# Points Transfer



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I got to thinking about the points that some of our "Elder" hunters have and are likely to never draw that tag (OIL, LE) and if the DWR offered a transfer of those points to another (younger) hunter in order to move the point creep to an advantage of incoming first time applicants. 


What say ye? allow it, or abolish the idea?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Nope, but then I am greedy. 

They already have the mentor program where gramps and grandma can still put in and draw the tag and take Jr out hunting while they sit in the rocking chair in the back of the truck. 

Why set up another program?


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Heck no. We already have a massive problem with the bonus point butt plug. We need folks to move through the system and phase out of the system. This includes some older sportsmen dropping out or even passing on. Rather than looking for ways to further clog up the system, we should focus on moving more people through and relieving the butt plug. The ultimate answer is larger and better herds but that is likely a pipedream.


Hawkeye


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

What a... how did you put it? Sh!t for brains idea!!

:roll:


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Not a good idea! Nope, Nope, Nope


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Use them or lose them!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Yeah, this would be a terrible idea, and would worsen the problems we already have. It would increase the advantage of some, while punishing others who were in line before these lucky applicants who were lucky enough to have someone gift them points. 

Recycling points into the pool is not the solution to point creep.


----------



## parryconner (Jul 9, 2018)

I think it would only add to the log jam point system we already have. I do however, like the mentor program. I will hopefully be able to use it when I draw a Desert Sheep and give my, then teenage son the hunt of his lifetime. I’m sitting on 20 sheep points and he’s 10 years old now, hopefully I don’t draw for a few more years.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

It would make things 1,000,000 times worse.

Think about it, rich guys would suddenly start buying points from max tier holders. Points suddenly would have major $$$ value. Other people wanting to make a buck would start entering loads of other non-hunting family members and friends into the draw, hoping to bank and sell points down the road.

You would see an explosion of new applicants, and a dramatic worsening of the odds.

-DallanC


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Never never never going to happen

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Geeeee I was just asking a simple question.:shock: I know it could plug the system now, but I also look at the folks sitting on points in the 10-15 range area. Theoretically, it could push however many hunters in that point group completely out of the system to never return again. Sacrifice one year of odds going to he!! (like it is now) to better your odds in the following year. 

Maybe a one time deal and that's it. Kinda like rolling the dice with all the money on one number. Hit it big, or, loose it all. 

I'm not proposing that it happens but was curious what the thoughts would be. (I see I've poked the bear) 

On another thought to eliminate unit jumpers...…….. Your points when applying, stay in the Unit you apply for. You cant transfer points to another unit to better your odds of drawing. 

I know this is pissing some folks off but just brain storming out loud.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Dock taxidermist 500 points for that idea lol. 


I think we should abolish the points system. Make it a generational system sounds bleeping awful. Lets just allow the sale of them while we are at it.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

taxidermist said:


> On another thought to eliminate unit jumpers...&#8230;&#8230;.. Your points when applying, stay in the Unit you apply for. You cant transfer points to another unit to better your odds of drawing.
> 
> I know this is pissing some folks off but just brain storming out loud.


What are you even trying to solve with these though?

People get "stuck" in a OIAL line right now. Why on earth would we stick someone to a unit? Especially over a 15-20 year wait - stuff changes. That makes the already terrible line waiting- worse.

Maybe we would be less grumpy if we knew what you are brainstorming? There is no solution to point creep unless the amount of animals suddenly is 10x what it is or half the people die all at once.

The only real solution is a Random Draw :mrgreen:


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

He!! NO...….


Not mad, just don't like the idea of transferring points.
Eliminating point jumpers would help me because I have one unit I want, or no unit. Just don't think it would pass.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

taxidermist said:


> I got to thinking about the points that some of our "Elder" hunters have and are likely to never draw that tag (OIL, LE) and if the DWR offered a transfer of those points to another (younger) hunter in order to move the point creep to an advantage of incoming first time applicants.


Grandson 1: "I'm going to miss grandpa now that he's gone. At least he left me the cabin in his will."
Grandson 2: "Sucks to be you...he willed me his bonus and preference points! Haha!"


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'd like to see the Utah DWR go to one point system for each animal. No more buck and doe points or bull and cow points, just elk, deer, antelope, moose, or whatever points. 

If you want to spend a dozen points on a cow or a doe hunt then so be it. 

This will get people through the system faster than any other idea that I have seen. 

It will never happen but I'd like to see it.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

What are you even trying to solve with these though?

Preparing us all for what it could be like in the years to come. With more applicants, population growth, less habitat = less animals = less tags = larger point creep and agitated sportsman/women.


I know this topic is a hair brain, sh!t for brains, stupid, dumb, you name it idea, but I honestly believe its not far off when its going to take 30 points to draw a OIL, LE tag. Probably 5 points for a deer tag and 10 points for a cow elk tag.


RandomElk, thanks for the points! I'll put them to good use


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I will firmly agree with everyone else that the answer to the original question is bleep no, for the listed reasons. I will submit one more reason. Family unity. 

Can you imagine the intrafamily fight that will take place for who gets dearly departed grandpas high number of OIL and/or LE points? Some of those squabbles would end up in those "true crime" shows on network TV.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Brainstorm solutions, not more problems


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> I'd like to see the Utah DWR go to one point system for each animal. No more buck and doe points or bull and cow points, just elk, deer, antelope, moose, or whatever points.
> 
> If you want to spend a dozen points on a cow or a doe hunt then so be it.
> 
> ...


Everyone wants to rob opportunity huh?

So while I wait 20 years for a bull hunt - I can't hunt a cow or anybull?

Makes zero sense. Want to hunt LE deer? You can never hunt a general unit again.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

taxidermist said:


> What are you even trying to solve with these though?
> 
> Preparing us all for what it could be like in the years to come. With more applicants, population growth, less habitat = less animals = less tags = larger point creep and agitated sportsman/women.
> 
> ...


You aren't wrong about the growing problem. The thing is - you can't bandaid the current structure in any way shape or form to stop that.

It's either let points grow or tear the whole system down. These make-shift fixes are making it worse.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Catherder said:


> I will submit one more reason. Family unity.
> Can you imagine the intrafamily fight that will take place for who gets dearly departed grandpas high number of OIL and/or LE points? Some of those squabbles would end up in those "true crime" shows on network TV.


THIS!!!! I have personally had to break up and mediate serious arguments over the "Mentor" issue. Grandpa let "Johnny" shoot the bull and the rest of the family is UPSET! This has happened multiple times with different families in my shop. (I'll add this didn't happen with my family)

I have seen the looks on the faces of the kids who didn't get "Mentored". (notice the plurals) One kid is beaming and many kids are bummed.

And at least 20+ times I have had to talk families thru their "who should grandpa or dad Mentor" issue. I tell them all the same thing- Grandpa or Dad should shoot the animal with everyone there and celebrate as a group. Think back to memories of our own Fathers or Gpas on a successful hunt- those are all great memories for me.

Catherder's words are more true than most could imagine. I have seen it personally. First hand witnessed how it can rip apart or put a wedge in even the strongest families. (not all of course, but far too many)

Ok- I'll hop off my soapbox with a hard no on passing along or selling points.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

The whole problem is the expectations of individuals, not the system. Everyone is hesitant to change, myself included. Albeit the only constant in life is change. If the new normal is more people, less tags, and longer lines - well I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It seems we all signed up to play the tag game under the same rules, yet when we don't like the outcome, perceived or actual, the first response is to whine and demand a change.

There is a world of hunting opportunities out there for folks who are willing to put in a little more time and effort - these opportunities take planning and budgeting.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Everyone wants to rob opportunity huh?
> 
> So while I wait 20 years for a bull hunt - I can't hunt a cow or anybull?
> 
> Makes zero sense. Want to hunt LE deer? You can never hunt a general unit again.


Not taking away any opportunity. If you want to hunt elk, go hunt elk but make a decision on what you want to hunt and commit yourself to it.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Critter said:


> Not taking away any opportunity. If you want to hunt elk, go hunt elk but make a decision on what you want to hunt and commit yourself to it.


It is taking opportunity now you can hunt both (2) and you want to go to one (1)

Everyone should be able to see going from 2 to 1 is a decrease.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

weaversamuel76 said:


> It is taking opportunity now you can hunt both (2) and you want to go to one (1)
> 
> Everyone should be able to see going from 2 to 1 is a decrease.
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


Maths is hard

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

I just docked taxidermist 15 cred points.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem that people are not admitting is that there are only so many deer and elk in the state and that the numbers of hunters are increasing. So where do you draw the line? 

Already people are waiting 5+ years for a cow tag and 15+ years for a LE bull tag, so are they only hunting cows every 5 or so years? How about the spike or any bull tags. There are only 30,000 of them let out, how many hunters want to hunt them but are not able to purchase a tag? 

Everyone complains about point creep but very few want to do anything about it.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

colorcountrygunner said:


> I just docked taxidermist 15 cred points.


He's gotta be in the negatives by now


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Critter said:


> The problem that people are not admitting is that there are only so many deer and elk in the state and that the numbers of hunters are increasing. So where do you draw the line?
> 
> Already people are waiting 5+ years for a cow tag and 15+ years for a LE bull tag, so are they only hunting cows every 5 or so years? How about the spike or any bull tags. There are only 30,000 of them let out, how many hunters want to hunt them but are not able to purchase a tag?
> 
> Everyone complains about point creep but very few want to do anything about it.


If you wanted an OTC utah elk tag bad enough this year, you had the opportunity to buy one. Spikes were still available as of yesterday. Don't paint doom and gloom when that's not the real situation


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

MooseMeat said:


> If you wanted an OTC utah elk tag bad enough this year, you had the opportunity to buy one. Spikes were still available as of yesterday. Don't paint doom and gloom when that's not the real situation


I'm not talking about the spike or any bull hunt but the hunts where points are required to get a tag. But mentioned them since I will wager within 5 years they will be put into the draw also


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

colorcountrygunner said:


> I just docked taxidermist 15 cred points.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> He's gotta be in the negatives by now


THATS THE TRUTH!!!!! Someone has to be the pissing post once in awhile. I'm a big boy and can take it.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Packout commented on a family squabble over who would be pulling the trigger. "IF!!!" this transfer was to come about, the point donor could give those points to anyone they desired. 

Now, again "IF" it could happen and I were get a few cred points back from some of you, I'd consider donating 14 Moose points to ya. Does that change your thoughts if YOU are on the receiving end of the points?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Nope, 14 moose points doesn't move the needle. I already shot a 53" + moose here in Utah on my OIL.

It is all part of life-- some people pass away and never collect their Social Security. It would be an absolute travesty to allow the inheritance of points or the sale of points.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

We've already had people using a loophole years ago to "sell" points by paying to group with someone who had max tier points. There was one guy who's wife was max tier in the LE Deer pool. She had 2x the points required to draw the unit so anyone who grouped was guaranteed. One could pay several thousand and group with her on an application, and be guaranteed draw. They would turn "her" tag back in and get the points back. One guy drew books, waited the 2 years, paid to group up on the application, and drew it again.


When word of this trick got out, the law was changed so the entire group had to turn in tags to get the points back. But, one can still pay alot of $$$ to group with a high point holder to draw tags for alot of units... the cost is just really high, but people do it.


-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Now, again "IF" it could happen and I were get a few cred points back from some of you, I'd consider donating 14 Moose points to ya. Does that change your thoughts if YOU are on the receiving end of the points?


Packout has drawn and shot several OIL moose... he's the luckiest moose hunter I've ever heard of. He's probably sick of shooting moose. Make that bison points and you might swing him.

But... his discussion has me rethinking things. Lets allow selling of moose points. I'm in max tier right now and if the law changes I'll let mine go for $100,000. Seriously, it will go towards my retirement.

-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

One is *NEVER* sick of shooting moose. Never........ Even while packing it out.

..


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Packout said:


> One is *never[/COLOR*] sick of shooting moose.......
> 
> ..




I wouldnt know... :sad:

-DallanC


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

Our youth are already entitled enough, don’t throw fuel on that fire.
Now a points ‘trade’ back to the DWR I would agree with if tiered correctly to not piss off my fellow UWN members.
Example:
I have 20 moose points and am disgusted with myself every year I pay another $10 towards our Utah Big Game Lottery.
Say there was a program you trade points in at 4:1, or whatever is agreed upon.
I would trade my 20 moose points in towards 5 deer points in a second.
Fellow moose hunters would rejoice in my decision, fellow deer hunters not so much.
Would it benefit ‘The system’ to implement a trade program?
It would take someone a lot smarter than me to figure out, I only play big game biologist from my couch.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> The problem that people are not admitting is that there are only so many deer and elk in the state and that the numbers of hunters are increasing. So where do you draw the line?
> 
> Already people are waiting 5+ years for a cow tag and 15+ years for a LE bull tag, so are they only hunting cows every 5 or so years? How about the spike or any bull tags. There are only 30,000 of them let out, how many hunters want to hunt them but are not able to purchase a tag?
> 
> Everyone complains about point creep but very few want to do anything about it.


There is NOTHING you can do about it. Even going to one line. All that does is further decrease opportunity for some arbitrary "fairness".

There is literally nothing to do about point creep. Either leave everything exactly as it is, or tear the whole thing down. Digging a deeper hole is ridiculous. Other states shoot multiple deer a year, and you want a system where not only can you only shoot 1 (which is already the case!), but you can't even apply for an LE and a "general season"? Next you will say if we turned deer and elk into OIAL - everyone will get through the line lol.

What you proposed is everything being limited entry. I would much rather go to an all general situation where there aren't trophies than an all limited situation.

General deer shouldn't even have points as it is. You are right - some get left out. Forming a line is stupid and creates more ideas to entitlement that frankly doesn't exist - nor could it with supply.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I only play big game biologist from my couch. 


Don't we all...&#8230;..Just not getting a paycheck for it.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Either leave everything exactly as it is, or tear the whole thing down. Digging a deeper hole is ridiculous.


I agree. But if the "system" was to be tore down, what would happen to the folks with points they've been paying for? Especially those with so called MAX points. That MAX just continues to climb each year.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

taxidermist said:


> Either leave everything exactly as it is, or tear the whole thing down. Digging a deeper hole is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> I agree. But if the "system" was to be tore down, what would happen to the folks with points they've been paying for? Especially those with so called MAX points. That MAX just continues to climb each year.


you get $10 per point back...plus interest!


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> I agree. But if the "system" was to be tore down, what would happen to the folks with points they've been paying for? Especially those with so called MAX points. That MAX just continues to climb each year.


 Your points aren't a lifetime contract with the state. Plenty of ways to exclude them when the rules are rewritten.

No doubt changes are coming.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Your points aren't a lifetime contract with the state.


Whatcha going to do with all the lifetime license holders?

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

No points involved with the LL however it is a lifetime contract 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Your points aren't a lifetime contract with the state. Plenty of ways to exclude them when the rules are rewritten.
> 
> No doubt changes are coming.
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


You could end the points system and prohibit point accumulation in the future, but you can't erase points that currently exist. That is like imaginary currency, and as worthless as it may be to some, it's something that has been purchased with money and time. You can't just get out of that by rewriting rules. If they tried, there'd be so many lawsuits over it, $FW would need to hold a 2nd expo every year, just to generate revenue to cover their legal fees!

A buyout could be tried, but again, with as valuable as points are to guys (me included), they'd need interest at 10x the amount per point that what they originally paid, to get guys to consider giving up what they've spent a lifetime accumulating.

I'm sitting on max cow moose points at 15. I KNOW I'll get a tag soon. It's not "if" it's when. Sure it's only a cow, but since I've already killed a bull, it very well could be the only moose hunt my son might ever get to go on. I'd need a pretty good chunk of change before I'd be willing to give that up. I know a lot of guys feel the same way about their LE and OIL points. I'm up there in OIL points for goats. I'll draw at some point. No way I'd be willing to give those up easily either. I don't think the state could afford to payout what most would want for their points to be erased. I just don't see that happening. Both financially and legally. It would be a mess for them.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

MooseMeat said:


> You could end the points system and prohibit point accumulation in the future, but you can't erase points that currently exist. That is like imaginary currency, and as worthless as it may be to some, it's something that has been purchased with money and time. You can't just get out of that by rewriting rules. If they tried, there'd be so many lawsuits over it, $FW would need to hold a 2nd expo every year, just to generate revenue to cover their legal fees!
> 
> A buyout could be tried, but again, with as valuable as points are to guys (me included), they'd need interest at 10x the amount per point that what they originally paid, to get guys to consider giving up what they've spent a lifetime accumulating.
> 
> I'm sitting on max cow moose points at 15. I KNOW I'll get a tag soon. It's not "if" it's when. Sure it's only a cow, but since I've already killed a bull, it very well could be the only moose hunt my son might ever get to go on. I'd need a pretty good chunk of change before I'd be willing to give that up. I know a lot of guys feel the same way about their LE and OIL points. I'm up there in OIL points for goats. I'll draw at some point. No way I'd be willing to give those up easily either. I don't think the state could afford to payout what most would want for their points to be erased. I just don't see that happening. Both financially and legally. It would be a mess for them.


They could go to a weighted point like Colorado moose and basically devalue your points.
Could offer a single tag in each species for point holders.
Options are endless to basically end the current points system with a rules change

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## byuduckhunter (Dec 2, 2008)

A couple ideas for point creep...

1) create a max number of points that someone could accumulate. Say, 20 or 25. Once you get to that point, you don't climb any higher. You still have a better chance of drawing a tag and whoever gets to that point of waiting 20+ years has "paid their dues" of waiting. My biggest objection to any point system is that it benefits the few who get in early but does so at the expense of the generations to follow.

2) variable waiting periods for those that draw from the random pool of tags. For example, if a tag typically takes 18 years to draw and someone draws with 5 points they will have a 13 year wait added to the already in place wait period. Applicants with few points will still have a chance but then they will still have to wait it out as long as those that draw with max points.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

byuduckhunter said:


> A couple ideas for point creep...
> 
> 1) create a max number of points that someone could accumulate. Say, 20 or 25. Once you get to that point, you don't climb any higher. You still have a better chance of drawing a tag and whoever gets to that point of waiting 20+ years has "paid their dues" of waiting. My biggest objection to any point system is that it benefits the few who get in early but does so at the expense of the generations to follow.
> 
> 2) variable waiting periods for those that draw from the random pool of tags. For example, if a tag typically takes 18 years to draw and someone draws with 5 points they will have a 13 year wait added to the already in place wait period. Applicants with few points will still have a chance but then they will still have to wait it out as long as those that draw with max points.


+1 on number 1. Number 2 is interesting.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

This is a very interesting thread. Some new ideas have been brought up. 
Some of them outside the box (so to speak)
Just been sitting back and watching. 
Need more popcorn 😋


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MooseMeat said:


> A buyout could be tried, but again, *with as valuable as points are to guys* (me included), they'd need interest at 10x the amount per point that what they originally paid, to get guys to consider giving up what they've spent a lifetime accumulating.
> 
> I just don't see that happening. Both financially and legally. It would be a mess for them.


Lol.. This is exactly the problem with this system. Turning wildlife into such a high value commodity has consequences well beyond the entitlement it has created.

Hunting has become a vile wasteland when it was founded upon anything but that.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

byuduckhunter said:


> A couple ideas for point creep...
> 
> 1) create a max number of points that someone could accumulate. Say, 20 or 25. Once you get to that point, you don't climb any higher. You still have a better chance of drawing a tag and whoever gets to that point of waiting 20+ years has "paid their dues" of waiting. My biggest objection to any point system is that it benefits the few who get in early but does so at the expense of the generations to follow.
> 
> 2) variable waiting periods for those that draw from the random pool of tags. For example, if a tag typically takes 18 years to draw and someone draws with 5 points they will have a 13 year wait added to the already in place wait period. Applicants with few points will still have a chance but then they will still have to wait it out as long as those that draw with max points.


What I presented on here a few times is a tier system:

1-5 points = 1
5-10 = 2
10-15 = 3
15-20 = 4
20-25 = 5

We cap it at 5. There is no more never-ending line.

You could go a few different routes from there.

No long-liner will want a change though. So we will continue going in circles pretending it's about kumbaya and fairness.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

byuduckhunter said:


> A couple ideas for point creep...
> 
> 1) create a max number of points that someone could accumulate. Say, 20 or 25. Once you get to that point, you don't climb any higher. You still have a better chance of drawing a tag and whoever gets to that point of waiting 20+ years has "paid their dues" of waiting. My biggest objection to any point system is that it benefits the few who get in early but does so at the expense of the generations to follow.
> 
> 2) variable waiting periods for those that draw from the random pool of tags. For example, if a tag typically takes 18 years to draw and someone draws with 5 points they will have a 13 year wait added to the already in place wait period. Applicants with few points will still have a chance but then they will still have to wait it out as long as those that draw with max points.


I like the sounds of option 2. Seems to be fare to me. It would move applicants out of the system quicker and shorten the bottle neck. It's real upsetting when you look at the draw odds and see someone with 1-2 points draw a tag that normally takes 15+ points to draw.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> I like the sounds of option 2. Seems to be fare to me. It would move applicants out of the system quicker and shorten the bottle neck. It's real upsetting when you look at the draw odds and see someone with 1-2 points draw a tag that normally takes 15+ points to draw.


Imagine if you will, being a big enough b!tch, that you get upset looking at draw odds and seeing that a few lucky guys every year didn't have to wait 1/3 of their life to draw a tag. That must get really exhausting after a few minutes. Can't imagine living with that for a lifetime. No thanks.

I drew a LE tag this year with 3 that took 15 to be guaranteed. Drew it previously with 4 when it took 12 to be guaranteed. Just more fuel for you hate fire I suppose


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t know if anyone else has said this yet, so I guess I’ll say it. Allowing for the transfer of points would be a TERRIBLE idea! :grin:

It would take what is already poor odds and grind our system to a complete halt. 

I’m against that more than I would be full random draw or only allowing application for one species. And I hate those ideas a ton!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

MooseMeat said:


> Imagine if you will, being a big enough b!tch, that you get upset looking at draw odds and seeing that a few lucky guys every year didn't have to wait 1/3 of their life to draw a tag. That must get really exhausting after a few minutes. Can't imagine living with that for a lifetime. No thanks.
> 
> I drew a LE tag this year with 3 that took 15 to be guaranteed. Drew it previously with 4 when it took 12 to be guaranteed. Just more fuel for you hate fire I suppose


I have drawn 2 LE tags since they started.

One was with max points, my LE elk tag. The other was a LE deer tag that took max points + 1

I'm still waiting to draw another LE deer, antelope, and my OIL bison tag. The LE deer tag will have a ways to go unless I get lucky since I drew it in 2015 and am back into the pool with 2 pts.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I've drawn LE Pronghorn, LE Buck deer and LE Bull Elk. Sitting in top tier of Moose right now so I hope to get my OIL done before the points system gets thrown out with the baby in the bathwater.

-DallanC


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

I drew LE elk with in the Max point pool. This year I drew LE deer with 3 that was 12 to be guaranteed. So I have been on both side of that. Then there was that expo tag... My luck with deer and the expo tag can be canceled out by probably never getting in on the OIL game.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong please. Isn't 50% of the allocated tags given to the so called "MAX" point holders, then the other 50% go to all other applicants in the draw? Oh ya...….for he!! sakes, lets don't forget about the youth hunters. What % goes to them?


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

taxidermist said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong please. Isn't 50% of the allocated tags given to the so called "MAX" point holders, then the other 50% go to all other applicants in the draw? Oh ya...&#8230;.for he!! sakes, lets don't forget about the youth hunters. What % goes to them?


The youth allocation is 20%, but it doesn't apply to LE and OIL. Only GS and antlerless (excluding cow moose and bighorn ewe).


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

brisket said:


> The youth allocation is 20%, but it doesn't apply to LE and OIL. Only GS and antlerless (excluding cow moose and bighorn ewe).


You have to excuse taxi, he only thinks he knows all there is to know about utah hunting.


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

I heard someone say that after COVID is over there are no more max point holders. 

To dark, to dark I know. 

My opinion:

Point creep sucks and I don’t like the system BUT it’s a good problem to have. It means the hunting community is growing which protects all of our interests. 

I would say 100% random draw with appropriate wait times per species. 

I know converting back to that is almost impossible. Hope dies last I guess


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A quick way to slow point creep way down. 

One LE tag per person per species in a lifetime. You draw a LE elk tag you are done, draw a LE deer tag you are done in that pool. 

One OIL tag per person period. Pick what you want and go with it.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Critter said:


> A quick way to slow point creep way down.
> 
> One LE tag per person per species in a lifetime. You draw a LE elk tag you are done, draw a LE deer tag you are done in that pool.
> 
> One OIL tag per person period. Pick what you want and go with it.


Are you currently a Utah resident?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Nope but what does that matter? 

Point creep is point creep no matter what pool you are in.

I actually lived in Utah longer than a lot of the members here have been alive.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Critter said:


> Nope but what does that matter?
> 
> Point creep is point creep no matter what pool you are in.
> 
> I actually lived in Utah longer than a lot of the members here have been alive.


Keep brain storming over there.









Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Point creep affects both resident and non resident. 

You need to come up with a idea that will start to flush out point holders. 

So, I have made a few suggestions let's hear from some of you others that question what I come up with.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Critter said:


> Point creep affects both resident and non resident.
> 
> You need to come up with a idea that will start to flush out point holders.
> 
> So, I have made a few suggestions let's hear from some of you others that question what I come up with.


Stop awarding points. Eliminate the max point tags and go to a straight bonus point system. That alone doubles the chances to draw a tag for almost "everyone". One name in the hat for every point. Everyone keeps thier advantage until all points are used and it's back to full random.
Demand full accountability for every conservation tag issued. Manage for more opportunity because more tags works everyone though the system faster.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter, I would like to say I give you an A for effort, but turning LE into OIL is the worst idea this side of allowing points to be transferred I’ve ever heard. 

I’m fine if they want to do that for nonresidents. Start charging them OIL fees for those tags as well. Maybe even up the application fee from $10 to $30 per app. That will help with point creep, maybe. 

But no thanks on your proposal! Why people are continually trying to give away their chances to hunt is beyond me.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The big problem is that we have too many hunters and too few animals that those excessive amount of hunters want to hunt. 

Utah has plenty of opportunity to go hunt a animal, you might have to pick up a bow and some arrows and learn how to shoot it but right there is a good way to start. And with a unlimited amount of elk archery tags it would be a good way to start. I can't say much for archery deer since it is getting to the point that you'll need points to draw those tags but with the extended season it also is a great way to start. 

It's just that hunting the premium type hunts is where the log jamb is at, this is also where to keep them a great hunt the tag numbers are limited. The same can be said on the OIL animals. But even then I don't believe that there will be very many that get to chase two of them in their lifetime unless they are real lucky 

You also need to think out of the box when it comes to hunting. Get out of the state and find a state where you can hunt the animal every year. You don't need to look too far since Colorado has a lot of areas where you can pick up a OTC archery or rifle tag for elk. Deer on the other had is a lot like Utah but there are now areas where you can archery and rifle hunt every year. Then there are the other areas that it'll take a point or two to draw that deer tag.

For me I hunt Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado. Or I should say that I collect points in Utah, Wyoming, and Arizona and hunt Colorado, and Utah on my LL for deer. I do head down to Arizona every year in February for my javelina hunt. It is a great way to break up the winter and since you need to purchase a hunting license down there that javelina tag takes a little bit of the sting out of it.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

This is an interesting thread, and one I've been thinking about this year. I have two comments for your consideration. 

1. Anyone getting into hunting today, is never going to be a max point holder- so maybe we should just let the people already in the system play it out, but begin a transition away from the max point system. Even that will take 25 years. 

2. I think rifle hunts need to be severly curtailed in favor of archery hunts. If we're not going to produce larger herds, but want to increase opportunity, the only option I see is to reduce success rates. (Or maybe we just eliminate scopes?)


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I think I'll cash in some stocks and purchase a mountain. 20K acres should be enough to make sure I get landowner tags for deer and elk. Then I'll charge 15K for a big bull tag that I received from the DOW because I have the land. I'll put that money for each tag back into stocks and possibly buy more land. Guaranteed tag every year for myself and I can shoot HUGE Bucks and Bulls. LOL


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I like where your head is at Taxidermist. Looking for some investors?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I have some money to help. 
But, buying a mountain is kind of expensive.......
I'll do what I can. :shock:


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

2full said:


> I have some money to help.
> But, buying a mountain is kind of expensive.......
> I'll do what I can. :shock:


Would you consider an Ant hill a mountain????? :-?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm sure it's already been said, but I'm going to say it (too). You want to move through the points more quickly than how it is currently done, get rid of the "max points" pool and have everything a random draw. If you have points, good for you, it just ups your chance of a better draw number.

If 20 tags are available, all 20 tags are up for grabs instead of the first 10 to max points only and the other 10 up for grabs. 10 more tags available means a guy with 5 points can be kicked out of the running for that tag that much sooner when traditionally those first 10 went to people with 20 down to 15 points.

Other options are cap the point system where it currently is for everyone and let it ride how it is to eliminate the dreaded "creep" before ending the point system or cut a check to everyone for their investment into the point system and zero everyone out and go completely random (not popular but so what?).


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The only way that you are going to move through the points pools quicker is to have fewer applicants, and that isn't going to happen.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Critter said:


> The only way that you are going to move through the points pools quicker is to have fewer applicants, and that isn't going to happen.


More tags just need to manage for more opportunity
Utah's trophy obsession has limited tags and bottlenecked the draw.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Turn Utah into an opportunity state


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Utah's *trophy obsession* has limited tags and bottlenecked the draw.


This is the problem for sure, "horn porn" is an epidemic...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

But how long do you think that these elk would last if you opened it up to OTC hunts or even put out another few hundred tags for these units? 

I still say that Utah has too many hunters with too few animals and you are not going to increase the herds by allowing more tags especially the doe and cow tags that are being let out. 

The last that I read the Book Cliffs holds around 4500 elk and the DWR wants 8,000 out there. So if they want 3500 more elk why are the letting out so many cow tags? I am sure that the same can be said for a lot more units but I am more familiar with the Books.

It is going to come down to the fact that a hunter is not going to be able to hold 3 or 4 different tags every year if they want to increase the populations and slow down point creep.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Critter said:


> The last that I read the Book Cliffs holds around 4500 elk and the DWR wants 8,000 out there. So if they want 3500 more elk why are the letting out so many cow tags?


The Books Cliffs herd has a lot of older, infertile cows. They are trying to kill those off to make more room for fertile cows in attempt to grow the population.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

brisket said:


> The Books Cliffs herd has a lot of older, infertile cows. They are trying to kill those off to make more room for fertile cows in attempt to grow the population.


So how do you tell a fertile cow from a infertile cow? The only way that I know of to do that is to eliminate 75% of them and hope that luck is on your side.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Critter said:


> brisket said:
> 
> 
> > The Books Cliffs herd has a lot of older, infertile cows. They are trying to kill those off to make more room for fertile cows in attempt to grow the population.
> ...


I don't know. They did a study, it mentions it in the hunt planner for the new cow hunt they opened this year.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

I don’t get how people can say in one conversation that hunter numbers are WAY down from previous decades, then in the next say there are too many hunters.. doesn’t one cancel out the other? 

If hunter numbers are down so low, turning Utah into an opportunity state shouldn’t be much of a problem.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> But how long do you think that these elk would last if you opened it up to OTC hunts or even put out another few hundred tags for these units?
> 
> I still say that Utah has too many hunters with too few animals and you are not going to increase the herds by allowing more tags especially the doe and cow tags that are being let out.
> 
> It is going to come down to the fact that a hunter is not going to be able to hold 3 or 4 different tags every year if they want to increase the populations and slow down point creep.


I would think if most units and hunts increased tag allocation by 25% you could move through the point banks fairly quickly.

The other way is no tag return. You draw, you're done even if you can't find "Big Hank" before your hunt. I know this is way unpopular because everyone else before got the chance to turn it back in and now when it's your turn, you don't get to. At some point, somebody has to get the shaft in order to curb the dreaded "creep" to level the playing field because of the increase in hunter base.

Never mind anti-hunters throwing a wrench into it.

Funny how COVID-19 is synonymous with "point creep"...


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

You either need to limit applicants or increase tags... I would consider increasing tags the only palatable option.

An interesting case study is the Cache, South elk unit which recently (between 2017 & 2018 ) underwent a management plan change and increased the harvest age objective from 5.75 to 6.75 years old. That one year increase in desired harvest age resulted in a 20% decrease in tags allocated.

If potentially applied across the board... decreasing the age objective in every unit by one year would result in an approximate 20% increase in tags... I would be in favor. A similar exercise could be done with the buck: doe ratios for deer to reduce by 2 or 3 bucks per 100 does to increase the number of general and limited entry deer tags by approximately the same percentage.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Placing a cap on the number of points one can have is the best way to stop point creep.

And the UDWR in the past has rescinded/taken away points. I had 3 or 4 points for the ML300 hunt and those disappeared. Not sure if/how they could do that again, but they have done it during the current point system. Also not saying they should.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> So how do you tell a fertile cow from a infertile cow? The only way that I know of to do that is to eliminate 75% of them and hope that luck is on your side.


Hair turning white around the nose? LOL ... you can definitely tell an older cow from a younger one side by side. I assume they just figure cows after X age are infertile. I'm sure enough data exists from farm raised elk to know when they are done.



Packout said:


> And the UDWR in the past has rescinded/taken away points. I had 3 or 4 points for the ML300 hunt and those disappeared. Not sure if/how they could do that again, but they have done it during the current point system. Also not saying they should.


Oh yea, I forgot about the old ML300 hunt... killed my first cow on that hunt.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> Point creep affects both resident and non resident.
> 
> You need to come up with a idea that will start to flush out point holders.
> 
> So, I have made a few suggestions let's hear from some of you others that question what I come up with.


I would get rid of 100% of NR tags before I would limit our opportunity to what you have proposed in various posts on here.

That's why I also had asked in a thread if you were a resident. It's easy to see who doesn't care about resident opportunity on here.

I am always so proud to see others coming to the realization that full random draw is the way the prophecy is written.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You could eliminate every non resident tag in all of the OIL and LE hunts and it wouldn't amount to very much more opportunity for the residents

If you really want to go after something that would affect the amount of tags that are drawn take a look at the Expo and all the other tags that the DWR gives away every year to special interest groups.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> You could eliminate every non resident tag in all of the OIL and LE hunts and it wouldn't amount to very much more opportunity for the residents
> 
> If you really want to go after something that would affect the amount of tags that are drawn take a look at the Expo and all the other tags that the DWR gives away every year to special interest groups.


I don't think NR is the major issue - but if we are gonna turn LE into OIAL as you said then that should be AFTER we eliminate 100% of NR.

I don't disagree on the expo. That revenue generated should be used to create more opportunity and in reality would net more tags than it takes. I don't think it does that.

I do believe if RMEF won they would be doing what they do in other states: Buying land for huntings use and unlocking massive amounts of land-locked parcels. That nets more places to hunt and more tags.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

What I'm getting at on the LE hunts is that there are a lot of them that the points are 15-20+ to hit max points. Some get lucky and draw sooner but that is a real chance. I have always had to have max points+1 to draw the two LE tags that I have drawn. 

Most hunters will quit putting in for these hunts once they draw and move on to another animal with the way that Utah's point system is set up. Yes, they can resume their tag search for the same animal and wait another 20+ years to draw that tag again but why do that when you can start going after another species? Now this is just for rifle hunters, bow hunters have it easier in that their point totals are usually 1/4 to 1/2 what it takes a rifle hunter to draw the same area. So why not turn it into a OIL hunt? 

Lets say hunter A starts putting in for hunt B when he is 18. He has to wait until he hits max points which is 20 when he starts and 30 by the time he draws the tag. He is now 48 years old. Is he going to wait another 20+ years to draw that tag again? 

The same can be said for the OIL animals in Utah. You hear all the time on here about hunter A wishing that he had never started putting in for moose, now after 20 years he is committed to a moose tag. Sure he could drop out and start putting in for a different OIL tag but he then starts at the bottom and has another 20+ year wait, unless he gets lucky. So using that same hunter as above he draws his OIL moose, bison, goat, or sheep tag after 25-30 years of putting in, is he really going to start to look at another species that he has to wait until he is 60-70+ years old to draw?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> What I'm getting at on the LE hunts is that there are a lot of them that the points are 15-20+ to hit max points. Some get lucky and draw sooner but that is a real chance. I have always had to have max points+1 to draw the two LE tags that I have drawn.
> 
> Most hunters will quit putting in for these hunts once they draw and move on to another animal with the way that Utah's point system is set up. Yes, they can resume their tag search for the same animal and wait another 20+ years to draw that tag again but why do that when you can start going after another species? Now this is just for rifle hunters, bow hunters have it easier in that their point totals are usually 1/4 to 1/2 what it takes a rifle hunter to draw the same area. So why not turn it into a OIL hunt?
> 
> ...


LMAO. So I hunted LE elk in my 20s and should never get to again? Even though deer and pronghorn are two utah LE I don't ever care to have?

That's it? I am just done with hunting branch antlered elk on the majority of the public land in the state? Despite their population being a billion times higher than buffalo, moose, rams, and goats?

If you make it once in a lifetime - who in their right mind is going to archery hunt elk on the pauns? Who is gonna archery anything knowing it's likely the only trophy bull they will ever take? You know how many units there are that still take less than 10 points?

Your proposal is a trophy-Utah proposal and its dead wrong. Meanwhile I can OTC deer in almost all of Idaho as a non-res? But somehow Utah doesn't have the means to do what Colorado, Idaho, wyoming, arizona, and nevada all do? Literally every neighbor has better resident systems and your proposal is to make our resident system worse than their non-res?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Have you tried drawing a elk tag in Arizona? 

Have you looked at drawing a elk tag for the better units in Colorado? While Colorado doesn't call them LE units they might as well be. Unit 61 where there are a lot of 350" bulls will take a resident close to 20 years to draw. Unit 2 and 201 up in the north west corner takes even more. 6 years ago the muzzle loader elk tag in unit 2 took 22 resident points, I would hate to see what it is now. Unit 61 at the same time took 15 and has only increased. 

If you hunted a LE unit when you were 20 you got mighty lucky on the draw no matter what the weapon of choice was. Most will end up needing max points before they even think of having a chance at it.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One thing that I should add about Colorado. They have just one set of points for each animal. If you have 20 elk points and draw a cow tag, you now have 0 elk points and are starting all over. 

Same with deer and antelope, one set of points. No doe points, no buck points, just deer points.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> Have you tried drawing a elk tag in Arizona?
> 
> Have you looked at drawing a elk tag for the better units in Colorado? While Colorado doesn't call them LE units they might as well be. Unit 61 where there are a lot of 350" bulls will take a resident close to 20 years to draw. Unit 2 and 201 up in the north west corner takes even more. 6 years ago the muzzle loader elk tag in unit 2 took 22 resident points, I would hate to see what it is now. Unit 61 at the same time took 15 and has only increased.
> 
> If you hunted a LE unit when you were 20 you got mighty lucky on the draw no matter what the weapon of choice was. Most will end up needing max points before they even think of having a chance at it.


I wasn't 20 and while I got lucky - I also had more than enough points to draw the archery tag I actually wanted.

I can buy an OTC deer tag for Arizona every single year. Same with Idaho. Same with Nevada.

I can buy elk tags in Idaho and Colorado every single year. Tags that exceed the North Slope expectation.

OIAL? Lol I can get tags in other states faster than I can in Utah.

Sadly I am comparing non-res to resident. Now you want to talk resident vs resident trophy and non trophy oppty in our state vs neighbor states? We can do that all do.

What you are pointing out is the hardest trophy situations("where there are a lot of 350" bulls"). Every state has those tough units. But don't pretend that below those monster units - they don't still have substantially more opportunity than us.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'll admit the Colorado is a little bit different. 

When you have a National Forest with the largest elk herd in the US it helps a lot. That along with how much of Colorado is fantastic elk country, but at one time it was also fantastic deer country also but that brown stuff happens. 

Right now there is a problem with the elk herds south of I-70. The unit that I live is used to be a OTC archery either sex elk tag. Now it is a bull only and you need a few points to draw a cow tag. There are a dozen other units that are in the same fix. I blame predators for it. 2 years ago on a muzzle loader deer hunt I saw more bears than I did buck deer. 

But the biggest problem is that when the amount of hunters exceeds the amount of tags offered you are going to tick of hunters. There are no easy answers and most of the ones that are out there hunters don't want to hear.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> But the biggest problem is that when the amount of hunters exceeds the amount of tags offered you are going to tick of hunters. There are no easy answers and most of the ones that are out there hunters don't want to hear.


That we agree on.

Not only do they want to hunt every year - they want to hunt trophies every year. The concession should start first on WHAT you are hunting not how frequently.

Many of our LE units could be managed for a younger age group and lost very little in terms of quality while offering a lot more tags. The wealthy folks who influence our board don't want that.

Packout flat said the Henry's was more consistent with great deer when managed for a younger age(4.5-5ish). Their stupid concession was a management hunt? That's unguided? That's a young deer hunt is what that is.

But more tags ruins the elitist part that many want. I genuinely believe it's blinded our board. Sad thing is all that "money" isn't going to what it should be.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that they ruined the Henry Mountain deer hunt back when they pulled the antler restrictions off of it and opened it up. 

Just ask anyone who hunted it back then with antler restrictions in place. It was fantastic and on a general rifle hunt tag. It was far enough away that 99% of the hunters in Utah felt that it was too far to drive and that was just fine with me while I was hunting them.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

RandomElk16 said:


> But more tags ruins the elitist part that many want. I genuinely believe it's blinded our board. Sad thing is all that "money" isn't going to what it should be.


Exactly this! Limiting tags ups the value and big Don knew it on day one. Cutting in front of the 20 year line has to be more valuable than cutting to the front of those who will draw in five.

When it takes so long to draw and it's a real possiblity to never draw that tag again, hiring an outfitter starts looking more appealing. Who is behind the continual push to keep these tag reductions?

When a biologist says the unit can support more tags and it's opposed by the RAC chairs everyone that bitches about tags had better start going to the meetings and shouting down those outfitters. An example is the every year argument for the bookcliff tag allotments.

Go to the RAC meetings and shout down the group that is lobbying for less opportunity because that's what it's going to take.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Critter said:


> I think that they ruined the Henry Mountain deer hunt back when they pulled the antler restrictions off of it and opened it up.
> 
> Just ask anyone who hunted it back then with antler restrictions in place. It was fantastic and on a general rifle hunt tag. It was far enough away that 99% of the hunters in Utah felt that it was too far to drive and that was just fine with me while I was hunting them.


And I think they ruined it for opportunity when they first put antler restrictions in place and begin managing it for trophies! After 8 years of 4-point plus antler restrictions (1977-1984) and 5 years of 3-point plus restrictions (1985-1989) and 4 years of closing (1996-1999) and 20 years of Limited Entry (2000-2019) we've ended up with a unit that issues only 50 public draw permits per year. When the trophy hunting mentality determines policy, opportunity will ALWAYS suffer.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

So elkfromabove did you ever hunt the Henry Mountains back in those times? 

I did, most of the hunters were hunting for trophies then. A number of big buck contest in the state at the time were won by bucks from the Henry's. But as I mentioned in my post they were too far away for 99% of the hunters in Utah to drive to. It also didn't take very long for the deer herd to almost disappear once they opened it up to any buck. The same thing happened out on the Book Cliffs. Before they opened it up to any buck would would see bucks out there much like you do now. But that first year of any antlered deer it was a zoo down there. There were ATV's all over the place and as they made their way back to camp most of them had small bucks on the racks. Two years later that hunt was worthless to go on and you had a hard time finding a decent 3 pt much less a nice 4 pt.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Critter said:


> So elkfromabove did you ever hunt the Henry Mountains back in those times?
> 
> I did, most of the hunters were hunting for trophies then. A number of big buck contest in the state at the time were won by bucks from the Henry's. But as I mentioned in my post they were too far away for 99% of the hunters in Utah to drive to. It also didn't take very long for the deer herd to almost disappear once they opened it up to any buck. The same thing happened out on the Book Cliffs. Before they opened it up to any buck would would see bucks out there much like you do now. But that first year of any antlered deer it was a zoo down there. There were ATV's all over the place and as they made their way back to camp most of them had small bucks on the racks. Two years later that hunt was worthless to go on and you had a hard time finding a decent 3 pt much less a nice 4 pt.


I admit I have never even been in the Henry Mountains. However, that doesn't mean I don't know anything about what its like to hunt there. In fact, you've pretty well explained it yourself! It sounds like a great place to see and hunt lots of big bucks. At least, for the few of you who will ever get to hunt it! I'd just rather hunt more often than "never"!

You asked me a question which I have answered so let me ask you some similar questions. Did you hunt the unit before the antler restrictions? If it was doing so well before 1976, why were the antler restrictions imposed? And if it was doing so well with the 4 point+ restrictions, why were they reduced to 3-point+ restrictions in 1984? And if the 3-point+ restrictions were working, why was it closed for 4 years in 1996?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

No I didn't hunt it before the antler point restrictions were put in but knew those that did, but sadly I can't talk to them anymore. 

As for why they dropped the points from 4 to 3, I have no idea. There were plenty of 4 pts running around and some huge 3 points. I did find some dead 3 points that hunters had shot and just left once they got up to them. Whenever I see birds sitting in a cedar tree or flying to one spot I usually have to investigate to see what is there.. 

As for why it was closed in 96, I would guess that for the same reason that the Book Cliffs were also closed. After they opened up the units to any antlered deer there was a slaughter, a bad winter doesn't help either. As I mentioned in the Book Cliffs the year they opened it up there were more people down there than I had seen in a dozen years before. Everyone had a ATV with a small buck on it. I would wager that the success rate that first year of any antlered deer was well over 70% with 90% of those bucks being 2 and small 3 points. I'm basically saying that it was a slaughter that year, and yes I was down there.

I quit hunting the Henry's in 86 and moved on to the Deloris Triangle until we got locked out of the access through Colorado and a wilderness study area that the road went through, so then we moved on to the Book Cliffs in 88.


----------

