviously someone already has an agenda in mind. ("such as" if the DWR has this power then they can shorten this season extend this season, move this season to ones best interest, whose best interest? majority or minority?) this is what I would like to know.


----------



## nochawk (Oct 26, 2007)

Why are the cattlemen opposed to this? well maybe because if they move the general rifle season back the cattlemen may have to move there cattle off Forest service property earlier than( "I think") Oct 10th..But Im not sure that is the whole reason...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Justin, the cattlemen are against it mostly because of unfounded fear that having the deer hunt earlier will result in more cattle being shot by hunters. When this law was originally put into place, there was only one opener, so every hunter hit the hills the same weekend. That is NOT the case today. Hunts are going on from mid-August through November today. The fear is that by moving the deer rifle hunt earlier will shorten the days cattlemen can 'safely' have cattle on public land. If cattlemen were to luck at the big picture they would realize most/all of their fears are unfounded, but they are understandable. How many cattle get shot by elk hunters, archers, muzzy hunters? The number is very low, and as in the case of the idiots that shot some cattle last year with archery gear, the punishment is swift and severe. Archers will not tolerate morons taking opportunity from us, I suspect rifle hunters will/do fall into the same line of thinking.


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

What about the second part of my question.
("such as" if the DWR has this power then they can shorten this season extend this season, move this season to ones best interest, whose best interest? majority or minority? Someone already has something in mind they would like to change if this power was given. Who, what, where, when & why
Thanks
Justin


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The DWR, 'special interest groups', sportsmen who would love to see some changes in season dates, elk hunters, deer hunters, among some of those wanting this. The why would be to increase opportunity by having the ability to manage wildlife, instead of have EVERY hunting season dictated by cattlemen. If the deer rifle opener can be moved, then the possibility to change the elk opener for general and LE hunts is on the table. This could allow for MORE tags to be issued, give better season dates to primitive weapons. By having the ability to move the LE rifle hunt out of the middle of the rut, how many MORE tags could be issued? Part of the why is the ability to increase opportunity, which the Wildlife Board was very clear on being their top priority.


----------



## Edward K. Galleck (Dec 15, 2007)

I have to agree with Justin. There are some ulterior motives at work here. Not the simpleton explanation provided by PRO. My guess is this whole thing will segue into micro management or micro units. It could also establish an "early" rifle hunt and a "late" rifle hunt. Increased "opportunity" also goes by another term, it is called increased revenue. I guarantee the DWR will find a way to carve out additional revenue from this whole idea. It isn't about management or opportunity, it is about additional money.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Edward K. Galleck said:


> I have to agree with Justin. There are some ulterior motives at work here. Not the simpleton explanation provided by PRO. My guess is this whole thing will segue into micro management or micro units. It could also establish an "early" rifle hunt and a "late" rifle hunt. Increased "opportunity" also goes by another term, it is called increased revenue. I guarantee the DWR will find a way to carve out additional revenue from this whole idea. It isn't about management or opportunity, it is about additional money.


What is wrong with micro-management? From the feedback I have seen/heard MOST deer hunters want it! Look at Colorado, they have 3-4 rifle seasons for rifle deer. Last I checked, they have some dang fine deer hunting over there. Why is increased revenue a negative? Should the DWR not look for ways to increase revenue AND improve the product at the same time? More tags will bring in more revenue of course, but again I ask, why is that a bad thing. :? Should we look for ways to reduce revenue? Maybe by lowering tag numbers and deer/elk numbers we can get there. That will help who? :roll:


----------



## needsomehuntn (Sep 24, 2007)

It seems to me that if we break up the deer units we have now into smaller units or hunt dates that start at different times, that it will make it even harder for people like myself that like to hunt with my family during the same hunt and same time harder than it already is. I know a lot of people that haven't wanted anything to do with hunting since it went to a statewide draw and choose your weapon system, I was finally able to talk my dad into getting a deer tag again last year after years of him not hunting. I just wonder if some of the changes some of you talk about will end up hurting the future of hunting in Utah more than it will help. I'm glad that these kind of changes didn't happen 30 years ago, who knows without my dad to teach me to love the outdoors and how to hunt, because he no longer wanted to deal with draws for a general permits or shrinking units and inflated tag prices, I wouldn't know what it is like to experience this part of my lifestyle. There are a lot of people that think that tis is turning into a rich man's sport and I think more changes like this is just another stepping stone to it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I have to agree with Justin. There are some ulterior motives at work here. Not the simpleton explanation provided by PRO. My guess is this whole thing will segue into micro management or micro units. It could also establish an "early" rifle hunt and a "late" rifle hunt. Increased "opportunity" also goes by another term, it is called increased revenue. I guarantee the DWR will find a way to carve out additional revenue from this whole idea. It isn't about management or opportunity, it is about additional money.


Yes its all a big conspiracy theory where the DWR and special interest groups are trying to screw the average joe hunters. :lol: :lol: :lol: They are calling it "opportunity" so we all go along with the plan, but in reality its really a hidden agenda to make the DWR richer and the rich man the benefactor of this evil plan.

GIVE ME A BREAK :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## 2-Fer (Oct 29, 2007)

I think that breaking the units up in to smaller sub units is a good idea. I think it would be easier to manage these smaller units then one big unit like the southern region. If one unit is doing well you have the choice of raising the number of tags. And on the same note if one unit is not doing as well decrease the number of tags. I think if they did this with in a few years you would see an increase in deer numbers.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

"My dad or family members stoped hunting when they change the hunts" that to me sounds like the ultimate 2 year old tantrum to me. I say thoughs who can't bend a little to benefite wildlife and hunting oppertunity stay away from hunting cause there no good for the sport they take away to much. And thoughs who complain about micro- managing and will not be able to hunt with the same group doesn't know what hunting is all about if you don't have a tag and can't harvest an animal its not the end of the world. Have you ever heard about getting away from the city enjoying the forest, family, and what ever else comes with camping. Every year me or my friends and family members go along with others to help them harvest an animal and have a BLAST doing it. Enjoy the outdoors for as longs as you can and if you have a tag in your pocket thats a bonus!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Huntingco,

Let me see if I can restate your question in a way that might draw some answers from the forum.

What changes does the DWR or SFW, BLM, BOA, OID, IUE......or any other group out there that was for this change have in mind ? ? ? ? ?

Come on there must have been some changes on the drawing board if people were going to "work hard" to get all the power in the DWR's hands. 

Anyone want to tell? ? ? ? 

I'm not for or against this change because there hasen't been any change yet. Like most hunters, if they go and screw up my hunts and in my eyes, limit opportunities I will be against this happening and if it benifits wildlife, truely adds opportunity and improves the quality of hunts I will be glad it happend. 

Get off your high horse about "people should just shut up about being worried if it will discourage families from hunting together"! Anyone can use the "do what is best for the animals" crap to get their agenda pushed through. That is a legitimate concern. I think anyone should wonder what some is thinking of doing if they are going to call their representitives and tell them to vote abolute power to them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Get off your high horse about "people should just shut up about being worried if it will discourage families from hunting together"! Anyone can use the "do what is best for the animals" crap to get their agenda pushed through. That is a legitimate concern. I think anyone should wonder what some is thinking of doing if they are going to call their representitives and *tell them to vote abolute power to them*.


What are you talking about? Who is going to have "absolute" power? The DWR and/or public can request a change, the requested change MUST still go through the RAC's and the Wildlife Board before it would be implemented. That would give plenty of 'opportunity' to the 'concerned' sportsmen to voice their concerns and/or opposition to the requested changes. You make sound as if this will give all the 'power' to one person who will then run amok changing season dates for the hell of it. :roll: All this bill is doing is taking a mandated season opener, that was set in the 1950's by cattlemen, and giving the DWR and the PUBLIC the ability to move season dates around to benefit BOTH wildlife and hunters. Yes, I now see why there is such great concern and fear. :?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

PRO, you are right, my wordage "absolute power" is a little extreme but my point still remains the same.

What do yall have in mind?

Or was this just in the event SOMEDAY in the next 10-20 years they had the need to make a change they could?

Come on, lay out the dates you know are going to be requested.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> PRO, you are right, my wordage "absolute power" is a little extreme but my point still remains the same.
> 
> What do yall have in mind?
> 
> ...


Top secret on the dates, those with "absolute power" must keep it hidden for now. :wink: I am not in the 'know' of specific dates. I do know the deer committee will be looking hard at this, and that the elk committee SHOULD look at this as well. I see this as a great opportunity to move deer and elk season dates around, not just for fun, but to increase opportunity. I will NOT support season date changes that just benefit one segment of the hunting community; ie 'trophy hunters', you have my word on that. Any/all changes must benefit the masses, not just a select group.

I wish I had some hard answers for you, but I truly do NOT. I am just a small fish in the big pond like the rest on here.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I wish I had some hard answers for you, but I truly do NOT.


You may not have the dates, but it sure can not hurt the I 400 dates any.  I also agree with others that there has to be people that have an idea as to when they want the dates to be. I for one think the idea is still a good one even with some top secret agenda.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

10000, the reality is probably somewhere in between those two things. I haven't heard of any specific plans to make changes, and I doubt if any group or organization has such plans. But I don't think it will be 20 years either. Its no secret that things are gearing up for some changes to the elk hunting. A large percentage of hunters want change, SFW wants change, DWR biologists want change, yada yada. So its just a matter of smoothing out the road before driving on it. 

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY: Suppose the idea was put forward to have the ML elk hunt run Oct 20-28. Making it 2 weeks earlier would mean a more appealing hunt, more tags sold, and hunting pressure spread out. Suppose this idea was supported by sportsmen and the DWR. Well in order to make it happen, the deer hunt would have to be moved. Would it be worth all the headache of changing state law just for the ML elk hunt? Probably not. But if it could be easily moved through the RAC process then such a change could happen.

I don't know if PRO is hiding anything, but I really don't think so. What I do know is that every time the idea comes up to shuffle season dates around, the options are severely limited by 3 things: The rutting periods of deer and elk, the mandated rifle deer hunt dates, and the cold weather that arrives in November. If we could get rid of the mandate it would help immensely.


----------



## nochawk (Oct 26, 2007)

Remember when most of the archer's complained when they changed the Archery Elk opening and closing dates? ( opening and closing the same day's as the archery deer, losing 5 days in sept) they wanted to archery hunt elk during the rut. maybe now they can do some date changes and give the archer's what they wanted like they did the Limited Entry hunters...there is now room for some give and take for everyone, archery, muzzleloader, and rifle hunters...

I think that they did this to give the DWR/RAC? wildlife board some leaway in the setting of the dates, give the power back to the DWR and not have the legislature dictate seasons.. look at Cali. if the F&G had the power they would be hunting the Mt. Lions instead of haveing the legislture say what you can and cannot do...

I didn't post this to cause any big uproar on here, just thoght it was some info that needed to be brought out into the open...alot like Montana limiting the number of archery tags this year from being unlimited...

Lets all be nice ok?

Have a nice day
Nate


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

The guys pushing this already know or have an idea of what they want to change, This is what I would like to know.


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

Back 15 or twenty years ago this idea was brought up, it did not pass obviously, but you really think the conspiracy concerning getting rid of this state Mandate has held on this long?. get over yourselves. This is something that has needed to be done for at least 20 years.

Here's a challenge Huntinco, Lets make all CWMU's follow the same, your rifle Buck deer hunts can't start till the 3 Saturday of Oct. but still have to end by Oct 31, you guys would sh$t twinkies and hire every attorney you could find to fight that. 

My question to you is, why are you so worried and against it?


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

For what it is worth. I can remember sitting in meetings in the 80's with the Board of Big Game Control, where discussions centered around the limiting factor of the general rifle deer opener mandated by state law. I can remeber other committtees I have been involved with over the past twenty years where the mandated date has been of concern. Sometimes the issue was sportsman initiated others the DWR expressed concern. However it has always been a limiting factor in Wildlife Management. IMO we are fortunate that finally a combined sportsman/DWR group, (the Cache Deer Committee) has been able to jump through all the hoops to get this addressed at the Legislature, hopefully it will continuethrough and be repealed, then the possibilities are limitless as to what can happen. I guess it is human nature to believe there are conspiracy theories. From my involvement and observations the deer opener is being addressed so that a limiting factor in wildlife management is removed no more and no less.


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> For what it is worth. I can remember sitting in meetings in the 80's with the Board of Big Game Control


Ahh yes, the good o'le days with Greg Cunningham and his land..


----------



## huntinco (Sep 23, 2007)

My question to you is, why are you so worried and against it?Unless the underling intent is known then everyone should be worried. And just for the record, the CWMU program is working great but it would not bother me if they done away with the program altogether.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Get off your high horse about "people should just shut up about being worried if it will discourage families from hunting together"! Anyone can use the "do what is best for the animals" crap to get their agenda pushed through. That is a legitimate concern. I think anyone should wonder what some is thinking of doing if they are going to call their representitives and tell them to vote abolute power to them.


Its funny that people say we should give the DWR the ability to manage our wildlife a lot better than they do now and we have people worried about having the the opening of the rifle hunt changed. What gives?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I think sending more power to the board would be welcome by people if they didn't already worry that the board is very motivated by vocal groups that seem to favor limited entry as a means of creating "opportunity." If I were on a board and trying to schedule things based on x, y, or z I would certainly view the forever fixed date as a hindrance - depending on what was wanted. 

That is the question- it is only a hindrance if it truly gets in the way of something more important. So he is just asking - what is more important than the general deer? 

SFW wants Utah to be a premiere elk hunting state and so perhaps there is more interest in elk these days from their vantage point. What do the mule deer guys think? Are they in favor of making any big changes? 

I've signed on as a dedicated hunter 3 times now and I have to tell you I personally do not get the statement that moving the deer earlier will somehow positively affect the rifle and deer. Everything I have seen in the field points to that not being the case and I am surprised that people would push that bull on sportsmen. Oct1 as the earliest start date? Maybe not that much different. Any fool that thought September was the month for the rifle needs their head checked as it only gets easier to find and hunt deer in earlier months. I have had a blast on recent hunts. Deer have been everywhere and bucks plenty on public ground. What is everyone complaining about anyway? 

That all leads me to think like others. When unstated, the true motive is probably something related to more limited entry. Oh how I love tag hunting. What a rush.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Steepndeep don't wine and ask questions, just call your political leaders and ask them to give the board all the keys. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Let me get this straight, some of you would prefer the deer rifle season opener be set by a law pushed in the 1950's by *cattlemen* that had/has *nothing* to do with wildlife management over giving the *public*, the DWR, the RAC's, and the Wildlife Board (which was set up to oversee WILDLIFE related issues). Brilliant! :roll: A compromise on this was to not have the deer rifle opener be any earlier than October first, this was to appease the cattlemen. I am unaware of *any other* state that has a mandate on the opening dates of hunting season based on the 'special interest' of cattlemen. This was pushed/supported by every sportsman group I know of, not just the big evil SFW. _(O)_ What a radical idea that we should as sportsmen want to have the ability to be flexible and have the ability to improve our herds *and* improve hunter enjoyment. Crazy stuff right there! :?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh no...............SFW is behind this and they are going to take over the world!

UNBESTINKINLEAVABLE!!!!!!! :roll:


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Why does every single post turn into a bash on sfw? I will be honest with you I never even heard of that club until I heard it here a while back ago. Looked into it and it doesn't look like they are as evil as everyone says they are. I may be naive on this, but seems like they do a lot of good. How can a club like this dictate everything that goes into hunting. Seems very unlikely. I don't rifle hunt, but how does moving the hunt from the middle of OCt. to possibly the first of oct. hurt? Someone who knows more than me please explain to me how this is a conspericy? Pro obviously is a rep for the club, but everything I have heard from him is they are about equal opportunity for all, not just the trophy hunters. I do have one question though, if they move the rifle hunt around how will that effect the other hunts, like my archery hunt, will it be earlier as well, later? Anyways, lets for once have a thread that doesn't involve SFW, that would be nice, just once to read about hunting, and advice on hunting rather than hating on things.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Oh no...............SFW is behind this and they are going to take over the world!
> 
> UNBESTINKINLEAVABLE!!!!!!! :roll:


You all don't believe it, but there are alot of sportsmen that don't blindly trust SFW and the other Sportsmen groups. There are sportsmen that don't feel the these groups are speaking for them.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> Why does every single post turn into a bash on sfw? I will be honest with you I never even heard of that club until I heard it here a while back ago. Looked into it and it doesn't look like they are as evil as everyone says they are. I may be naive on this, but seems like they do a lot of good. How can a club like this dictate everything that goes into hunting. Seems very unlikely. I don't rifle hunt, but how does moving the hunt from the middle of OCt. to possibly the first of oct. hurt? Someone who knows more than me please explain to me how this is a conspericy? Pro obviously is a rep for the club, but everything I have heard from him is they are about equal opportunity for all, not just the trophy hunters. I do have one question though, if they move the rifle hunt around how will that effect the other hunts, like my archery hunt, will it be earlier as well, later? Anyways, lets for once have a thread that doesn't involve SFW, that would be nice, just once to read about hunting, and advice on hunting rather than hating on things.


SFW is pushing for this change, doing so while claiming to be the few who speak for the many that is why they are brought up in the discussion and many others.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> You all don't believe it, but there are alot of sportsmen that don't *blindly trust* SFW and the other Sportsmen groups. There are sportsmen that don't feel the these groups are speaking for them.


I love idiotic statements like this, it shows how 'mis-guided' folks are. I do* NOT* blindly trust my wife, little lone SFW. I am not a 'rep' for them, but I do get involved and see with my own eyes what they do for wildlife. I get my hands 'dirty' doing projects, raising money, talking with politicians, and so on. This allows me to speak on the pros/cons with a certain amount of first hand knowledge instead of talking out my backside.

The original law was put into place because of lobbying from cattlemen, yet it is somehow 'questionable' that lobbying from *HUNTERS* undoes it. Please explain. :roll:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> You all don't believe it, but there are alot of sportsmen that don't blindly trust SFW and the other Sportsmen groups. There are sportsmen that don't feel the these groups are speaking for them.


You're right about that. I'm one of them. But I'd like to see some changes made and they can't happen as long as the general deer hunt is frozen in place on the calendar. Best example of that would be moving the LE rifle elk hunts out of the rut. They can't move up earlier without cutting into the bowhunt and raising cain with the livestock interests. They can't move later without cutting into the deer hunt. Something's got to give if we're going to open up some LE elk opportunity. I'm not necessarily suggesting a swap with the deer and elk seasons, but the ability to move the deer hunt definitely gives all of us and the DWR some wiggle room to work with.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I think it is good news, and I am glad it is now in the hands of the DWR, but I am not against cattlemen either. I feel that we need to work with them and not be a group that messes up their industry. It is always a fine line, but I feel this line should be defined by reason and not a line that puts us as hunters on the other side against cattlemen.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

pro, We all know how involved you are and how much you have done for wildlife you remind us every other post. Other people are involved and do much for wildlife they just don't tell the whole world about it.

This may well be a great move, it may not. It may be that with this move the opening of the deer hunt is now exposed to more special interest political pressure then it was when it was set by the legislature. I like the idea of the DWR having decision making ability over the management of the deer hunt and the animals, I don't like that fact that they don't have the ability to implement those decisions. Look what they went through when they wanted to extend the southeastern rifle deer hunt. They did all the research to prove that it wouldn't hurt the deer herd but political pressure killed it inspite of the sound research. That is just one example where they have made sound decisions but weren't able to implement them.

This move does give them more room to make decisions but it also increases the influence of politics on the game managers. Time will tell if this will be good or bad.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> pro, We all know how involved you are and how much you have done for wildlife you remind us every other post. Other people are involved and do much for wildlife they just don't tell the whole world about it.
> 
> This may well be a great move, it may not. It may be that with this move the opening of the deer hunt is now exposed to more special interest political pressure then it was when it was set by the legislature. I like the idea of the DWR having decision making ability over the management of the deer hunt and the animals, I don't like that fact that they don't have the ability to implement those decisions. Look what they went through when they wanted to extend the southeastern rifle deer hunt. They did all the research to prove that it wouldn't hurt the deer herd but political pressure killed it inspite of the sound research. That is just one example where they have made sound decisions but weren't able to implement them.
> 
> This move does give them more room to make decisions but it also increases the influence of politics on the game managers. Time will tell if this will be good or bad.


1)*You* made the moronic comment about blind trust, don't get all high and mighty on me. I merely pointed out how it is NOT blind trust for MANY!

2)What 'SI' group stopped the deer hunt being increased in length? I went to the RAC's and Wildlife Board and I never heard any of the 'SI' grouops voice opposition to it. It came from the general public. And, if you believe the DWR is immune from 'politics' you are WRONG!

3)Politics influences EVERY policy passed by the DWR and/or Wildlife Board already. Try and propose something at a RAc and see for yourself. I got slammed last fall, and *none* of those putting up walls were from sprtsmen groups, *none*.

4)Don't come on here acting like a saint that is 'only looking out for the little guy', because by you making false assumptions and false assertions does not help 'the little guy'.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

[quote="proutdoors[/quote]
1)*You* made the moronic comment about blind trust, don't get all high and mighty on me. I merely pointed out how it is NOT blind trust for MANY!

2)What 'SI' group stopped the deer hunt being increased in length? I went to the RAC's and Wildlife Board and I never heard any of the 'SI' grouops voice opposition to it. It came from the general public. And, if you believe the DWR is immune from 'politics' you are WRONG!

3)Politics influences EVERY policy passed by the DWR and/or Wildlife Board already. Try and propose something at a RAc and see for yourself. I got slammed last fall, and *none* of those putting up walls were from sprtsmen groups, *none*.

4)Don't come on here acting like a saint that is 'only looking out for the little guy', because by you making false assumptions and false assertions does not help 'the little guy'.[/quote]

1. I aint the one being high and mighty.

2. SFW was against the move. This was at the Central RAC. John Bair, Neil Clayton, and David Woodhouse all of SFW were against extending the Southeastern hunt.

3. That is my point. With the deer hunt being set in stone it wasn't affected by politics as much as it will be now.

4. I sure arn't a saint. Never claimed to be. I only claim to represent myself. None of my assertions are false.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

This thread just gets funnier every day :lol:

Some of you get your panties all twisted because some say "I *don't know* if I'm for or against this change because the people who will be able to make changes and the people that will be proposing change haven't spelled anything out".

That seems like a fair stance to have on the issue.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> 1. I aint the one being high and mighty.
> 
> 2. SFW was against the move. This was at the Central RAC. John Bair, Neil Clayton, and David Woodhouse all of SFW were against extending the Southeastern hunt.
> 
> ...


1)Saying people are blindly following *is* being high and mighty.

2)I was there and must have missed it. :roll:

3)Try and get ANYTHING passed/changed through the RAC's and Wildlife Board and tell me politics isn't already a MAJOR part of it. :?

4)Many of your assertions are false, saying people who support SFW are "blindly following" is false and absurd.

10000ft, my "panties" are just fine, a thong keeps them from all twisted. :shock: I get bothered when people question something because of who helped get it through instead of looking at what it is doing, and/or allows to happen. Nothing more.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > 1. I aint the one being high and mighty.
> ...


Pro I agree that politics is a major part of it. Again, that is one of my worrys with this change.

I missed alot of information at the meetings aswell. The division publishing the meeting minutes on their website has been a great asset for me.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

longfeather, Pro takes things real personal around here. i am sure you have noticed, before long his brother coyoteslayer will be along to put his 2 cents in.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> longfeather, Pro takes things real personal around here. i am sure you have noticed, before long his brother coyoteslayer will be along to put his 2 cents in.


Atleast he has 2 cents to put in. _(O)_ :mrgreen: Nice to hear from you again sage, your wisdom has been missed. 8)


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

Giving the authority to manage the wildlife to the DWR is a no-brainer. I trust their judgement far beyond a legislature to have stewardship over our deer herds. 

What is this talk of an underlying conspiracy? I think you have spent too much time watching NBC, CBS, and ABC. :wink: :lol:


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

no sense in adding my opinion on the matter, when either you or coyoteslayer will just say how is is benefiting the deer.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

we need to - unwad our panties as it has been put... and read what finn had to say... it pretty much sums up reality.



> But I'd like to see some changes made and they can't happen as long as the general deer hunt is frozen in place on the calendar. Best example of that would be moving the LE rifle elk hunts out of the rut. They can't move up earlier without cutting into the bowhunt and raising cain with the livestock interests. They can't move later without cutting into the deer hunt. Something's got to give if we're going to open up some LE elk opportunity. I'm not necessarily suggesting a swap with the deer and elk seasons, but the ability to move the deer hunt definitely gives all of us and the DWR some wiggle room to work with.


Regardless of where the idea comes from, it is time to do it.

There are many who understand what a pickle the DWR is in being hog tied to the current legeslated season.

Sometimes we have to give up "what we want" for what is RIGHT. This is a time when it is RIGHT to change the mandated seasons. There are areas where our deer herds need some super flexibility from the DWR.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> no sense in adding my opinion on the matter, when either you or coyoteslayer will just say how is is benefiting the deer.


 :lol: No one ever should stop you from voicing your opinion, but people can always respond to your opinion right?

I think it will benefit the deer and the DWR will be able to be manage the deer because they can move the seasons to where it benefits the deer the most. This is my opinion. You can trash me anytime you want to, but it wont change my opinion.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I have said this before, I am in favor of the DWR biologists having control of the dates. When the dates are changed it had better be to increase the quantity and quality of our deer herds. I do not buy some one saying more leaves on the trees are going offer more hunter opportunity and save the deer herds. I am also not in favor changing the date to accomodate elk hunting. In my book there is no greater trophy than a giant mule deer.
Later,
Griff


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> I have said this before, I am in favor of the DWR biologists having control of the dates. When the dates are changed it had better be to increase the quantity and quality of our deer herds. I do not buy some one saying more leaves on the trees are going offer more hunter opportunity and save the deer herds. I am also not in favor changing the date to accomodate elk hunting. In my book there is no greater trophy than a giant mule deer.
> Later,
> Griff


The bottom line is that it will put control into the hands of the DWR, instead of having suits showing up to board meetings when there is any item that has to do with the rifle deer hunt.

It will allow them to do what THEY feel is necessary to benefit HUNTERS and Animals.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

The thing that is funny is you all make it sound like the state legislature is controling hunting or even gives a rats about when we go to the hill. I'm sure if this doesn't go through the date will just sit at the same date for another 100 years.

Does it make sense to allow the date to be flexed if for a worthy cause? Yes

For what worthy cause? The change lobbiests and change makers haven't really said.

Do I think the DWR would stick it to the general season deer hunters? No

Do other conservation groups have priorities above the GS deer hunt? You bet!

Could enough politics and preasure influence the wildlife board to do something stupid? Yes


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> The thing that is funny is you all make it sound like the state legislature is controling hunting or even gives a rats about when we go to the hill. I'm sure if this doesn't go through the date will just sit at the same date for another 100 years.
> 
> Does it make sense to allow the date to be flexed if for a worthy cause? Yes
> 
> ...


If you were to word it a little different I would agree. Maybe something like: Do other conservation groups have priorities along with GS deer hunters? Of course! _(O)_

I don't understand the either or mentality. What 'rule' is in place that says if a SI group fights for trophy interests they can' also fight for general season interests? I don't get it, help me out. What is wrong with working on *BOTH * trophy and opportunity type hunting?


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

Looks like it passed by the skin of it's teeth.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> The thing that is funny is you all make it sound like the state legislature is controling hunting or even gives a rats about when we go to the hill. I'm sure if this doesn't go through the date will just sit at the same date for another 100 years.
> 
> Does it make sense to allow the date to be flexed if for a worthy cause? Yes
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

marksman said:


> Looks like it passed by the skin of it's teeth.


38 for, 35 against. Thanks for the update Marksman.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

marksman said:


> Looks like it passed by the skin of it's teeth.


A win is a win! -/O\- -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- -()/-


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I don't understand the either or mentality. What 'rule' is in place that says if a SI group fights for trophy interests they can' also fight for general season interests? I don't get it, help me out. What is wrong with working on BOTH trophy and opportunity type hunting?


PRO that is an excelent question.

Once upon a time there were only general season tags for both deer and elk. In order to create areas with higher numbers of trophy animals they had to limit general season tags.

That is still the same today. To create new LE hunts or expand LE opportunityor it often requires pushing more GS hunters into the same area or limiting their tags and taking away opportunity (to me opportunity is how often I can aquire said tag).

I am not against LE hunting, I put in each year. We have gone down this road before but until hunters have to choose in any given year between LE points or a GS tags the answer to your question is NO. You can not expand opportunity for LE without taking away from GS. As soon as hunters have to choose I just might get on board with I-400 or who knows....maybe even join SFW.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am not against LE hunting, I put in each year. We have gone down this road before but until hunters have to choose in any given year between LE points or a GS tags the answer to your question is NO. You can not expand opportunity for LE without taking away from GS. As soon as hunters have to choose I just might get on board with I-400 or who knows....maybe even join SFW.


Why do you think someone shouldn't gain a point if they obtain a GS tag? Isn't this also reducing opportunity for hunters?


----------

