# SFW Cedar meeting



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

First. let me state that I wish I were good at speaking out in public and thinking on my feet. I'm the type of person that needs some time to sort things out before making a decision and an even longer time to be able to put it in words. I really need to work on those two things because during a mass meeting like the one held in Cedar last night, emotions run very high and pretty much drown out logic and reason and the meeting moves quite fast. However, I now have had some time to look at my notes and reflect on what happened, and my insomnia (Restless leg syndrome and a nose bleed) will allow me to put it into printed words. 

Overall, the meeting was much the same as the one I attended in Richfield, but there were some differences, some of them significant, I think. First off, it was WAY bigger, 4 or 5 times as big. And it appeared most of those attending were SFW members or friends/invitees of SFW members. I saw quite a few SFW hats and shirts. Second, the meeting was still very emotional, but not as caustic toward less serious hunters. Third, though the meeting was still about coyotes and wolves, Don talked more favorably about the other issues related to the decline of the deer herds and acknowledged we still had some work to do in those areas as well. Fourth, I don't remember hearing a mention of a time limit to hit the 400,000 mark. That could be good or bad depending on how you look at it. More on that later. Fifth, Don asked more directly for money and SFW and Big Game Forever membership. He talked about several people who had donated 5 and 6 digit figures. Sixth, he asked for an honest show of hands of people who wanted 5 regional hunts versus 30 unit hunts and the results surprised even me given the makeup of the meeting. The hand count was about 2/3 units and 1/3 regions. I thought my hand was going to be the only one up for regions.

Now, some details I noticed.

They still don't accept the DWR counts, so I question how we are going to know when/if we reach 400,000. He still insists that once we reach that magical number, that we can restructure the hunting system to meet the needs/desires of the outside surveyed 35% that want trophies and the 65% that want opportunities. He hasn't told us what happens if we don't ever reach that mark. Also, he did say, offhand, that once we reach 400,000 then we should go for 600,000, but where/if that fits into the hunt restructuring schedule, he didn't say.

He also said they (meaning SFW/BGF) need to raise $2M to $3M to get done what they need to. And they need to get DWR to spend another $1M ($2M?) to kill coyotes. He also plans on getting a $50 per coyote bounty from all of Utah's counties, changing the trapping laws, and developing a legal coyote specific poison. He asked for another hand count of people who would be willing to kill some/more coyotes for the $50 bounty. I even raised my hand on that one. Then he want a bit (way) overboard by claiming a dentist told him that if the $50 bounty were in place, he would quit his practice and hunt coyotes for a living, and Don told us he thought that was possible. Doing simple math negates that idea. ($100,000 dental practice = 2,000 dead coyotes per year) (Minimum wages = 302 dead coyotes per year)

Don also did the usual name dropping, Karl Malone, Jim McMahon, Pres Bush, several other celebrities and athletes, Hatch, Matheson, Reed, Governors A, B, C, D, E, and F, yadda, yadda, yadda! And the usual bragging about all that SFW has accomplished (singly or with others, we're not sure).

On a personal note, I had a member of this (or MM) forum seek me out because I attended the Richfield meeting also and he accused me of calling him names on the forum after the Richfield meeting (which I NEVER do) and told me to stop doing it. I know his real name, but when I told him it wasn't me and asked him his online name, he said I already knew it (I don't) and he wouldn't give it to me. Curiously, though, he pulled up a chair and wanted to sit next to me in the meeting. I abliged and we had several conversations about some issues (He's pro SFW to the hilt) During the conversations, I told him again it wasn't me and when I told him my online name, he seemed to mellow, so I'm guessing it was a case of mistaken identity. I'd hate to think it was something else. In any case, we parted company on friendlier terms. I'm sure I'll see him again.

Sorry for the long post, but a lot of stuff happens in those meetings.

Edit: Regarding the wolf issue, I really don't have much of a problem with that. Wolves don't belong in Utah, period. I even signed the petition when I got home though I didn't donate any money. I hope they keep my name and email confined to BGF, not SFW.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm all FOR getting rid of as many coyotes as possible, I've seen the yote problem
getting worse steadily for a few years now,,,,,,,And we definitely DONT need wolves.

Our deer herds are in BIG trouble, why is it SFW/BGF and its members know it, BUT,
The DWR continue to put out BS herd estimate numbers? At least get them in the ballpark!
In the DWRs defense, I do feel like a solid effort was put forth on buck to doe ratios
this fall/winter..............

And I'm ALL FOR growing Utah's deer herd, I'm actually considering joining SFW/BGF....


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Everyone is for growing Utah deer herds, but it is much harder than just saying you want to do it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Everyone is for growing Utah deer herds, but it is much harder than just saying you want to do it.


But, it feels so grand to be a member of the ONLY group 'doing something'....... :O>>:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the report, elkfromabove! Glad you attended, and glad you were able to report back. I best get going out the door, I'm getting an early start on becoming wealthy by being a full-time coyote killer.....


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do Randy. Let me ask you this: Do you believe the herd estimate numbers of other game agencies, say-Nevada? Arizona? Colorado? Just curious to get a point of reference.

Thanks for the report Lee, good job.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

its a known fact that when private wealthy individuals and politicians get together, the average joe always benefits!  even if we hit that 400,000 deer mark, once we start seeing more 200 inch plus deer being taken by outfitters clients, I highly doubt their will be a strong push by sfw to give us back our opportunity.


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

So here is my question, If Don/SFW is so concerned with the deer herds why doesn't he work with the DWR to fix the problem instead of fighting everything they do? Oh wait I already know the answer, he doesn't care about the deer herds. All he/they care about is the money they can make off the deer herds. I love the whole coyote/wolf issue. I won't disagree we need to control them but it is already free to do so. There are no limits on coyotes you can hunt them anytime and shoot as many as you want. So you are telling me that if we give SFW 2-3 million dollars it will go to controlling coyotes/wolfs. I would be willing to bet that if someone could get the honest truth out of these guys(SFW) you would probably find they have already asked the DWR and all the people on the hill for money and were denied, so now he turns to the public with this whole coyote epidemic. Sounds like to me SFW membership is down and they(SFW) know people are emotional about deer hunting so he/they is using it to boost revenue. JUst my thoughts.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Apparently the system of everyone can hunt them and kill as many as they want, needs more help. Trust me the SFW memberships are not down they are in fact rising everyday :mrgreen: 

Goofy I will pm you the info of the SFW Wasacth chapter when I get it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

pheaz -- of course it's on the rise. Why is that? I think it is due to scare tactics. Did you hear the rumor spreading like wildfire through Cedar City yesterday prior to the SFW meeting? Heck, the DWR had over 50 calls, and the radio stations were even talking about it: DWR holding meeting at middle school to discuss the reintroduction of 200 wolves to Zion National Park and desert areas of southern utah.

Yep -- people here at work were going crazy -- they could not believe that the DWR was introducing wolves here in southern utah.

Where in the hell did that rumor start?



elkfromabove said:


> First off, it was WAY bigger, 4 or 5 times as big.


**** right it was bigger -- everyone in town was fired up thanks to the wolf reintroduction rumor!

Scare tactics will only get SFW so far. Unfortunately, Don knows that the majority of these so called "die hard hunters" are just sheep. They'll follow nearly anything someone in a position of "power" will say. They just need a leader, and Don figured out early that he was as good as anyone to spew his agenda and get those sheep to follow.

Hunters need to wake up. They need to ask questions, do some research, and make up their own minds. Stop following, and start thinking for yourself.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Where does the money raised go? Don's pocket or coyote control?

Donate money to the DWR coyote control. At least you know it will go to coyote control.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Exactly...donate money to the DWR! Exactly how much money does Don and his cronies "earn" per year?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> In the DWRs defense, I do feel like a solid effort was put forth on buck to doe ratios
> this fall/winter..............
> 
> And I'm ALL FOR growing Utah's deer herd, I'm actually considering joining SFW/BGF....


In your opinion, what did they do so differently this last fall/winter that warrented your approval on the buck to doe ratios? Did they really do something that was so drastically different than previous years?

Also, why not contribute the money you want to give to SFW to the DWR coyote control efforts?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Fact...SFW IRS Audit 2010: SFW continues to qualify for "charitable non-profit" status. Fact: 83% of all money hit the ground! (Impressive) 11% Adiministration fees, salaries. 3% went back into fund raising.


Elkfromabove, thanks for the meeting notes.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do Randy. Let me ask you this: Do you believe the herd estimate numbers of other game agencies, say-Nevada? Arizona? Colorado? Just curious to get a point of reference.
> 
> Thanks for the report Lee, good job.


I can tell you from the experiences I've had in Nevada and Arizona, The units
I've hunted and scouted have deer numbers a guy would expect to see according
to their hunting info,,,herd estimates, success rates , B/D ratios all seem to 'jive'.

PBH,,,,Wolf reintroduction to the SW is NOT A RUMOR!!!
These groups are WELL on their way to turning Mexican greys loose in Zion..
http://www.gcwolfrecovery.org/ecoregion.html

And I also understand there is a meeting tonight with Governor Herbert...

Here is a quote from another forum...

"We would like to have at least 300 sportsmen attend the meeting in hunter orange. What a great way to communicate our support for fixing Utah's Mule Deer herd. If a picture is worth a thousand words, we want to paint that picture with a room full of hunters wearing orange or camo.

Many sportsmen have offered to attend this meeting from all over the state. We are working to make sure there is a good attendance."

And the address...

Wellsville Elementary School

90 East, 100 South, Wellsville, Utah

Thank you for your support of Mule Deer Restoration in Utah.

And Judd,,,It looked to me like A LOT more effort being put out for deer
classifications this year...There's a fire burning under the DWR and they know it..


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy, where on the link you posted does it talk about reintroducing wolves? I couldn't find it. Maybe my comprehension skills aren't what they once were.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Goofy, where on the link you posted does it talk about reintroducing wolves? I couldn't find it. Maybe my comprehension skills aren't what they once were.


This is about the reintroduction as well,,,,there are a couple more if I can find them.

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archiv ... ie-opinion

Here is a quote from the article,,,
"So what would be the consequences to southern Utah? Without any means of controlling the Mexican wolf or protecting livestock, the losses to our state's farming and ranching industry, which accounts for $1.5 billion in sales every year, would be severe. The same is true of elk and other wildlife in southern Utah. The reintroduction of gray wolves in Yellowstone has taken a big bite out of elk numbers there. Placing a similar number of wolves in and around Utah's Dixie, where elk and big game animals are not nearly as numerous, is irresponsible. Once the elk are gone, the wolves will move on to livestock - just as gray wolves have and continue to do since their reintroduction in 1995 to Yellowstone and northern Idaho."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Fact...SFW IRS Audit 2010: SFW continues to qualify for "charitable non-profit" status. Fact: 83% of all money hit the ground! (Impressive) 11% Adiministration fees, salaries. 3% went back into fund raising.


Thanks for the facts....now answer the question: how much money did Don "earn" last year for a salary?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I can tell you from the experiences I've had in Nevada and Arizona, The units
> I've hunted and scouted have deer numbers a guy would expect to see according
> to their hunting info,,,herd estimates, success rates , B/D ratios all seem to 'jive'.


Hmmm...I was thinking that from my experience that Utah's herd estimates were "jiving"...so, does that mean I am wrong and you are right?



goofy elk said:


> PBH,,,,Wolf reintroduction to the SW is NOT A RUMOR!!!
> These groups are WELL on their way to turning Mexican greys loose in Zion..
> http://www.gcwolfrecovery.org/ecoregion.html


So, the reintroduction to the mexican wolves into Zion Canyon is set in stone and is going to happen? Hmmm...here I just thought that some environmental groups were pushing this as an agenda...but, it sounds as though these "groups" have decided to turn them loose into the southwest. Who game them the power? How come they get to decide?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy, where on the link you posted does it talk about reintroducing wolves? I couldn't find it. Maybe my comprehension skills aren't what they once were.
> ...


What does Orrin Hatch's opinion have to do with providing factual data concerning the alleged "reintroduction"? Again, where are some non-biased opinions on the subject? I don't need to be right about anything, I just want to form an opinion on something concrete and not here-say or opinion, that's all. I can be as anti as the next guy, just want to do it based on fact rather than fear and emotion.

Orrin obviously has motives to have that _opinion_, it's a great tune to sing for garnering votes from rural southern Utah.

He may be right, but I would like to see some court documents, information from pro wolf sites, USFWS findings/agendas etc.

Stillhunterman, don't you have information regarding this issue?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> In your opinion, what did they do so differently this last fall/winter that warrented your approval on the buck to doe ratios? Did they really do something that was so drastically different than previous years?


A better question would be: "Who gets to decide if herd estimates are viable or not?" and "What are the distinguishing features of poor herd estimates versus good herd estimates?" or "How should herd estimates be determined?" or "What reason does the UDWR have in giving poor herd estimates?"

Really, though, I am just trying to figure out why all the "smart" biologists live in Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona...? Shoot, if I were a biologist and had a choice, I would much rather live in Utah over Colorado, Arizona, or Nevada...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I can't find anything here:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWRP.shtml


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Or here:

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/wolf/documents ... .Final.pdf

But maybe I missed something.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr, perhaps the opinion given by the other side will give you some answers:
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archiv ... isleading/

Here are some quotes: " He [Senator Hatch] implies that there's an immediate plan in motion to drop 250 wolves into northern Arizona and Utah - when in reality a decision on whether there will be any wolf reintroductions, anywhere, is years away....But this is a long process that takes a number of years. And the public, including politicians like Hatch, will have plenty of time to weigh in before any actual plans are made. As a senior statesman, it's disappointing to see Sen. Hatch pandering to the anti-wolf zealots in his state."

Although, I would consider myself anti-wolf for Utah, I must agree that what Senator Hatch has done with his editorial is purely political..he is "pandering to the anti-wolf zealots" in Southern Utah. And, in truth, he has "pandered" quite nicely because he has a lot of folks in St. George, Cedar, and the surrounding area riled up about the wolf introduction to Zion...which is really nothing more than a rumor!


----------



## bigdaddyx4 (Jan 11, 2008)

I will be attending the Wellsville meeting with the governor tonight. I will try to take notes and get them posted on here as well. Who knows, it will probably be the same agenda as the Cedar City meeting though...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I think I already saw a preliminary meeting similar to this on CSPAN. I believe Mitt Romney and other political candidates were in restaraunts and other various establishments in Iowa.........


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Goofy -- see what I mean? It's all scare tactics. When someone actually does some research (ie: thinking for themselves vs. just listening to what others "heard") you find out that nothing has been done. No wolves are currently slated for reintroduction into the Utah's Dixie. It's all just rumor and fear right now.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

bigdaddyx4 said:


> I will be attending the Wellsville meeting with the governor tonight. I will try to take notes and get them posted on here as well. Who knows, it will probably be the same agenda as the Cedar City meeting though...


If the weather plays nice there are a few of us that plan on being in Wellsville tonight as well. See you there.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

If you think these are all "just rumors",,,

And think actual legitimate steps are not being taken by wolf activist to release
Mexican grey wolves in southern Utah and Arizona ??? 

I really don't know what to tell YA..........,,,Oh wait, may be this.

It blows me away we have wolf and big game issues and some Utah sportsman 
are in denial.....................

Hot news flash for you guys,,,Utah deer herd are declining,,,and wolves are coming..


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> If you think these are all "just rumors",,,
> 
> And think actual legitimate steps are not being taken by wolf activist to release
> Mexican grey wolves in southern Utah and Arizona ???
> ...


HOT NEWS FLASH! Utahs deer are declining and wolves are already here you mean.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> I would say one thing, if there is a super secret "wolf invation" coming as BGF/SFW is claiming, I would love to see it. I would think that if those orgs are truely out to save us from the wolf, they would want to have all the support they can garner, and would let other orgs in on their inside info. We're all in this together after all.


Agreed! Let's get al of the information out there so we can stand together.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy, again, show us something. I'll scream, kick and yell if I know what I am legitimately screaming, kicking and yelling about. I am HONESTLY looking for something with substance. Show it to me. I'll donate time and money to anything sensible and valid.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > In your opinion, what did they do so differently this last fall/winter that warrented your approval on the buck to doe ratios? Did they really do something that was so drastically different than previous years?
> ...


Well, you can rule out Nevada for having "smart" biologists per:

http://www.elkodaily.com/news/local/art ... 03286.html

Edited: Note the buck deer tag count it takes to "fix" the herd (11% of the population) and note that even though the deer population has gone up the last 2 years, the tag count still goes down. Foreboding, huh? Shades of Utah's current condition!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

More information.

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archiv ... misleading


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

My take on the wolf thing is that they may only be rumors now, but the sooner we let our voices be heard, the better. But it's unethical for SFW to misuse these rumors to booster their ranks and coffers, (I wasn't aware, before the meeting, of the misinformation on the radio/newspaper used to get folks to the meeting.) so that's why I just went on the BGF website at home and signed the petition and didn't send money, and why I didn't sign the attendee rolls at either meeting. They got my signature on the petition, but that's all they're getting!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Let's argue about it til there are 1000 wolves in UT. That seems to be the states plan. Oh wait what is the States plan???

It is really hard when some many personal agendas trump the true fight. Some will support SFW to the bitter end. Some will support the DWR to the bitter end. But one thing is a for sure. It will be a bitter end if we continue down the path we are currently on. 

PBH,
When you say educate yourself. Does that mean just agree with the DWR? I understand that is where your and W2U education came from. Being raised on DWR money and that docturain being preached everyday it is easy to see how you would take that stance. But just because others disagree does not mean they are not educated on the issue. It may mean they have actually searched out answers other than the propaganda that the DWR has used for years. I spent Saturday with a very knowledgeable biologists his views were very very interesting....and not money or budget based.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> It is really hard when some many personal agendas trump the true fight. Some will support SFW to the bitter end. Some will support the DWR to the bitter end. But one thing is a for sure. It will be a bitter end if we continue down the path we are currently on.


I agree with you 100% about personal agendas trumping the true fight. So what is your personal agenda? Oh wait, you don't have one but everyone else does? :shock: What is the DWR/Biologists personal agenda in this fight in your opinion? What reason do they have to artificially inflate numbers?

Obviously there needs to be some middle ground (which seems to be hard to find in these days). But you gotta start walking my way the same time you demand I start walking towards you.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Ok, so what happened to the post I made??? It wasn't what is there now...at least most of it???


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Try:
www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolf_management_plan.pdf

all 81 pages of it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I spent Saturday with a very knowledgeable biologists his views were very very interesting....and not money or budget based.


Just curious, did this biologist work for the DWR?
Truly, it doesn't matter who he worked for. The point is that he was knowledgeable, and most likely educated. Any respectable biologist would be willing to look at any ecological system objectively. So, my question to Muley is why would my father be any different? Sure, he worked for the State of Utah for over 30 years -- does that mean he was biased, politically corrupted, dishonest, or unqualified in any way to be a fisheries biologist? Do you think that he simply agreed with every bureaucratic decision that came down from his superiors? Further, does that mean that my "education" came from my fathers superiors, and that I simply fall in line with that thinking? Does my own education (Southern Utah University, thank you very much) not count for anything, just because my father was a DWR employee?

(what did your father do for a living?)

Have you ever had a face-to-face conversation with my father? Brother(s)? Myself?

You may have spent Saturday with a very knowledgeable biologist. What does that mean for yourself? Did you learn anything from him? I hope you did. I also hope that you don't limit yourself to that one Saturday. Hopefully you'll get to know numerous other knowledgeable biologists and hear their opinions, then weigh them and utilize that information for yourself. I had the privilege of being raised by a hell of a man. He was a pretty good fisheries biologist too.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> Ok, so what happened to the post I made??? It wasn't what is there now...at least most of it???


That's happened to me several times as well. What gives?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > If you think these are all "just rumors",,,
> ...


I agree with Pheaz's statement and I really don't know many people who don't. That is not the point though, the point is that some enviro groups are pushing to have wolves put in these areas, that is a far cry from it happening. Now saying this, it is always good to try and combat an issue before it becomes an issue, so even though this is mostly a scare tactic, I think it needs to at least be looked at because if we wait until the bill is going through congress, it may be too late. This is just my opinion.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Did you guys accidently click PREVIEW thinking it was SUBMIT? That has bit me a few times when I thought I posted something but in reality it didnt.


-DallanC


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

I spoke to our wildlife chief about these rumors yesterday. He explained that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is in the early stages of developing a recovery plan for Mexican wolves, and no final decisions will be made for several years. Any proposal to introduce wolves would go out to the public for input before a final decision was made. In other words, there is nothing official right now: not a proposal, not a reintroduction area, not a timeline.

In the meantime, Utah's DWR is represented on the recovery-plan team, and we're working vigorously to keep all recovery efforts within the historic range of Mexican wolves (areas outside of Utah).

The following paragraph is at the end of a recent DWR fact sheet and provides a bit more information about Mexican wolves:

*What about Mexican wolves?*
The Mexican wolf is a unique subspecies that occurred in Mexico and parts of the southwestern United States. Biologists have determined that the core population of Mexican wolves did not range farther north than central Arizona and New Mexico. The DWR opposes any efforts to recover this subspecies in Utah.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Whats the worry about wolf? Mexican or Grey I don't care. If they can thrive here and once did why does anyone oppose them? I'm certain their take will be compensatory. I bet some grad student up a USU is working on a paper to imply that already. :mrgreen: 

Goofy I love your fear mongering on Wolf/Elk dynamics and almost in the same sentence you down play the cougars affect on the deer herd while trying to blame the coyote. o-|| 

Just for the record. Any predator control is better than no predator control as far as I am concerned. That is why I haven't been very vocal about this new push for coyotes. I think cougar are key in the deer predation debate and coyote are far down the list. If anything the cougar promotes more coyote. The funny thing is I hear folks ranting about all the yotes on this page (big game) and everyone wanting to know how to find a yote in another. (other animals)

Go ahead shoot all the coyotes. But if that's all you do you'll get nothing but a bump in rabbits. And probably not noticeable.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> PBH,
> When you say educate yourself. Does that mean just agree with the DWR? I understand that is where your and W2U education came from. Being raised on DWR money and that docturain being preached everyday it is easy to see how you would take that stance. But just because others disagree does not mean they are not educated on the issue. It may mean they have actually searched out answers other than the propaganda that the DWR has used for years. I spent Saturday with a very knowledgeable biologists his views were very very interesting....and not money or budget based.


Talk about a bunch of bs...my father and my brother are/were fisheries biologists. They don't pretend to know anything about big game, wolves, predation, or hunting. To say that they have indoctrinated us with their views is total and absolute nonsense and bs! We both have educated ourselves by reading about the issues before spouting nonsense....or propaganda spewed by an editorial that falsely makes people, like Goofy, believe that plans are in place to introduce wolves to Zion.

The truth is that instead of coming on here and using a bunch of fear and emotion to drive our thoughts, we have both spent some time actually reading up on the issues and then formulating an opinion. I suggest, Muley73, that you start doing the same. IF you would do that, I would wager that your mule deer rhetoric would change as would your emotionally charged opinions on mule deer.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Did you guys accidently click PREVIEW thinking it was SUBMIT? That has bit me a few times when I thought I posted something but in reality it didnt.
> 
> -DallanC


Duh! Probably! Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley- I have spent some time with public and private bios and always like to hear what others have to say. What did you learn from the Bio that was very, very interesting? PM me if you'd rather.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Did you guys accidently click PREVIEW thinking it was SUBMIT? That has bit me a few times when I thought I posted something but in reality it didnt.
> 
> -DallanC


Off topic in this thread, but I'm wondering the same thing. The operating rules for the moderators are that posts shouldn't be edited unless they're in significant violation of the forum rules, and if an edit is made, it should be noted in the thread along with the reason.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Guys I said I understand where you stance comes from. I promise my opinions have not come from just one source. nor do I think all of yours has either. But I believe it is heavily biased, understandably by being close to the DWR. I know great people that work for DWR. People I have a ton of respect for, that is not my point at all. I just don't agree with the agenda.

If the DWR truly followed the biology and made decisions based on the biology then I believe we would be better off currently and in the future. Well they just don't do that. Until budget and money are not more important than fixing the problem we will have issues.

Judd,
My stance is I want to see our deer herds recover and I don't believe our current or past strategies have not been successful. I will continue to fight for the things I believe will help. I would like to see some units closed and see how they rebound? I would like some other focus on other unit ie primitive weapons, road closures, split seasons, different season dates and see if they rebound. Focused predator control, fences, underpasses, winter feeding. I could keep going but that's enough for now.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> If the DWR truly followed the biology and made decisions based on the biology then I believe we would be better off currently and in the future. Well they just don't do that. Until budget and money are not more important than fixing the problem we will have issues.


Muley...let me ask you this. In today's system what decisions does the DWR make?

Everything is open on this question too...tap into tag numbers, boundaries, regulations, or anything else for that matter.


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

The question I have is why is the Governor not willing to go to a RAC or board meeting of the agency that actualy runs hunting in this fine state, but will show up to a meeting for SFW?????? I would love to know how many meetings Peayday has had with the Governor and what promises he has made him during this election years and how much money he has asked for?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Petersen said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> > Did you guys accidently click PREVIEW thinking it was SUBMIT? That has bit me a few times when I thought I posted something but in reality it didnt.
> ...


 

That'd be my bad. I thought I was QUOTING stillhunterman. Turns out it was that nasty little edit button. My bad. Let me know what I can do to reconcile.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

love2hunt said:


> The question I have is why is the Governor not willing to go to a RAC or board meeting of the agency that actualy runs hunting in this fine state, but will show up to a meeting for SFW?????? I would love to know how many meetings Peayday has had with the Governor and what promises he has made him during this election years and how much money he has asked for?


It's not just the governor either....other state legislators and representatives will gladly show up to a SFW meeting to gain voting support but almost never show up to RAC meetings or WB meetings. The politicians undoubtedly know where the money is and where votes can be won....


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

Sounds like we need do a little house cleaning on the hill and vote for those who actually care about our deer herds, not just the money they generate.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Like I said in another port regarding these meatings. *This is a mebership drive* and nothing else. SFW will paint the prettiest picture it can to seize control of your money and if/when they fail to deliver they will blame it on the DWR or some other entity. At that point they will make another drive for money/memberships. If they need another 2 million they can start to put expo tag money to proper use.

The truth is that we have a credibility problem here. Many do not trust the DWR or their data; others don't trust SFW and their agenda. At the root of all of this is a mule deer herd that is struggling and declining in numbers. What we sportsmen need to do is stop putting our own interest aside and start putting mule deer intrests at center stage. Forget who gets to hunt where and how and at what cost. If we do not put mule deer first we will lose this battle to ourselves not the anti groups or anyone else.



wyoming2utah said:


> Thanks for the facts....now answer the question: how much money did Don "earn" last year for a salary?


There was a thread a while back with a link to SFW's financials.... anyway, the numbers were in this ball park:

Don = 180+ K/Yr
Byron = 80+ K/yr



goofy elk said:


> I can tell you from the experiences I've had in *Nevada* and Arizona, The units
> I've hunted and scouted have deer numbers a guy would expect to see according
> to their hunting info,,,herd estimates, success rates , B/D ratios all seem to 'jive'.


Goofy, How long ago was your experience in Nevada. As I recall from family there and from recent publications, Nevada has the smallest deer herd in the west and it is in a state of emergency. The reason for it is that they have managed for 30:100 buck:doe ratio and their habitat is in terrible shape. According to what I have been told by residents and have read about Nevada's deer problem is old and they have just recently realized they had one.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Guys I said I understand where you stance comes from. I promise my opinions have not come from just one source. nor do I think all of yours has either. But I believe it is heavily biased, understandably by being close to the DWR. I know great people that work for DWR. People I have a ton of respect for, that is not my point at all. I just don't agree with the agenda.
> 
> Their agenda is the same as yours and mine on this issue. They want to grow the deer herds as much, or more, than the rest of us. It's the methods we have conflict with. And their education, training,
> consultations and experiences tell them it's not just (or even) raising buck to doe ratios, a reduction in buck tags, regulation of hunters, transplanting deer, or shooting more coyotes, cougars or wolves. They continually improve their knowledge, strategies and methods to do their jobs. And they need the money to accomplish that. We tend to focus mostly on the money as the most important motivation because that's where it hits us the most and where it's most obvious, but that's not the way they look at it. And we usually forget that they're not in this alone. They seek advice and counsel from every entity they can in order to make the proper decisions. Almost every time I go the Southern District Office, the person I need to talk to is ether in some meeting or on the phone. They're not perfect, but they're the best team we've got. And per the comparison between the 2003 and the 2008 management plans, they are willing to change directions and gears when they find something better.
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> Like I said in another port regarding these meatings. *This is a mebership drive* and nothing else. SFW will paint the prettiest picture it can to seize control of your money and if/when they fail to deliver they will blame it on the DWR or some other entity. At that point they will make another drive for money/memberships. If they need another 2 million they can start to put expo tag money to proper use.
> 
> The truth is that we have a credibility problem here. Many do not trust the DWR or their data; others don't trust SFW and their agenda. At the root of all of this is a mule deer herd that is struggling and declining in numbers. What we sportsmen need to do is stop putting our own interest aside and start putting mule deer intrests at center stage. Forget who gets to hunt where and how and at what cost. If we do not put mule deer first we will lose this battle to ourselves not the anti groups or anyone else.
> 
> ...


I Googled 990 Finder, then looked for Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Utah, page 7.

Per SFW's IRS form 990, 2008; 
Ryan Foutz, secretary - $96,000 + $35,000 comp. from related org.
Don Peay, VP - $162,000
Byron Bateman, Pres - $103,849

Per SFW's IRS form 990, 2009;
Ryan Foutz, secretary - $96,000
Don Peay, VP - $156,000
Byron Bateman, Pres - $84,000

In 2007 they filed a different form 990 and it shows minimum or no salary, but I'm no accountant and am not sure what that means.

As far as the Nevada issue goes, I posted a link earlier on this thread that eliminates their biologists as "smart". Their Wildlife Commission doesn't believe them any more than our Wildlife Board believes ours.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Now don't go starting to make any sense efa, there are some that simply will NOT believe anything that doesn't come out of their own gullet...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Now don't go starting to make any sense efa, there are some that simply will NOT believe anything that doesn't come out of their own gullet...


Yogi Bera was a great man. He's famous for non-sensical quotes that actually make a ton of sense.



Yogi Bera said:


> There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Fact...SFW IRS Audit 2010: SFW continues to qualify for "charitable non-profit" status. Fact: 83% of all money hit the ground! (Impressive) 11% Adiministration fees, salaries. 3% went back into fund raising.
> 
> Elkfromabove, thanks for the meeting notes.


Hmmmm, 83% hitting the ground is indeed impressive...

And I gotta say, the salaries are not out of line in today's business world either.

So, I guess the only $$$$ not accounted here are the Expo tags?? right?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, wait a second, Goofy, you believe that it is ok for those guys to make that kind of money? So, do you NOT believe that those same guys don't have serious incentive to increase SFW money raised solely for the purpose of lining their own pockets? After all, the more donations they get, the more money they bring in, the more money that ends up in their salaries...right? You don't see a serious conflict of interest there?

Oh...and, by the way, I live in a community where someone who makes $150,000 + a year is considered rich....and NOT in line with the business world!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Fact...SFW IRS Audit 2010: SFW continues to qualify for "charitable non-profit" status. Fact: 83% of all money hit the ground! (Impressive) 11% Adiministration fees, salaries. 3% went back into fund raising.
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here , maybe these links will help..
2001 - 2011 Conservation Permit Revenue and Number of Permits by Organization
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... ations.pdf

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/index.php? ... on-permits

Conservation permit rules..
http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/rules_toc.php


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

These numbers are for CONSERVATION permits yet the numbers of permits showing for SFW&MDF are consistent with EXPO permit numbers. This brings up a few questions....

If these are CONSERVATION permit numbers, Is there a different list that shows EXPO permit numbers?

If these numbers include the EXPO permits, Why are EXPO permits not subject to the same monetary rules as CONSERVATION permits?

If these are ONLY conservation permits, Does that meen that SFW&MDF are getting the EXPO permits on top of these conservation permit numbers? (if this is the case then they truly are bending us over and letting us have it... :-? )


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> These numbers are for CONSERVATION permits yet the numbers of permits showing for SFW&MDF are consistent with EXPO permit numbers. This brings up a few questions....
> 
> If these are CONSERVATION permit numbers, Is there a different list that shows EXPO permit numbers?
> 
> ...


Conservation permits are the auctioned tags. The expo tags are called "CONVENTION" tags and have different rules that include allowing expo organizers to reatain 100% of the $5 application fees. There are 200 tags given to organizers each year.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-55.php

"On the ground" can mean a lot of things. Are lobbying activities counted as "on the ground"? How about 1.5M in "banquet" and "convention" expenses? Nothing illegal at all, but I question where the "on the ground" part comes in?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

So the tags listed in the post from goofy are not the same as convention tags? (I knew it) and are in addition to the $5 convention tags?

Amazing how 1 organization (2 actually) controls so many of out big game tags.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> So the tags listed in the post from goofy are not the same as convention tags? (I knew it) and are in addition to the $5 convention tags?
> 
> Amazing how 1 organization (2 actually) controls so many of out big game tags.


That is correct. The 200 tags for the expo are in addition to the tags that goofy linked.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

W2U,
I would have to agree that 150,000 is pretty in line with what a traveling business person would make. I agree in your town probably not a lot of people are making that kind of money but that's kinda the trade off of living in Sevier County. 

Again here we are focusing on crashing the SFW rather than fix the deer herds. If the SFW stays will the herds get fixed??? I guess that is up for debate. But if the SFW disappears tomorrow will that fix our deer herds? I really think not! Please explained if you feel other wise and why? Is that 17% they are not returning the key?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The original point of me bringing up their salary was directed at the idea someone else posted about instead of donating money to SFW just send it to the DWR...at least that way you know it is being used for wildlife and not to run a business. 83% of SFW's income may go back to wildlife, but 100% of the DWR's does...I think that is a pretty big difference.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The original point of me bringing up their salary was directed at the idea someone else posted about instead of donating money to SFW just send it to the DWR...at least that way you know it is being used for wildlife and not to run a business. 83% of SFW's income may go back to wildlife, but 100% of the DWR's does...I think that is a pretty big difference.

Also, the average salary for a Utah resident is around $50,000...I have a hard time believing that Don deserves 3 times the average. Especially if the organization he runs is supposed to be non-profit.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I rather have a group fighting for huntable wildlife than not know if the money is going to big game or a non huntable species.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

For clarification; The legislature appropriates between 8 and 10% of the divisions working budget for non-game species because they DO NOT want the division using license dollars to fund non-hunt-able species.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I rather have a group fighting for huntable wildlife than not know if the money is going to big game or a non huntable species.


Personally, I have felt that Don's group has also taken tags from the public and made huntable species less huntable....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> W2U,
> I would have to agree that 150,000 is pretty in line with what a traveling business person would make. I agree in your town probably not a lot of people are making that kind of money but that's kinda the trade off of living in Sevier County.
> 
> Again here we are focusing on crashing the SFW rather than fix the deer herds. If the SFW stays will the herds get fixed??? I guess that is up for debate. But if the SFW disappears tomorrow will that fix our deer herds? I really think not! Please explained if you feel other wise and why? Is that 17% they are not returning the key?


Sportsmen are giving out a lot of dollars to help mule deer to all kinds of organizations through donations and other programs. All I care about is the lions share of those dollars actually go to helping mule deer (and other species). If putting pressure on some org to spend their dollars more wisely does that or going to the legislature and mandating organizations do it then I am helping mule deer and I could care less if I ever saw one penny of it.

I'm not interested in closing anyones doors. I'm interested in seeing more dollars that are already floating around out there for deer actually go to deer. I hope the public gets educated and pressure from one direction or another makes a positive impact.

This won't fix deer herds by itself but it is a piece of the puzzle.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > Fact...SFW IRS Audit 2010: SFW continues to qualify for "charitable non-profit" status. Fact: 83% of all money hit the ground! (Impressive) 11% Adiministration fees, salaries. 3% went back into fund raising.
> ...


My thoughts exactly. These are not extremely high salaries, and definately not the kind of numbers others on here have insinuated. Look up on the state website and see what our tax dollars are paying school district superintendents. It really doesn't matter though. They could be paid $100 a year or even nothing and some on here would never admit to being wrong.

Also, 83% of the proceeds spent in the private sector is about 80% better than money spent with the government. ALWAYS!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bwhntr said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


Especially if you get to spend that 80% on flashy attention getting projects, While the DWR has to spend there 100% doing the REAL work, that includes all the things that wont get you in a newspaper, but are every bit or more important as the glam.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

:roll: Right...because they don't do any REAL work. :roll:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I don't have quite as much of a problem with their incomes (plus their $108,286 total in travel expenses) as I do by the fact that they use the incomes of anti-hunters for the purposes of discrediting their organizations for being just a business and not really interested in the animals they claim to protect, and by the fact that they (SFW) claim that the animal rights groups are just a vocal minority that doesn't speak for the general public. I think they need to look in the mirror more often. I see them asking for money and misusing the media and the political system in order to carry out an agenda that favors them and not me nor the wildlife I love. And I sure as Hades don't think they speak for me nor for a large majority of Utah hunters and fishermen.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> ...And I sure as Hades don't think they speak for me nor for a large majority of Utah hunters and fishermen.


hmmm...interesting. It would be interesting (although probably impossible) to know how many people in this state support the mule deer recovery plan. People that actually know the facts about this organization and not the BS assumptions spewed out here on the UWN.

I would be even more interested to find out who supports these ideas without telling them who authored them.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > ...And I sure as Hades don't think they speak for me nor for a large majority of Utah hunters and fishermen.
> ...


Sounds to me like you are an SFW supporter. I will not go as far as you did and call what you think or believe BS but I will plant a seed for you to use as food for thought.....

1.- SFW pushed and supported "option 2" in order to get tags cut by 13K this is more than any anti-hunting or enviro group could have ever dreamt.

2.- SFW has a loud voice against the DWR's deer estimates and makes no bones about how wrong they think DWR is

3.- They control over 400 big game tags. They auction off about 50 % of them and then they raffle off the other 200 racking in millions of dollars that are not subject to anything but their coffers.

4.- Now they are rallying to boost mule deer populations to 400K by holding all these meeting and getting people all emotional when they don't even know if those numbers are feasible or sustainable.

Tell me that any of these thing are lies and I will apologize. I guarantee you that from the average hunter's perspective, learning these things about SFW will surely put a disappointing expression on their face.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

SFWs own members dont support their ideas. And who cares who supports their ideas, their "ideas" dont help produce more deer. All sub-arguements aside, Option WTF?, the golden child and "idea" of SFW, does nothing to help deer. In fact, it may well have a negative effect on deer. 

As for work, no "they" dont. SFW auctions public resources, and then pays other entities to build guzzlers, do range improvements etc. with the funds. These things are all great and appreciated, but its not like SFW has the infastructure, manpower, or even the know how to do anything their name gets put on. They get credit for funding these project. And the only reason they get to put their name on anything is because of the money they generate selling public resources.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Sounds to me like you are an SFW supporter. I will not go as far as you did and call what you think or believe BS but I will plant a seed for you to use as food for thought.....Supporter? Hmmm, I support ensuring the future of hunting for the next generations. I don't think I have to label myself with an organization to be a "supporter"
> 
> 1.- SFW pushed and supported "option 2" in order to get tags cut by 13K this is more than any anti-hunting or enviro group could have ever dreamt. I don't agree with EVERYTHING the SFW has proposed. Cutting tags and creating 30 units is something I don't agree with. Really though, where is the problem? The organization that had an idea and presented it, or the organization that accepted it and didn't listen to anybody else on the issue?
> 
> ...


Not all these questions are rhetorical...You are more than welcome to respond via PM. It seems to me most of what is said on here gets talked down on, and no real discussion is ever met. PM's seems more productive.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Madhunter , lonetree, W2U, EFA.....

Whats done is done,,,deer unit management is here to stay...

SFW isn't going anywhere...........

The EXPO and there 200 convention tags isn't pulling out of town.....

The banquets aren't going to quite selling conservation permits.....

AND THE MILLIONS OF dollars that are being generated from these permits will
continue to roll into wildlife, habitat projects, ......
The local economy, The EXPO, Hotels, Restaurants, and so on............

Most of the guys buying permits hire outfitters and guides,,,( oh how you guys hate it)..
BUT ITS TRUE!..........

There is so much $$$$$$ being generated its not going away...
So basically, all this negativity you guy throw out is wasted time......
Go a head , fire back, I can take it...
AND PS,
I'm just glad to see a BIG chunk of the $$$$ going back into habitat/wildlife..


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Goofy

Just because Option WTF? is here to stay, does not change the fact that it does NOTHING to help deer.

But the $$$, now that is awesome, with all that money we dont need to raise the price of tags.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

In fact with all that $$$ and people that care so much about the deer, we should be able to fund anything, especially if its beneficial to deer, right?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bwhntr said:


> MadHunter said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds to me like you are an SFW supporter. I will not go as far as you did and call what you think or believe BS but I will plant a seed for you to use as food for thought.....Supporter? Hmmm, I support ensuring the future of hunting for the next generations. I don't think I have to label myself with an organization to be a "supporter"
> ...


I think I will keep it in the open because it is a subject that involves everyone.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mad

You should feel priveldeged, I mean a closed door meeting with a SFW guy, that could make you important.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I am in no way attacking anyone personally so please don't take it like I am. I would just like to see things done in the interest of wildlife and not in the interest of $$$.

I know unit mgmt is here to stay. Unit management has been around for quite a while. What was passed with Opt WTF was hunter management.

SFW is here and now..... but nothing lasts forever. I am not against them I just don't agree with them making money directly from a public resource and not having to be accountable for any of it to wildlife. If there was a mandate that stated some % of the expo tag entry fee has to go to conservation projects like it does with conservation tags it would be way cool.

The boost to the economy generated by the Expo is awesome. I love that part about it. I love seeing peopl efrom all over the world coming to town. I go to the expo and I spend my money there. Its part of a bigger picture.

I hope that banquets keep selling tags. I for one have planned to use the public draw system for tags untill I am 55. After that I will go to banquets and start buying tags there as I will not have a chance to draw again past that age and yes I will hire guides and outfitters when I buy those tags.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Goofy
> 
> Just because Option WTF? is here to stay, does not change the fact that it does NOTHING to help deer.
> 
> But the $$$, now that is awesome, with all that money we don't need to raise the price of tags.


To say option WTF (2) does nothing for deer is pure BS!!!!!

It's just started, the first season coming, AND LOOK AT ALL THE ATTENTION
its raising , bringing awareness to the problems our deer herd faces.....

NOT to mention the fact controlling permit numbers per unit will all but
stop hot spotting and putting ALL THAT extra "pressure" on remaining herds.

And yes, IMHO they should cut the tags in half and double permit prices..
I'm WAAAAAY good with that,,,,AND not hunting deer in Utah ever year....
Hell, I havnt realy hunted general deer in Utah in a LOOOOONG time anyway.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy
> ...


You got me, Option WTF? has been a good deer awareness campaign. Those PR people must have known what they were doing when they came up with that.

We dont need to raise the price of tags, remember, the expo tags generate sooo much $$$ we got it made in the shade. All that $$$ will cover the DWR short fall from tag sales, and support any solutions that _*actually*_ do something for deer.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Goofy... I thinkwe could have raised the attention without having to manage hunters. I am not 100% against unit permit allocation I just have a hard time swalloing a pill that I am being told is actually candy. they should have sold opt 2(WTF) for what it really was. I agree to an extent on the hotspotting. I think we all liked having countless square miles available to out tags.

Raising prices on tags I could live. Fortunately I can afford it. However I do believe that doubling tag prices would hurt hunting more than you realize. I can almost assure you that more than half the people that buy a tag would stop buying. Keep in mind as well that not everyone can go out of state to hunt like you and I can. It' just doesn't fit into a median family budget of around 55K/Yr.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Mad
> 
> You should feel priveldeged, I mean a closed door meeting with a SFW guy, that could make you important.


WOW! I'm moving up in the world. -()/-

Care to ride my coattails? :_O=:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mad

+1 I've been meaning to pay you a little more attention lately. Yeah, PM sent.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

The problem with going down this road under the assumption that it will increase the deer herds and that when the herds recover, we can return the tags and manage the hunts as the people have chosen, ie; 65% want region hunts and want to hunt every year while 35% are willing to wait a few years to hunt trophies is a promise that has a bad track record.

Income taxes were temporary. Social Security was temporary, food stamps are supposed to be temporary, the welfare system was designed to just get us by until we became employed. The payments to unwed mothers per child was to help them until they could get their lives together and manage on their own. And the ESA was designed to help species (Wolves, Prairie Dogs) recover to the point they could be delisted and managed by the states.

Nevada has a mule deer plan that allows them to maintain or increase the tags when the herd increases, but they continued to cut tags from a 2011 recommended 14,910 down to 11,536, even though the herd increased 2 years in a row. In Utah, several of the LE deer units were made Limited Entry to increase the herd and we were told they would go back to general once that happened. Well, it never happened (surprise, surprise)! And even if it does, do any of you think the trophy hunters would be willing to give them up now?

Don said at the meeting that first we need to get the herd populations up to 400,000 (via Option #2) and THEN we can manage the hunts as the survey shows, 65% chose regions and 35% chose units. But in the same little spiel he upped the ante to 600,000. And who gets to determine how we hunt? At the Richfield meeting he said it should be the "die-hard hunters" who came up with the 30 unit system. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but even I can see where this is going and I'm not thrilled. Some of you have stated that the 30 unit system is here to stay, but Don has promised otherwise. Maybe you ought to tell him how it is! On second thought, please don't. He might believe you. :shock:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> The problem with going down this road under the assumption that it will increase the deer herds and that when the herds recover, we can return the tags and manage the hunts as the people have chosen, ie; 65% want region hunts and want to hunt every year while 35% are willing to wait a few years to hunt trophies is a promise that has a bad track record.
> 
> Income taxes were temporary. Social Security was temporary, food stamps are supposed to be temporary, the welfare system was designed to just get us by until we became employed. The payments to unwed mothers per child was to help them until they could get their lives together and manage on their own. And the ESA was designed to help species (Wolves, Prairie Dogs) recover to the point they could be delisted and managed by the states.
> 
> ...


30 units, so what, who cares? higher buck to doe ratios, so what, who cares? Not being able to hunt every year, so what, who cares? SFW telling me how these units should be hunted, so what, who cares? Higher priced tags, so what, who cares? Not being able to hunt with family, so what, who cares? The cold black heart of Option WTF? is that it does NOTHING to actually grow deer. Growing more deer, will grow more bucks, increasing buck to doe ratios, will not grow more deer. And it sure as he%% wont get us 400,000 deer, let alone 600,000. Everything else aside, because they are really peripheral issues. Growing more deer takes care of all the "so what, who cares?". The real FACT of option WTF? hides among all those arguements. Option WTF? does NOT grow deer. FACT


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > ...And I sure as Hades don't think they speak for me nor for a large majority of Utah hunters and fishermen.
> ...


bwhntr, you know I think you're a good guy, but this kind of statement drives me crazy! Either I am totally reading your post wrong, or you are asserting that those who dislike SFW, more accurately those who dislike what SFW does, are ignorant or just stupid. I think you know that I "know the facts about this organization" as well as any SFW supporter on here, yes? And yet, I dislike what they do, and mostly how they do it. Does that put me, in your opinion, in the ignorant or the stupid group?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> To say option WTF (2) does nothing for deer is pure BS!!!!!
> 
> It's just started, the first season coming, AND LOOK AT ALL THE ATTENTION
> its raising , bringing awareness to the problems our deer herd faces.....
> ...


Using your 'logic'......Obama has generated 'awareness' to the Constitution, AND LOOK AT ALL THE ATTENTION his being in office is raising......

Yes, "hot spotting" will come to a screeching halt, after all, the brilliant men on the Wildlife Board have the ability to perfectly distribute hunters and ensure there will be an equal number of 'mature' bucks in each of the 30 units. Why did we wait so long for the Wildlife Board to be given the power to eliminate "hot spotting", as I am assuming "hot spotting" is a major cause for the struggling deer numbers.

Also, I have no doubt cutting tags by as much as 50% and doubling permit fees will have the deer herd up to 400,000 in a flash. After all, the last time the state of Utah cut tags by 50%, the herd rebounded.......wait, I mean when Colorado cut its permits by 50% the herd doubled......um, when Nevada cut its permits by 50% the herd....**** IT! I know, when the Limited Entry, and the Premium Limited Entry units drastically cut permits ( by MORE than 50%), it was no trouble getting these units at/above population objectives. Shoot, well forget actual results, forget what educated BIOLOGISTS say, forget what study after study tell us, lets just hop on a snowmobile and go for a ride in North Sanpete....then we will know the 'real' facts!

:O||:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Man, it's been a while since I got my "dose" of Pro...lol Hope you are doin' well down south brother! ;-)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Or,,,,May be go be a farmer/rancher,,,, Instead of hunter/guide........

Then we would know the 'real' facts!

I can only imagine how much worse shape those other states would be in now
if they had stayed with a general season type management system...........

There deer losses would be EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT...........IMHO


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Or,,,,May be go be a farmer/rancher,,,, Instead of hunter/guide........
> 
> Then we would know the 'real' facts!
> 
> ...


Goofy, I don't get it? You say you haven't hunted deer in Utah for years. What is your reason for all the bantering. A few less bucks over the years will not make or break the deer in Utah, Nevada or Colorado. Yet in Utah you can see this whole option thing is just to have more bucks to hunt, not grow more deer.

But, again I ask? What is your dog in this hunt? You seem to care, but then in the same sentence you say you don't. I know you would rather see 200 inch bucks around every corner and believe that Utah should be like that but, the truth of the matter is most of us just want to hunt. Big bucks, small bucks, one eyed bucks, one antlered bucks. We don't care.

We want to hunt. Until you start hunting deer again in Utah.....Shut it!

Sorry Goofy, but dang!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm going to throw out a little business insider here for those who may be paying attention ... there is a specific group working very hard in this state with certain politicians in lead positions to legally challenge the ownership of BLM properties held in the state of Utah. Their claim is that the property was to be "disposed of" to private ownership. They currently have a team of legal professionals working at the Fed level to make available the sale of BLM and State lands to private citizens... I would venture to guess that there will be a big payout to those who are in the know in the form of early sale of large sections of what is now considered "public" lands... then with those lands - predominantly in the South, South East, and Eastern regions of the State of Utah tied up in huge privately held ranches that contain a majority of the State owned wildlife -they'll sell to the highest bidder the opportunity to hunt for said big game animals...including Deer, Elk, Moose, Bison, Sheep, Mtn. Goats, etc. etc... And they are going to do it without having any public meetings or notice if they get it pushed through at the Fed level... keep an ear to the tracks my friends, a great and mighty 800# gorilla once again is driving a train right through your "freedoms" and "privelages" to hunt and fish by working to take away public lands.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> I'm going to throw out a little business insider here for those who may be paying attention ... there is a specific group working very hard in this state with certain politicians in lead positions to legally challenge the ownership of BLM properties held in the state of Utah. Their claim is that the property was to be "disposed of" to private ownership. They currently have a team of legal professionals working at the Fed level to make available the sale of BLM and State lands to private citizens... I would venture to guess that there will be a big payout to those who are in the know in the form of early sale of large sections of what is now considered "public" lands... then with those lands - predominantly in the South, South East, and Eastern regions of the State of Utah tied up in huge privately held ranches that contain a majority of the State owned wildlife -they'll sell to the highest bidder the opportunity to hunt for said big game animals...including Deer, Elk, Moose, Bison, Sheep, Mtn. Goats, etc. etc... And they are going to do it without having any public meetings or notice if they get it pushed through at the Fed level... keep an ear to the tracks my friends, a great and mighty 800# gorilla once again is driving a train right through your "freedoms" and "privelages" to hunt and fish by working to take away public lands.


Here is how its supposed to work for BLM land http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/l ... _land.html

Here is some info on how SITLA land sales are supposed to work. http://trustlands.utah.gov/about/faqs.html

Here is how SITLA came to be. http://www.schoollandtrust.org/school-t ... ool-lands/

As for Herbert, Chafetz, and Bishop, they can all ***************************


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Horsesma...Here's were its at.....
My wife and oldest boy had general tags this year.....
The boy had some action on the archery hunt, but didn't connect.
Went back out muzzy, were we usually see a few, nothing there 
this year. Took the wife out scouting with us a couple times before
the rifle opener. Didn't see chit, she didn't even pull her rifle out of
the closet and go..That's right, a SE general tag that didn't get hunted!

Right now I also have a boy going to take hunter safety next month..
Might let him shoot his first turkey this year if every thing go well..

For years, we hunted the general deer hunt right out of out home,
on our ranch. Not long ago you could have stood on my back deck
and counted a 100 deer. As few as 5 years ago, there were still
deer around from time to time, But the last 3 years they are totally gone!
NOT ONLY THAT, but the Nebo creek, Bennie creek deer are gone as well.
One local herd left on Spencer fork this year were I witnessed the
hot spotting crews wipe them out...........................

I have a dog in this fight! I want to see deer off my deck again some day.
And have a viable deer herd my kids can hunt growing up, even if we
do only hunt it every 2-3 years, we'll just hunt out of state on off years.
I've watched the Nebo general deer herd shot to chit and I'm sick of it!
In fact , Its so poor I hope it does go limited entry in 2013......
Looks to me at this point that all that will save it. 

I would love to see deer in the fields again some day, and limiting hunters
will help.............................


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> I've watched the Nebo general deer herd shot to chit and I'm sick out it!


I think you also watched a major highway expansion go right through the north-south animal travel corridor on the Nebo unit. Any animal that travels from the northern range to the southern range or vice-versa has to cross a five lane highway. The same highway expansion happens to travel just parallel to a prime water source on the unit.

I think it's only fair to include all the factors when assigning blame. The Nebo unit should be managed to increase the population of its herd because the whole herd has decreased, not just the number of bucks.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Goofy, that was a nice reply. I get it. The deer are in decline. I also want deer to recover and see more, but limiting hunting opportunities is not the answer in most of these 30 units. 

You have seen what has happened with LE areas. They (key word) "LIMITED" entry hunting in the name of more bucks, not more deer. Big difference. Once this LE thing keeps going where or when does it stop. Not once have they given back a LE area to general season. 

When we keep managing for these higher buck to doe ratios is that going to be enough? Is 20 to 100 enough or 30 or 40? Where does it end? How many units will they keep trying this with? How many more tags "OPPORTUNITIES" are we going to sacrifice for more bucks. 

Cut tags if necessary, but do not let these areas turn into LE. It will be the end of traditional hunting as we know it, and for what? This 30 unit thing is already detrimental enough to traditional family hunting as we know it. Adding more LE areas will turn what was once a good time with friends and family into a trophy only mentality.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> > I've watched the Nebo general deer herd shot to chit and I'm sick out it!
> 
> 
> I think you also watched a major highway expansion go right through the north-south animal travel corridor on the Nebo unit. Any animal that travels from the northern range to the southern range or vice-versa has to cross a five lane highway. The same highway expansion happens to travel just parallel to a prime water source on the unit.
> ...


WHAT HIGHWAY are you thinking of???

No high way expansions on ,or around the Nebo unit in over 30 now...
The last 'major' road project was paving the Nebo loop..Payson canyon.
almost 25 years ago....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

horsesma,,,I've said this time and time again, WILDLIFE IS A LIMITED RESOURSE....

The deer herds on general season unit have been so over hunted the last 3-5 years
its ridiculous. The DWR herd estimates have remained almost ( small decline 2011)
flat lined for a number of years now. Yet the last 2 general deer hunts, SOOOOOO
many hunters have finally noticed a significant deer decline.......................

Not to mention the sharp fall offs at deer checking stations.......
Many units with falling D/O ratios and shrinking fawn survival...

There for, the 'pressure" or hunter numbers HAVE TO BE CONTROLED!!!

I personally believe about half the units under the old regional hunting were
being extremely over pressured/hunted.................

Wildlife is a limited resource and hunters need to be limited in each unit
dependent upon the resource available.................


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Hunters are not killing off all of the deer. That is the point. We may have declining numbers of deer, and we can cut tags, but hunters are not killing all the deer.

Hunters in general kill bucks, unless antler-less tags are issued and you know that is for a reason. Those can be cut also. As they have been. Managing for more bucks is not going to grow more deer. It just means there could possibly be more bucks, Which has be proven that it can be detrimental in itself to fawn recruitment. So where do we draw the line.

I can see we definitely stand on opposite sides of the line, but there should be some middle ground. We can argue until were blue in the face and I think each of us will still be on the opposite side of the line. 

It is hard to argue with biologists who say that more bucks is not the answer though. :shock:


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Go a head , fire back, I can take it...


Is that why you were PMing me F-yous, because you can "take it"?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

blackdog said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Go a head , fire back, I can take it...
> ...


Nope,,,,That would be in response to this quote YOU made....AND.....
I'm not an SFW member,,,,yet,,,I am considering it in light of what is going on though.

Blackdog quote...

"but but at least they're doing something.... but at least they're trying.........but um er if you can do a better job then do it........but um um you're just jealous.........

First the Arizona thing and now Alaska. WOW, it must be embarrassing to be a SFW supporter these days........Right Goofy?"


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

horsesma said:


> Goofy, that was a nice reply. I get it. The deer are in decline. I also want deer to recover and see more, but limiting hunting opportunities is not the answer in most of these 30 units.
> 
> You have seen what has happened with LE areas. They (key word) "LIMITED" entry hunting in the name of more bucks, not more deer. Big difference. Once this LE thing keeps going where or when does it stop. Not once have they given back a LE area to general season.
> 
> ...


You really need to get your facts straight bud! There have been several LE's that have gone back to general season in the past . Also, your really a piss poor example for your "little" group, with all the constant insults thrown about to those that don't see it your way. Your really no better than the other side that you hate so much. If it wasn't for Tye and Perry beeing a little understanding and trying to see other view points. I wouldn't support the UWC at all.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just for fun I went and pulled a 1996 proclamation out of my file,,,,

here is a list of "used to be" LE deer units that were returned to General season.

Commanche
Browes
Kamas-high country
North slope-high country
Boulder top
Pine Valley
And the most recent,,,Thousand Lakes,, All LE units returned to general hunts....


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Don't forget about bumblebee too.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

That's right , Bumblebee.

And if I'm not mistaken , Part of the South Slope was once part of the Diamond mountain unit.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> WHAT HIGHWAY are you thinking of???
> 
> No high way expansions on ,or around the Nebo unit in over 30 now...
> The last 'major' road project was paving the Nebo loop..Payson canyon.
> almost 25 years ago....


The Nebo as I've traditionally known it is now divided into the Nebo and Diamond Fork units, divided by Highway 6. Stop acting pretentious. You know darn well what highway kills so many animals in that area. I guess you can call it the northern boundary of the Nebo unit now that you are thinking in 30 units. Call it whatever you want. You can't ignore the expansion of Highway 6 as one of the major man-made encroachments into wildlife habitat in that area.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yes. Hwy 6 is hard on deer.
Particularly the North Manti and South Wasatch deer herds.

Thistle aculaly was a three way split on the old regioal hunting. Cental, notheastern,
and southeastern regions..

The only streach of hwy 6 that EVER effected the nebo deer herd was from Spanish fork
to Thistle,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I've drove that just a few times in 35 years  

And ,IMHO, The construction on that 8 miles strip actually slowed down deer fatalities.
I'm not sure you know what your talking about???

High way deer mortality is a factor for the Nebo unit (old & new) on hwy 89, 132,
And 28.........................But very minimal on hwy 6.........


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> 30 units, so what, who cares? higher buck to doe ratios, so what, who cares? Not being able to hunt every year, so what, who cares? SFW telling me how these units should be hunted, so what, who cares? Higher priced tags, so what, who cares? Not being able to hunt with family, so what, who cares? The cold black heart of Option WTF? is that it does NOTHING to actually grow deer. Growing more deer, will grow more bucks, increasing buck to doe ratios, will not grow more deer. And it sure as he%% wont get us 400,000 deer, let alone 600,000. Everything else aside, because they are really peripheral issues. Growing more deer takes care of all the "so what, who cares?". The real FACT of option WTF? hides among all those arguements. Option WTF? does NOT grow deer. FACT


You certainly have a point! The core of the Option 2 issue is, indeed, it does not grow deer. But the problem with this debate is that proponents of the Option have hidden it in so many layers of "benefits", that it is hard for them to see it, let alone everyone else. And the more we attempt to peel back the "benefit" layers, the more layers they keep adding (eliminates hot-spotting, the location of deer fatalities on Highway 6). I'm getting so weary of having to look up (and print and read) studies, articles, quotes and links from all over western states to help in the peeling, only to have them dismissed offhand as BS or ignored without any legitimate counter-studies, articles, quotes and links in response that I'm beginning to think my best bet is to just let this fiasco play out and let those proponents get bit on the butt themselves.

I had an older brother who drank and smoked a lot beginning in his teen years who was counseled by myself, my parents, his bishop, teachers and coaches, and later his wife and kids, but it wasn't until he had to have by-pass surgery (twice) that it took. Unfortunately, it was too late. He died from a heart attack at the age of 53. And I still have a younger sister who smokes heavily, and although she's also been warned by her cardiologist to quit, she still smokes and still makes excuses for it. (I've done it too long. We all have to die anyway. It's only hurting me. It helps me keep off the weight. It calms me down. You don't have to worry, I've slowed down.) The only trouble with quitting the peeling on this issue is that everyone, including the proponents will get bit in the butt and I don't want that for my grandkids. So I guess it's on with the show, huh?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Thousand Lakes was returned to "General" Hunting because they could never make ago of it as a LE. 

Not because of some recovery.......


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> horsesma said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy, that was a nice reply. I get it. The deer are in decline. I also want deer to recover and see more, but limiting hunting opportunities is not the answer in most of these 30 units.
> ...


What insults? Sometimes my crude humor is misconstrued. I thought for the most part I was being cordial. I am just trying to get to some common ground and bring both sides together, I am not all knowing. I am more willing than most to look at both sides, and if I was insulting to anyone I certainly will apologize, but I was not aware of that. Goofy has answered my questions nicely. I commend him for that because it is not always the case. I just ask that others look at both sides as well.

My views are not always the same as everyone with UWC. I respect them just the same. As I do with all on here who are respectful of me.

Maybe I should have stated that as Premium Limited Entry not LE because everything is LE now. Tell me what you know of Premium limited Entry and the higher buck to doe ratios. Henrys the Books. I am just wondering where it is going to end. Do we keep raising ratios when the new deer units do not meet or exceed our perceived standards?

I invite you Goofy and anyone else to come and hang out with us on one of our service projects. See what we are all about.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Thousand Lakes was returned to "General" Hunting because they could never make ago of it as a LE.
> 
> Not because of some recovery.......


True,,,

And on the flip side, The Henry's , Vernon, San Juan, The Paunsy, Book cliffs,
All had to be completely closed down for a time because they couldn't make
a 'go out of it' as general season units..................................

And horsesma,,,I may take you up on the service project offer sometime...


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Thousand Lakes was returned to "General" Hunting because they could never make ago of it as a LE.
> ...


We will try and let everyone know of the next one. We are having the ice fishing thing for Doug Miller Memorial at Rockport on the 4th of Feb. Come and help us teach kids to ice fish.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Thousand Lakes was returned to "General" Hunting because they could never make ago of it as a LE.
> ...


And all of those LE units you have listed above could very easily have twice the Tagges issued currently and have little affect on the quality of the unit.

And maybe those units had to be shutdown because all they had where bucks instead a health cross section of deer. Last time I check during that time frame, Does where not being hunted................


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> And on the flip side, The Henry's , Vernon, San Juan, The Paunsy, Book cliffs,
> All had to be completely closed down for a time because they couldn't make
> a 'go out of it' as general season units..................................


I personally think that the Books, and Henry's were making it just fine as a general season unit when they were 4pt or better. Then the made them 3pt or better. Then they opened them up to any buck. That is when they went downhill and down hill fast. I even remember the San Juan/Elk Ridge back in the 60's when you could kill 2 bucks on one tag and they usually were nice bucks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Or,,,,May be go be a farmer/rancher,,,, Instead of hunter/guide........I don't know how someone with such poor reading comprehension can expect to be taken serious. I have made it abundantly clear that I am no longer in the guide/outfitter business. That is NOT new, or top secret.....and I AM a farmer/rancher, and I enjoy it VERY much.
> 
> Then we would know the 'real' facts! Since you have shown to be lacking reading comprehension skills, I doubt you would know what the 'real' facts were if they hit you between your ears.
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Go a head , fire back, I can take it...
> ...


Myself and a few others have received such friendly PM's from the guy who "can take it" as well...One is a moderator......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> And on the flip side, The Henry's , Vernon, San Juan, The Paunsy, Book cliffs,
> All had to be completely closed down for a time because they couldn't make
> a 'go out of it' as general season units..................................
> 
> And horsesma,,,I may take you up on the service project offer sometime...


I have to disagree with you, once again. The above units did NOT "have to be completely closed down" for a time. They were closed down by choice! And they remain Limited Entry and Premium Limited Entry by choice. Lets take a look at the 'premier' mule deer hunting area in the world, the Henry Premium Limited Entry unit. They give out FEWER permits today than they did just five years ago. It has been Limited Entry for going on, what, two decades? And yet they are REDUCING permits, and the unit has had MORE funds put on the ground for habitat improvement and predator control than any other unit in Utah, and strangely the unit is still UNDER population objectives. Now, as I recall, the closure of the above units, and the ensuing RATIONING of this so-called "limited resource", was to help the POPULATION recover. Can anyone with a straight face say the primary focus/purpose of the Premium Limited Entry units is to help the POPULATION recover? When will this 'recovery' occur, and since the EXTREMELY RATIONED PLE/LE units have FAILED to "recover" after two decades, how long will the "recovery" on the general areas take? Yet, the Don is going around stating they WILL grow the deer herd to 400,000+ if only they get people to quit their jobs and become full-time coyote bounty hunters..... I think I just came up with a show for A&E......


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

LOL,,,,,,,Mis place your MEDs there PRO or what? -_O-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Critter said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > And on the flip side, The Henry's , Vernon, San Juan, The Paunsy, Book cliffs,
> ...


100% correct....

I was there too...

Saw it happen with my own eyes....


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

The Paunsaugunt unit was near extinction in the late 70s when local sportsmen fought for a closure ( Familiar). We were not hunting doe at the time, buck only. They closed the unit to all hunting for 7 years and the deer herd flat out exploded, 7500 plus deer when it opened up in 85. We stoped shooting the bucks down to nothing every year and the herd exploded. Just my personal experience . For what it worth. Goofy elk , keep after it.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> blackdog said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk said:
> ...


Goofy knows everything about everything, or is it nothing about everything?? Just ask him. He knows all about the Henry's, Nebo,utah county and everything else. I wouldn't join SFW just because of him.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

fin little said:


> The Paunsaugunt unit was near extinction in the late 70s when local sportsmen fought for a closure ( Familiar). We were not hunting doe at the time, buck only. They closed the unit to all hunting for 7 years and the deer herd flat out exploded, 7500 plus deer when it opened up in 85. We stoped shooting the bucks down to nothing every year and the herd exploded. Just my personal experience . For what it worth. Goofy elk , keep after it.


So why is the Paunsaugunt so low now? 2010 report only shows it at 4900 and trending down. Those 250 hunters each year must of hunted it out again.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


So hunto, how much 'actual' experience do you have on these units, and when?

I can honastly say I have hunted and guided deer ON EVERY SINGLE ONE......
Many times, dating back to the early 80's...........................................


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

Huntaholic, The Pauns is trending down because the DWR wanted the total population down. They came up with a max carring capacity of 4900 . There have been thousands of doe killed on the Pauns over the years. They were still killing doe in 2010. When the unit was closed to hunting in 78 the only thing that changed was we stopped killing bucks. We werent killing doe, we didnt do any habitat work, we didnt transplant any deer, yet the herd exploded . We still had the highways, the lions the yotes the bobcats the shed hunters the hikers the poachers . I truely believe you have to leave some extra bucks post hunting season to account for some natural mortality . I know alot of the dear that rebounded in that 7 years were bucks( it was something to see) but 7 years of not shooting bucks also helped the whole herd. I dont want closures but there ought to be a buckto doe ratio that allows a herd to grow . Take 30 units and study some results. I do believe weather and moisture is 95% of the equation.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

game


goofy elk said:


> So hunto, how much 'actual' experience do you have on these units, and when?
> 
> I can honastly say I have hunted and guided deer ON EVERY SINGLE ONE......
> Many times, dating back to the early 80's...........................................


So then you should be able to answer the questions that I have asked.

You are the one who threw out a list of units that have been turned back to general hunting. One of which was Thousand Lakes. I know the history and have hunted Thousand Lakes before it was a LE and one time after. You wrote as if it was some kind of success story, when we both know it was not.

Then you threw out a list of successful LE. Then "Fin Little" indicates that the Paunsaugunt was hunted to near extinction. I know what extinction is to me. That unit was not extinct of deer. Sure it did not have the same level of BUCKS as when it had restrictions. And I sure hope that after seven years of NO hunting, that any area would show a hugh increase of both BUCKS and does. So according to "Fin Little" in 85 we had 7900 deer. From that point to now we have returned to a more restricted hunting on the Paunsaugant. Yep there are BUCKS to hunt. But what is the status of the herd? From the 2010 report 4900. Yep, sounds like a real success to me. If a 38% drop in the herd is your idea of success, well I have no words for that..................

And as far as the rest of the units you have listed, no on the ground experience with them. But my 40 years of hunting big game, with a bow, rifle and muzzy, in Utah helps me see through the garbage at times.............


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Fin Little

The current objective is 5200. But that is not the point. The fact is per square mile there is less deer on that unit then in the past. And it is not because it has been over hunted.

And that is not a success to me.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well hunto, lets see.....Paunsy doe hunts.....

2010,,,,Paunsy, Mt. Carmal-Kanab creek, 25 permits, 11/24-12-2
Paunsaugunt, Buckskin, 50 perimts, 12/8-12/19

2009,,,,114
Paunsaugunt, Buckskin
New hunt, new boundary
50
12/5–12/16


Im looking for my 08/07 anterless books now,,,,,,,,I think it jumps up 75 doe permits...

And land owner + mitigation doe permits on the Paunsy are high for these years as well.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

Paunsaugunt, from 7500 too 4900 is not a failure. They brought the herd down to meet objective which was lowered just a few years ago. It was brought down with doe hunts. They didnt have any doe hunts in 2011 because they were below objective. The drop in deer numbers was due in a big part to hunting antrless deer. I should know better than to mention numbers(5200) I just dont eat and breath this stuff anymore. I used to. It seems everytime it looks like somthing is going to work after a long fight the Dwr or other interest throws out another roadblock. Yes by the standards of the folks around here the Pauns deer were really struggling in the 70s. Extinct may have been wrong word(geez). Im not interested in a debate. Keep after it Goofy.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

horsesma said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > horsesma said:
> ...


horsesma, your right. Most of your comments are not rude or insulting. Maybe it was when you told Goofy to "shut it" or just the way you come across, as in your face point of views. So I apologize. I'm sure your probably a good guy in person.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

fin little said:


> Paunsaugunt, from 7500 too 4900 is not a failure. They brought the herd down to meet objective which was lowered just a few years ago. It was brought down with doe hunts. They didnt have any doe hunts in 2011 because they were below objective. The drop in deer numbers was due in a big part to hunting antrless deer. I should know better than to mention numbers(5200) I just dont eat and breath this stuff anymore. I used to. It seems everytime it looks like somthing is going to work after a long fight the Dwr or other interest throws out another roadblock. Yes by the standards of the folks around here the Pauns deer were really struggling in the 70s. Extinct may have been wrong word(geez). Im not interested in a debate. Keep after it Goofy.


Also, the traffic on highway 89 is 10x or more than it was 30 years ago. Along with a lot more killed on the roads. Also, a lot more people now hunt the deer that migrate across 89 onto the general season unit than they used to.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> horsesma said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop said:
> ...


horsesma is an AWESOME guy and I'm proud to call him my friend... :mrgreen:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm sure your right. Proutdoors drives me crazy with his "in your face attidude" but in person, he's one of the nicest guys I know. And very giving. Same can be said about Goofy.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Well hunto, lets see.....Paunsy doe hunts.....
> 
> 2010,,,,Paunsy, Mt. Carmal-Kanab creek, 25 permits, 11/24-12-2
> Paunsaugunt, Buckskin, 50 perimts, 12/8-12/19
> ...


So why was there a need to harvest Does? Why was there a need to change the objective from 6500 in 2000 to the current objective of 5200?

While I errored in thinking that no Doe hunts were going on, I still cannot understand how anybody can claim a success when the deer herd is loosing ground, especially on a LE unit.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hunto,,,
I never claimed any 'success' pointing out Thousand lakes was returned to a
general hunt....................Merely pointing out it was the most resent one........

And for the record, I drew the archery deer on Thousand lakes in 2006....
PLUS spent many years there guiding lions,,,,I'm well aware of the deer 
situation there........

And , one more thing , You thinking they,,,,hunto Quote.
"could have twice as many tags 
and not effect quality much on those LE units"...........

Is just simply not true either.....................


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> I never claimed any 'success' pointing out Thousand lakes was returned to a
> general hunt....................Merely pointing out it was the most resent one........
> 
> And for the record, I drew the archery deer on Thousand lakes in 2006....
> ...


The above quote was in reference to:



goofy elk said:


> And on the flip side, The Henry's , Vernon, San Juan, The Paunsy, Book cliffs,
> All had to be completely closed down for a time because they couldn't make
> a 'go out of it' as general season units............


Then I said:


Huntoholic said:


> And all of those LE units you have listed above could very easily have twice the Tagges issued currently and have little affect on the quality of the unit.
> 
> And maybe those units had to be shutdown because all they had where bucks instead a health cross section of deer. Last time I check during that time frame, Does where not being hunted..........


And then you corrected me on Doe hunts on the Paunsy.....

Some times it's hard to keep track when we are bouncing back and forth.

And yes those LE (The Henry's , Vernon, San Juan, The Paunsy, Book cliffs)
could have twice as many tagges currently issued and you would still have an awsome hunt. But then again I don't expect to have a 30" buck around every corner either.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I don't intend to highjack my own thread, but answers to the following questions will clear up a lot of unknowns, at least in my mind. How does the population objective relate to the carrying capacity of an LE versus Premium LE unit? And did/does the reduced objective have anything to do with that? Or did the carrying capacity drop because of degraded habitat/forage? Since nutrition and health play such major roles in antler growth, I assume the population objective is right at or below the carrying capacity on LE units in order to sustain a higher buck to doe ratio and insure we have the quantity and quality of trophy bucks needed to keep it an LE unit. Is that correct? Answers, anyone?


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Ridge, Horsesma is a great dude, do anything for ya give the shirt off his back kinda guy. As I am sure the majority of the guys on this site are. I always find it interesting when one of these threads comes up, how heated they get so quick. A lot of the time we end up going back and forth, wanting the same thing, but not wanting to say that its the same thing, or that someone else is right. Too bad we can't realize we all want essentially the same [email protected] thing. There are many roads too Rome. I think we get too hung up in the how to get there rather than just the getting there. Interesting points of view all the way around.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Ridge, Horsesma is a great dude, do anything for ya give the shirt off his back kinda guy. As I am sure the majority of the guys on this site are. I always find it interesting when one of these threads comes up, how heated they get so quick. A lot of the time we end up going back and forth, wanting the same thing, but not wanting to say that its the same thing, or that someone else is right. Too bad we can't realize we all want essentially the same [email protected] thing. There are many roads too Rome. I think we get too hung up in the how to get there rather than just the getting there. Interesting points of view all the way around.


I think your spot on. I think I'll get off this merry go round and just watch for now on. 
Maybe I'll share a few of the bucks I was able to see this past year on another post.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I think the problem is we give WAY too much credit to our OWN experiences and think we know everything about a certain unit. Maybe we should just let the biologists for each unit manage them as I'm sure they are there way more often than all of us.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I don't intend to highjack my own thread, but answers to the following questions will clear up a lot of unknowns, at least in my mind. How does the population objective relate to the carrying capacity of an LE versus Premium LE unit? And did/does the reduced objective have anything to do with that? Or did the carrying capacity drop because of degraded habitat/forage? Since nutrition and health play such major roles in antler growth, I assume the population objective is right at or below the carrying capacity on LE units in order to sustain a higher buck to doe ratio and insure we have the quantity and quality of trophy bucks needed to keep it an LE unit. Is that correct? Answers, anyone?


In the case of the Paunnsy, The objective was dropped from 7,500 to
5,200 due to winter range carrying capacity....here's the link..

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/plans/deer_27.pdf


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> I think the problem is we give WAY too much credit to our OWN experiences and think we know everything about a certain unit. Maybe we should just let the biologists for each unit manage them as I'm sure they are there way more often than all of us.


And even if they are not there more often, they aren't looking for the same things we are. They check the range trend study sites; they count, group and pick up pellets; they categorize, clip and test forage; they check for the results of grazing; they monitor the growth of invasive vegetation, they count non-game animals; they age and necrotopsy dead game animals, etc., all the while filming, photoing and recording their findings. And their visits are seldom casual or recreational. And they don't have to see the animals to know what's been where and what they've been doing. Our visits and theirs don't compare.

There's an ad on TV of a female doctor trying to play a violin in a string quartet with the caption "You wouldn't want your doctor doing your job. Why would you try to do hers?" I'm a good custodian, but a lousy biologist. How about you?


----------

