# SFW Deer Proposal



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

I saw this over on Monster Muleys, I guess Don P is sending it out to SFW members for comments. What do you guys think?

Mark
______________________________________________________________________________

"Thanks for your inspiring support and commitment. We are in the biggest
fight of our lives on wolves, but we can win, if as Tim McGraw says, How bad
do you want it ?

Here is the basics of the SFW Proposed Deer Managent Plan.

1. Based on the DWR survey, and ONE years 2009 deer hunt application,
force hunters to apply for ONE deer unit in 2009, a Hunt A or a Hunt B.
Here are the characteristics of each hunt:

Hunt A. Basically the same hunting experience as today's general season
units. Post season buck doe ratios from 13-17. Keep five general season
units, hunters can expect to draw a tag 4 out of 5 years (all but once in 5
years), family and recreation style hunts. Dedicated Hunters and Lifetime
license holders could only obtain Hunt A tags. If they want Hunt B, they
forfeit their DH or LT priviledges. Hunters drawing Hunt A could hunt
anywhere in the region they drew - EXCEPT the Hunt B unit by units within
that region.

Hunt B. Post season buck doe ratios 35-40. Managed on a unit by unit
basis. Hunters can Expect to draw a permit ONCE every four or five years.
When they do, great bucks, uncrowded conditions.

2. After the hunters make the first years choice - 2009, then in
2010, the DWR then matches the percentage of deer in Each hunt type,
corresponding to the percentage of deer hunters favoring hunt A and Hunt B.

a. It is not number of deer units, it is number of actual deer.

b. So, if 70% of the hunters choose Hunt A (recreation) and 30% Hunt B
(trophy) then 70% of utahs deer herds would be managed in Hunt A strategy
and 30% in Hunt B.

3. From 2010 to 2015, Hunters would be required to apply for hunts in
Hunt A, or hunt B categories. They could changes regions (from Southern to
North East for example) in hunt A during this five year period, and they
could change individual units in Hunt B, but you could NOT change from Hunt
A to Hunt B during this five year period.

4. The process would be repeated for five years in 2015 - 2020. If
for example it shifted to 60% to 40% Type A and Type B hunters, the DWR
would add 10% more deer to the Type B management program.

5. The Hunt A units and Hunt B units would then be determined. Hunt B
units would probably include Paunsagunt, Henries, Book Cliffs, San Juan, and
then possibly add some Units like Pavant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo, and South
Cache. (Whatever Number of deer required to get an equal percentage of deer
as percentage of Type B hunters)

6. Some current limited units might be thrown into the Hunt A general
season - Vernon, Thousand Lake, etc.

7. Current Deer bonus points would be converted to preference points.

8. A decision has to be made then about Hunt B units. Could you apply
for just ONE specific unit within Hunt B, or could you apply for multiple
units in order of preference like the Colorado System? This would have to
be determined by the committee as they look more closely.

9. The Hunt B tags will cost probably 5 times as much as Hunt A tags.
The DWR needs a revenue neutral process (you are only getting a tag once
every five years - thus you pay 5 times as much)

10. It will obviously take some time to make the NEW type B units - Which
ever ones are selected - 2-3 years to get some real quality

11. It would seem that those who choose Hunt B for the first five years -
the tough building years - should have some sort of preference or advantage
going into the second five years - once the quality is built, then more will
want to jump on the bandwagon.

12. Statewide Archery COULD be extended for the Hunt A general season
units. If archers want a Type B unit by unit tag, they would have to put in
for such a tag.

13. Make a law so that a Dad could let a youth under 16 to hunt with him
and take a deer on his tag. For Example, my son might choose type A and
hunt every year for a few years. IN year Four of the program, I draw a
Beaver tag in Type B. WE go hunting. I tell the son, if I see a 35 incher,
I am pulling the trigger. If on the last few days of the hunt, we see a
nice 28 incher, the son pulls the trigger, and my tag goes on my sons deer.

Within the type B units, there could be lots of flexibility on season dates
etc, because the harvest will be controlled by the number of tags issues.
The Beaver unit - if put in Type B could have perhaps an early rifle - Sept.
15, a MZ hunt in late Sept. a rifle season in late Oct. and maybe a handful
of tags in Mid November.

Once again, I think this proposal meets the DWR criteria. Simple, Revenue
Nuetral, Youth Friendly.

It is fairly simple for Type A hunters, just put in for one of five regions
like NOW, draw probably 4 tags in five years. Family friendly, lots of
opportunity.

For the more serious hunters, it can be more complicated, we are willing to
put in the time and effort to understand the regs, etc. It will cost more
to draw this tag - revenue neutral.

The youth can hunt all three weapons in Type A units. They can go hunting
with Dad on a Trophy unit and see what real hunting is like and they just
might get to blast a pretty big buck on Dad's tag, and if they are like my
son, they will go from just killing a deer, to wanting a BIG one in short
order.

Let me know what else needs to be added to this BASIC proposal.

IN the mean time, the dWR and SFW will do all that we can to fix habitat,
keep predators under control, fence highways, solve depredation." 

Don


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

It seems pretty straight forward, I like how it adjusts for the tag number percentages based on hunters choice. 

#13 is BS, you will have kids using the "LEGAL GAURDIAN" clause to draw a tag for grandpa or mom and hunting Type A and Type B units. I know it gives most of us a warm fuzzy to think we would let our kid shoot the 28" 4-point on the last day of the hunt but I don't think this is needed. Part of teaching them to want to hunt only big deer is knowing how to pass and not get a deer that year. 

Also why are we aiming at making kids into trophy hunters, why not say they can use dads tag to shoot a doe on the last day. Why is it have to be a 28" buck or buck at all. Shouldn't the thrill of a harvest for a young'n be enough? Why are they deciding/pushing what type of hunters should be in the field. Revenue neutral AND target neutral, As they said let the tag numbers decide.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Why do we assume that a serious hunter is the type that NEEDS a once in 5 year Hogle Zoo hunt? If by serious hunter he means trophy hunter he ought to say it that way. It's sad that we need to manage things so that people can shoot a big deer, rather than manage things so that if you want a big deer you have to be a good hunter. Remember hunting? Those days before animals had to be named and filmed before you could shoot them? 

Don needs an editor in a major way. Has for years- please someone in SFW help him find some PR help. It will only make his messages more credible and effective. 

This plan is far from simple. In my view, it is some kind of exchange from exactly what we have now, to something a lot like we already have now but with more rules. What's the difference? A basic expansion of limited units. That's all it boils down to right? It's not highlighted as the major change, but isn't that all it really is? We already have type A and B hunters and we all have the opportunity to be both by putting in for the limited.


----------



## rutting (Jul 11, 2008)

what happened to micro managing and having 27 areas? This proposal sounds like a pain in the butt.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Party hunting (son shooting a deer on dads tag) and grouping all the guys who want to hunt deer almost every year into the "non serious" class.... Well, I won't come out and say I think the proposal is crap and loaded to take away opportunity to hunt more than create it... but, I'm glad to know I'm not considered to be "serious" about my hunts because I'm not a Hunt B kinda guy. I suppose a thank you letter is in order because SFW just clarified that for me.... :? Thanks.... I'll take my hunts the way they are currently.... plenty of deer, plenty of opportunity to hunt them and all the time in the world to choose which deer to pursue. Of course, I'm not made of money either so my opinion can't be seriously considered to carry as much weight as those with fat wallets. I really didn't have an opinion of SFW before... after reading this... ummmm piss off. Thanks for posting that Mark... it was interesting to read what at least one of the "management" groups thinks of "average Joe" who hunts to get meat on the ground and then to his freezer.

You can't be serious... *you* want to eat venison every year if possible and you don't really hunt for antler size.... *wow... you're a loser*!!! And even though you have very little impact on the deer herds, how about if we restrict you to only hunting four out of five years because we don't want the "serious" hunters to feel that the situation is unfair. No, no... don't change your mind and decide you want to put in for a big deer unit... once you're painted with the loser stripe, you have to ride that horse for at least five years before you change your mind. Oh, and if you DH's want to hunt close to home, well, you better forget the benefits of the DH program, because once you stain your hard working resume and your hunting career by choosing a meat hunt, you're stuck with the stench of "loserism" for the next five years.... sorry, but thanks for all your hard work in the past...we appreciate the effort but that doesn't matter now that we're going with trophy management. Oh.... don't worry about the future of hunting... we can generically reassure you that this trophy micro management of units will only ensure more interest from up and coming hunters, no matter how confusing we try to make the regulations by going unit to unit now. Besides, only 30% of the hunters in this state are intelligent or serious enough to be worth explaining the process to but if that changes at all, we'll be sure and update the next 20% or so who prove themselves worthy of an explanation by checking the right box on their hunt applications. The rest of you... carry on, this is way over your head and there's nothing here to interest you anyway. :roll: Ah... what do I know... I'm just an outspoken Hunt A type. I'll shuffle back to my place in line with the other losers now.


----------



## Derek4747 (Jun 23, 2008)

Just a personal opinion, but I say no way. I'd rather wait a few extra years and have way less pressure on the premium tags. Besides, they get plenty of landowner and conservation permits. As most already know Utah gives out more of these type tags than any other state in the west. If they wanted to do someting interesting, they should open a muzzleloader hunt on general deer units in November on a draw basis


----------



## Derek4747 (Jun 23, 2008)

Also, if that went through I believe Utah would lose a lot of deer hunters to surrounding states. Idaho would benefit the most


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I love the idea, those that want to hunt horns will be able to do it on a more regular basis. Those that want to hunt each year will be able to. I also like the idea of tag alotment being based on desire. Why should one type of hunter suffer more then the other style of hunter. This idea levels out the playing field.

If a hunter really does care about getting a tag every year, he is not going to lose anything but one of those new area's. I think those that oppose this idea are the selfish people who want to hunt LE and expect a general season tag every year if they don't draw out.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Derek4747 said:


> Also, if that went through I believe Utah would lose a lot of deer hunters to surrounding states. Idaho would benefit the most


Good point.... I was just talking to a coworker who still has Idaho residency and hunts his deer and elk up there. He agreed it would be much easier to just go up north and buy over the counter tags for your deer and elk... not to mention no outfitter drama to deal with.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I like the idea as well, although it obviously needs to be more refined.

I think what it will do is make general hunts a little less crowded and actually help numbers in those units. I'm not so sure about shooting a buck on dads tag, I can see pros and cons to that one.

Other than that, I think it would directly reflect the desires of Utah hunters, which in my opinion is contrary to what's been going on until now. It'd be nice if they did ha with elk.

Yes, Don may not use the best of words, but being critical of that is a bit nit picky in my opinion. I would like to see where this goes.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Derek4747 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if that went through I believe Utah would lose a lot of deer hunters to surrounding states. Idaho would benefit the most
> ...


I'm not sure how they would "lose" hunters or revenue. The general season gig would stay almost status quo. The only difference would be that one can't build points for "LE/B tags" if they chose to hunt/apply for the general season tags.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> Within the type B units, there could be lots of flexibility on season dates
> etc, because the harvest will be controlled by the number of tags issues.
> The Beaver unit - if put in Type B could have perhaps an early rifle - Sept.
> 15, a MZ hunt in late Sept. a rifle season in late Oct. and maybe a handful
> of tags in Mid November.


Apparantly bowhunters don't get an oppurtunity at Type B Units.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

archerben said:


> > Within the type B units, there could be lots of flexibility on season dates
> > etc, because the harvest will be controlled by the number of tags issues.
> > The Beaver unit - if put in Type B could have perhaps an early rifle - Sept.
> > 15, a MZ hunt in late Sept. a rifle season in late Oct. and maybe a handful
> ...


What good would would it do to "HUNT" a TYPE B unit if its not guaranteed? :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Remember, this is just a proposal that will be presented to the deer committee. The final outcome of this will look much different than this draft. It is a good start, and if nit picking Don for his typing skills is the best you can come up with he is doing pretty good. I dare say he has done more for wildlife than SteepNDeep will EVER do. Like him or not, he gets his hands on the plow and gets results. How many of those so quick to condemn him can say the same? If you don't like SFW's proposal, draft your own and present it, and see where it goes based on it's merits. Otherwise, you have no room to complain about what others are doing, at least they are 'doing'. Talk is CHEAP, put your money where your whining is!

I am not big on #13 either, and I doubt it will see the light of day.

Ben, your highlighted phrase is addressing the RIFLE hunters only, there would still be primitive weapon tags, as the proposal makes VERY clear in other parts of it.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> Ben, your highlighted phrase is addressing the RIFLE hunters only, there would still be primitive weapon tags, as the proposal makes VERY clear in other parts of it.


Here it is again:



> Within the type B units, there could be lots of flexibility on season dates
> etc, because the harvest will be controlled by the number of tags issues.
> The Beaver unit - if put in Type B could have perhaps an *early rifle - Sept.
> 15*, a *MZ hunt in late Sept*. *a rifle season in late Oct*. and maybe a handful of tags in Mid November.


Again, both rifle and muzzleloader seasons are spec'd, but no specific archery season is ever mentioned in regards to Type B hunts. Typical SFW.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

archerben said:


> > Ben, your highlighted phrase is addressing the RIFLE hunters only, there would still be primitive weapon tags, as the proposal makes VERY clear in other parts of it.
> 
> 
> Here it is again:
> ...


Again, both rifle and muzzleloader seasons are spec'd, but no specific archery season is never mentioned in regards to Type B hunts. Typical SFW.[/quote:1r8dvinp]

Maybe thats what the handful is for?? One can hope.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

archerben said:


> Again, both rifle and muzzleloader seasons are spec'd, but no specific archery season is ever mentioned in regards to Type B hunts. Typical SFW.


Since you DIDN'T go back and read the rest of the proposal like I suggested, here you go:


> 12. Statewide Archery COULD be extended for the Hunt A general season
> units. *If archers want a Type B unit by unit tag, they would have to put in
> for such a tag.*


Typical Ben that looks at things half empty instead of half full, contrary to what you try and portray, SFW is NOT anti archery. In fact, UBA has been working WITH SFW on many archery related issues. If they were so anti archery, why would they 'waste' their time meeting with us? Think about it and stay on topic!


----------



## Derek4747 (Jun 23, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Riverrat77 said:
> 
> 
> > Derek4747 said:
> ...


Under the proposition in hunt "A" a utah hunter would have at least one year of not getting a general season buck tag. On hunt "B" a hunter would have 4 years of not getting a general season buck tag. Hunter "A" would very likely look foor a deer hunting opportunity of of state at the very least every five years. Hunter "B" would hunt out of state every year they did not draw. 4 out of 5 years. Also, once you purchase another states hunting license it becomes more of an option to hunt elk


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I would support it, I'm sure it will be refined more.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

I've read the entire proposal including the part about archers having to put in for a Type B tag. But as I pointed out, they go on to outline seasons for rifle and muzzleloader, but not archery. This comes across as though they are saying that if archers want a Type B tag, they must draw a rifle tag and hunt during the rifle hunt, because there is no archery season. I do not believe that UBA or the DWR would let this happen, but that is the way that the proposal comes across. 

Also, I never once said that SFW is anti-archery. I truly believe that many of it's members are anti-archery, but the organization itself is not. However, they definitely are not pro-archery either. As far as them working with UBA, I believe it's more of a PR issue to appease their bowhunting members and to remain neutral-archery.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

If statewide archery has such a limited effect on deer numbers based on harvest stats, why would SFW make archery hunters draw a tag for Type B units? Why even mess with statewide archery since we have such a small impact? Is it because they want to limit the numbers of archers chasing deer on LE or Hunt B units regardless of time of year? We basically have a two week season on LE areas for deer with the current regs right? So what is the goal being accomplished by actually having archers draw a tag for the trophy areas? Is it just a show of being fair for the sake of appeasing folks hunting with rifles? Other than the two week early season, I don't see how archery hunters have some sort of advantage over anyone else during the year, so why regulate something that isn't an issue? Even if an archery person chose to pursue deer on one of the trophy areas, they still only have two weeks to do so... because once that is over, don't they only get to hunt on "extended hunt" areas until December? I could see it being an issue if the extended areas were in high tag demand units but as far as I can tell, thats not the case. I don't believe Ben is entirely off track here... and I say that because I doubt all the rifle hunters or muzzy hunters are going to just drop their arms and pick up bows to start hunting so it appears that SFW is restricting archery tags just for restrictions sake more than it actually accomplishing anything. If mass quantities of rifle hunters dropped rifles and picked up bows and then we (archers) started having some massive impact on the herd stability, then yeah, limit archery to just picking certain units to hunt but until then, leave it alone if its not broken already. With gas the way it is, its not like there is going to be a sudden influx of archery hunters into southern units this fall or any time soon anyway.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

archerben said:


> I never once said that SFW is anti-archery. I truly believe that many of it's members are anti-archery, but the organization itself is not. However, they definitely are not pro-archery either. As far as them working with UBA, I believe it's more of a PR issue to appease their bowhunting members and to remain neutral-archery.


Luckily, the UBA Board of Directors sees things different than you!


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

Hell ya! Just what we need. Its not like attornies fees aren't high enough. Cause thats what it will take to get it RIGHT!! Legal advice!! It's bad enough trying to figure out the dwrs proc. Way to go fellers. anything to make it easy.. Maybe you can get Don and his boys to help ya out on an Archery hunt!!


----------



## Derek4747 (Jun 23, 2008)

Under the B proposition wouldn't the upper echelon units like the Henries just get pounded? I mean if you had your choice of the LE units everyone and there dog would go to the Henries or the Pauns. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Sure would make the outfitter business interesting


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Derek4747 said:


> Under the B proposition wouldn't the upper echelon units like the Henries just get pounded? I mean if you had your choice of the LE units everyone and there dog would go to the Henries or the Pauns. Unless I'm reading it wrong. Sure would make the outfitter business interesting


The number of applicants would be high, but the tag numbers would stay at/close to what they are now for the Henries/Pauns.

I will push to keep the Vernon LE, there have been some big bucks showing up the last couple of years.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It would be the same, I'm sure. They wouldn't flood the Henries like that. I would imagine that it would be as tough to draw as it is now. But that's a good question. Anyone have an answer? You should email Don and ask him.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Look. I'm not for this. My suggestion that Don get some PR/editing help is NOT something that would benefit me. He has needed it for years, and someone ought to kindly offer to help clean it up. It isn't a big deal, and has nothing to do with the stated goals. I get it. You know I don't agree with this on the basis of the proposed changes. 

Putting your best foot forward only enhances the credibility of your message. Someone might wonder: "Why should I place faith in a guy (or group represented by same) who can't write at the high school level?" That's not the desired result so why let it be? If I were sending out my letter to thousands of dedicated SFW members I would send it to an editor or trusted friend for review and correction. It's not that hard.


----------



## Derek4747 (Jun 23, 2008)

I agree Pro Vernon is a very nice area. Even against popular opinion I think Thousand Lake should as well. Under the guidelines of keepinf the tag numbers in line with current ones how can you expect to draw every five years? I realize these are difficult questions, but I think they need to be addressed


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> archerben said:
> 
> 
> > I never once said that SFW is anti-archery. I truly believe that many of it's members are anti-archery, but the organization itself is not. However, they definitely are not pro-archery either. As far as them working with UBA, I believe it's more of a PR issue to appease their bowhunting members and to remain neutral-archery.
> ...


Fortunately, it doesn't entirely depend on the UBA Board of Directors' opinion, I would think they would listen to archers' on this issue and it seems that a lot of archer's don't see SWF as being pro-archery.

I would rather see the mirco- units management plan implemented rather than SWF's plan.


----------



## neckcollar (Dec 30, 2007)

Hell ya, and while were at it lets just give sfw control of all the tags. Did any one ask whats in it for them, is this to benifit the average sportsman or just to make it easier for sfw? Why dont we just make the whole state dedicated hunter, with antler restrictions in every area? :roll: If it aint broke dont fix it>


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Even if an archery person chose to pursue deer on one of the trophy areas, they still only have two weeks to do so... because once that is over, don't they only get to hunt on "extended hunt" areas until December?


No if you draw A LE AREA you only get the two weeks to hunt and if you dont fill your tag.You are done for the rest of the year and you have to wait five more years befor you can even put in for another LE deer tag or point.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I went scouting a week or so back. Hiked hard and found 20 plus bucks, half of them 4 point all on general ground. Man this state sucks. Why can't I do the same thing while watching the outdoors channel for 4 years and then getting a big monster buck with a bit of a walk from camp?

Ain't broke don't "fix" +1


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The Hunt B areas would be treated the same as they do now for archery. If you draw an archery henry tag then you DONT get to hunt until December on the extended wasatch.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I will push to keep the Vernon LE, there have been some big bucks showing up the last couple of years.


+1. The Vernon unit have been producing BC bucks the last few years. No reason to ruin the quality.


----------



## Derek4747 (Jun 23, 2008)

I wouldn't mind seeing some changes, but not a total overhaul. One interesting thing could be a premuim LE deer tag. The same they do on the LE elk units. Where you could hunt all 3 seasons on a LE deer unit.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

IT SOUNDS LIKE BULL SHEIT. THAT HAS GOT TO BE THE WORST PLAN I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!!!!!! 
IF SFW IS PROPOSING THIS THAN I WILL NO LONGER SUPPORT SFW!!!!!!!

IF YOU WANT TO SEE A THE DEER HERDS INCREASE FIX THE 25,000 DEER THAT ARE KILLED ON THE HIGHWAYS EVERY YEAR. WHICH MOST HAPPEN TO BE DOES. WE NEED DOES TO INCREASE DEER NUMBERS IN UTAH!

YOU WANT TO FIX THE SIZE OF DEER AND BUCK TO DOE RATIO IN UTAH??GIVE OUT 1/3 RIFLE TAGS 1/3 MUZZLE TAGS AND 1/3 ARCHERY TAGS!!!!!

The division has said bowhunters can’t manage deer herds. What they are saying is in areas like the Wasatch front we simply cannot kill enough deer to keep the deer herds under objective. We rely on hard winters, predators, cars and the division with silenced 22’s is what keeps the deer numbers under objective. This also goes for the general unit and the bs that bowhunters wound more deer than another hunter. The facts don’t support this bs theory.

Rifle hunters are just too effective at killing. "That is a FACT" So on general units you kill every thing off. Unless you are restricted in numbers just like you are saying in your BS proposal.

So limit the range by making you use a muzzle loader or other primitive weapon and maybe some deer will make it another year.


YOUR PROPOSAL SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t give your opportunity to hunt every year up by going to a piece of crap plan like this! 


Archery is a year round commitment!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

If SFW gets their way we will be hunting big bucks once in our life for just like we hunt big elk once in our life.
Than the division will try and cram down our throats that we need to kill more does and spike deer, just like we need to kill cow elk and spikes just to keep our herds under herd objective. Our land can only hold some many freking deer or elk. 

So let’s increase our herd caring capacity by making our habitat better. Just like I learned in grade school with fish, you can take an aquarium and put a fish in it. One fish is all you can have in it if it is a certain size. Now add air and a filtration system and you can put 10 fish in it. Deer are no different! We can increase their caring capacity.

We need to manage what is good for deer and what is good for elk in this state. Not what is good for SFW’s big money tags! I am also going to lump the Division as a bad guy also because they are becoming dependent on this big money. 

By the way how the hell is this state managing our elk? Are we managing it by bull to cow ratio’s, are we managing it by age objectives, or are we managing it in some other way ie what is good for big money tags.

I am a big supporter of what SFW has done in the past. I still am a bug supporter in what they are doing. But I have come to an end of my rope enough is enough NO more tags for them Period! They are getting worse than our greedy government.

Archery is a year round commitment!! 

Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm curious to what the percentage of people is that would prefer to hunt every 5 years. Also, is every 5 years a realistic number?????


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Look. I'm not for this. My suggestion that Don get some PR/editing help is NOT something that would benefit me. He has needed it for years, and someone ought to kindly offer to help clean it up. It isn't a big deal, and has nothing to do with the stated goals. I get it. You know I don't agree with this on the basis of the proposed changes.
> 
> Putting your best foot forward only enhances the credibility of your message. Someone might wonder: "Why should I place faith in a guy (or group represented by same) who can't write at the high school level?" That's not the desired result so why let it be? If I were sending out my letter to thousands of dedicated SFW members I would send it to an editor or trusted friend for review and correction. It's not that hard.


It seems to me that you are full of hate. There is no reason to dislike the proposal because of spelling errors. If you don't like this proposal then take Pro's advice and write up your own proposal and present it to the RAC and WB.

BTW I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on how you think we can improve habitat without using money.


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

I dont know enough about this plan but it seems like they want to make all of the good areas plan B. So if I choose plan A, I will get to hunt 2 points every year with a million other people or B and get to chase once in a lifetime with the crowds.
Is there even a guarantee that all of the B people will draw within the 5 years? Or is this something that will take 10 to 15 years to draw with luck? Which would make it possibly 20 years for one tag?
The system that we have now isnt that much different. We still have limmited entry areas that people can draw for. And from what I've been hearing the deer have been on a great comeback. Watching the sportsmans shows the SFW's help of the Beaver area has gotten it better than its been in a long time. So now we close it down for a few of the elite hunters?

My biggest gripe is this. I'd bet almost anything that if this is passed and these areas become awesome to hunt. I also bet that the SFW and other groups will parley their help in the creation and maintenence of these units into more tags that they recieve. After all its their help and the money that they have had donated that makes these units great right?
The net benefit will be that they have more tags that they can auction to the same people every year that allows them to hunt EVERY year in the best units without benefit to the public.

I dont think that this plan benefits the general public in any way at all. Once again, everyone touts that the herds are getting better every year. Numbers are up and things are better, lets make these units group B units.

All groups have an agenda. They all have a purpose for being. I believe that the SFW has done some great things for Utah's wildlife. However, I dont believe that they have done these things for the general public. Most of the things that they promote are to set up things for the elite few. If others benefit from them thats ok but definately not the target of the SFW.
Now they want to take the areas that they have been working with and make them harder to get into. I dont see how everyone will get to hunt the b units every five years.......unless they buy tags donating lots of money to the state.....which will begat more tags for this purpose.


I'm talking with an archery slant here for a minute so those that dont will have to forgive me for a minute.
Pro. I know that UBA has met with the SFW on a few issues but I feel that the SFW are only giving lip service to UBA. What have they done or included UBA in that is substantial? A few closed door talks and phone calls dont count. 
When you say that they incluce the bowhunters in their plan B, is that a very short season somewhere crammed inbetween the three rifle hunts? 
I hunt with every weapon that I can but archery is my favorite. But seriously, you dont really believe that the SFW is concerned with archers? If we lost it all I dont think they would really care. Didnt their southern directors go after archery in southern Utah reciently? We as archers are just a group that they have to deal with. We are the thorn in the paw of the lion. We can cause them a little pain in some issues but arent big enough to have any great effect on what they do. We are also very vocal but thats about it. 

I know that I havnt placed a better plan forward but once again, give me a break PRO. With the political might of the SFW how would it matter. They will never seriously believe in anything that anyone else says. If the letterhead isnt there you arent going to be taken seriously. Didnt someone reciently post something about almost all of the board being SFW guys......With the exception of a couple of token guys. 

This is just my rant........take it for what its worth.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I'm curious to what the percentage of people is that would prefer to hunt every 5 years. Also, is every 5 years a realistic number?????


For some LE units it would be, for others no way. I think SFW and the DWR have done some surveys addressing the percentage issue. I assume since SFW drafted this that the numbers pushed them to this draft, since they listen to their membership.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> My biggest gripe is this. I'd bet almost anything that if this is passed and these areas become awesome to hunt. I also bet that the SFW and other groups will parley their help in the creation and maintenence of these units into more tags that they recieve. After all its their help and the money that they have had donated that makes these units great right?
> The net benefit will be that they have more tags that they can auction to the same people every year that allows them to hunt EVERY year in the best units without benefit to the public.


I believe only 5% of the total tags can be sold so they would have to increase public draw tags to get an increase in tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

adamsoa said:


> I'm talking with an archery slant here for a minute so those that dont will have to forgive me for a minute.
> Pro. I know that UBA has met with the SFW on a few issues but I feel that the SFW are only giving lip service to UBA. What have they done or included UBA in that is substantial? A few closed door talks and phone calls dont count.
> When you say that they incluce the bowhunters in their plan B, is that a very short season somewhere crammed inbetween the three rifle hunts?
> I hunt with every weapon that I can but archery is my favorite. But seriously, you dont really believe that the SFW is concerned with archers? If we lost it all I dont think they would really care. Didnt their southern directors go after archery in southern Utah reciently? We as archers are just a group that they have to deal with. We are the thorn in the paw of the lion. We can cause them a little pain in some issues but arent big enough to have any great effect on what they do. We are also very vocal but thats about it.
> ...


Contrary to what you seem to believe, SFW is NOT the 'evil empire'. The membership is made up of US, not some foreign legion of storm troopers.

I will NOT come on here and pretend to speak for UBA, but as a UBA Board of Director member I can say I do NOT believe SFW is only giving us "lip service". I know most of the SFW Board, and to a man I have respect for them and what their motives are. If that makes me a toadie so be it. I have talked at length with several of these SPORTSMEN and while I do NOT agree with everything they do or how they do it, I do NOT doubt their motives.

As for the push from the southern region to end statewide archery, yes taht happened, because SFW lets it's membership have a voice, and those in that area believed it was warranted, but it was NOT pushed through was it? And since then, UBA and SFW have had many discussions on the subject along with dozens of other topics. If you knew the Executive Board guys you would see that MOST are archers themselves, one is one a few mag covers with his awesome ARCHERY deer he took in Colorado, and another killed a great bull elk with a bow last fall on the Wasatch. To assert they are against archery is showing a lacking of knowledge of where these guys stand.

Also, to make the assertion that unless SFW proposes something it won't get passed is simply NOT true, in fact it is not even close to being accurate. Also, the reps on the deer committee that are not SFW members are NOT "token" seats, they have a major role in what gets through and does not, and UBA is on the committee fighting for archers and non-archers alike. As is people like Finnegan who seats on this committee. Sorry, I don't see him jsut sitting there silently on topics like this.

This proposal may not be perfect, and it WILL get worked over IF it makes it to the RAC's, but I like it a whole lot MORE than the micro-unit idea!

To say you can't draft a proposal and submit it to the committee unless you are a SFW spokesman in ABSURD, and a cop out! I have made changes through the RAC/Wildlife Board, and if I can do it, anyone can!


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

They would have to increase the number of tags anyway so that they could get people through the units. Right now its a 15 year wait for the Henry's. The big P is just about the same. For people to ever have a chance to hunt again the tag numbers will have to increase. Which will give a larger number of available auction tags. 
A good question for this is what will they do if there is a very low number of people that participate in this plan, ie group B? Would they then make more of the B group areas into A group areas? From the looks of things they have their eyes on some great general areas. It seems as though they want more great group B areas. If they only have a small percentage of people that opt for the B option will they then take away from the limited entry units and make them Group A????????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

adamsoa said:


> If they only have a small percentage of people that opt for the B option will they then take away from the limited entry units and make them Group A????????


It's pretty clear by READING the proposal that is what would happen if that is what happens. :roll:


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> I went scouting a week or so back. Hiked hard and found 20 plus bucks, half of them 4 point all on general ground. Man this state sucks. Why can't I do the same thing while watching the outdoors channel for 4 years and then getting a big monster buck with a bit of a walk from camp?
> 
> Ain't broke don't "fix" +1


I hunt the same way as you, and have no problem with the current regulations (for me and my hunt). But I can take a lot of time off to scout and hunt far from the road. Most of my friends and family that hunt do not have the same luxury. They may have weekends to scout, but with fuel costing so much it makes it hard. For people that can't devote 15 or 20 days to a deer hunt, "B" hunts may be just perfect. You wait your turn and then have a good opportunity to get a mature deer without a huge investment of time.

Funny how similar in principle this is to I400. Make people choose between a premium hunt and a general hunt instead of hunting general every year and applying for premium hunts every year as well.

And on that same note, I don't know why you'd need to be locked in to an A or B hunt for 5 years. You could just make every deer unit a part of the same drawing and use preference points for them all. A Northern "A" hunt would probably require no points at all, and a Henries "B" hunt would take 15 or more. By doing this, you would still be forced to choose one hunt or the other, but you could make your decision each year about which area to try for. If you drew a general "A" tag, maybe you would only lose 1 or 2 points instead of everything.

Anyway, I like the ideas for the most part. Those of us that put in our time on public land could still do so, but it would open up more options for many hunters.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> They would have to increase the number of tags anyway so that they could get people through the units. Right now its a 15 year wait for the Henry's. The big P is just about the same. For people to ever have a chance to hunt again the tag numbers will have to increase. Which will give a larger number of available auction tags.
> A good question for this is what will they do if there is a very low number of people that participate in this plan, ie group B? Would they then make more of the B group areas into A group areas? From the looks of things they have their eyes on some great general areas. It seems as though they want more great group B areas. If they only have a small percentage of people that opt for the B option will they then take away from the limited entry units and make them Group A????????


I can easily see 30% of the hunters putting in for B units because a lot of people here in Utah like to hunt big muleys. I serious doubt the B pool will get smaller.


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

I like the starwars comparisons. I dont think that the SFW is the evil empire....all of the time. But I do believe that they have an agenda that is not out to benefit the majority of hunters. I feel that they have a highly targeted area that they are concerned with and that that is what they direct their policies and forces towards.
Most of the time I dont feel that it benefits bowhunters. If we are going in the same direction we can tag along but I have a hard time seeing them saying I want to do this for bowhunters. 
I think that their board is made of great sportsmen who have a strong opinion of how they want things to be. They have been given a very strong voice. 
As for the wildlife board I've been told the majority have some sort of affiliation with the SFW. If i'm wrong please let me know and I'll appologize.
I just hate the first draft of this plan. I dont really see anything that I do like about it.
And as for the cop out I like to talk big on the internet. BUT......I really dont think that if I had a plan contrary to what the SFW wants it would be considered. I've been to the racks where the chicken little guy stands up speaks his peace gets looked at like he's crazy and sits back down. 
I've also been to a couple of UBA meetings....With you at one.
I just feel that the only real voice listened to is the SFW, and that other things can get passed as long as they dont conflict.


----------



## neckcollar (Dec 30, 2007)

I sit back and review in my head some of the comments I hear on this forum, and now I think to my self how much money the sfw tags bring in. And then it hits me, the dedicated hunter program allow 10,000 people to join each year. Now if 10,000 people put in on the tags that the swf had, and each person was to put $50 up for a chance at those tags, that would generate $500,000. And if you added the general season elk hunters of (25,615 if tags sell out) and had them putting in for preimum swf tags @ $50.00 then that generates $1,280,750.00. My numbers may be way off, but my point is this. I would rather put up an extra $50.00 or $100.00 every year for a chance at those tags, and know that the money is going directly to wildlife in this state, then to have the sfw take there cut out of these tags and put it where they see fit. We need to remember that these are public animals not private party animals. Elk tags came down this year, we were all use to paying $60.00 for a tag, now its $45.00 I dont feel like Im getting the most out of my money by giving up LE tags.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

THIS PROPOSAL SUCKS!!!!!

The only way you can increase the deer antler size while still steadily increasing the amount of tags is 1/3 rifle tags 1/3 muzzle loader tags and 1/3 archery tags. Get rid of the dedicated hunter program and make every hunter do the same hours the dedicated hunters are doing.

Then we need to fix our roads! We are killing more deer every year with our cars and most of these are does. That is harder on our deer than our hunt is.

Than we fix our habitat so it will hold more game! 

But don’t restrict us to easy, lazy, high fence style hunts every 5-10 years or once in a life time hunts.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

adamsoa said:


> I like the starwars comparisons. I dont think that the SFW is the evil empire....all of the time. But I do believe that they have an agenda that is not out to benefit the majority of hunters. I feel that they have a highly targeted area that they are concerned with and that that is what they direct their policies and forces towards.
> Most of the time I dont feel that it benefits bowhunters. If we are going in the same direction we can tag along but I have a hard time seeing them saying I want to do this for bowhunters.


Again, who do* you * think the SFW members are? I am proud to say I am one, and whether you agree with me or not, EVERYTHING I do pertaining to wildlife has the 'agenda' of being to the benefit of the majority, and my voice counts the same as ANY/ALL other SFW members as individuals. Their "highly targeted area" they are concerned with is MORE animals, MORE opportunities, MORE trophy class animals for those who desire to hunt them. How horrible. :roll: 


> I think that their board is made of great sportsmen who have a strong opinion of how they want things to be. They have been given a very strong voice.


They haven't been 'given' anything. They have earned it through hard work, looking for solutions, research, and getting INVOLVED!


> As for the wildlife board I've been told the majority have some sort of affiliation with the SFW. If i'm wrong please let me know and I'll appologize.


This is false, the Wildlife Board members are selected by the Governor, who gets input from MANY sources, one of which is SFW, another is NON-hunting groups, livestock interests, as well.



> And as for the cop out I like to talk big on the internet. BUT......I really dont think that if I had a plan contrary to what the SFW wants it would be considered. I've been to the racks where the chicken little guy stands up speaks his peace gets looked at like he's crazy and sits back down.


At the UBA meeting last week that you attended, Anis, myself and a few others explained how best to get results. You do NOT just show up at the RAC's and make a comment, you do the research, get the info to the decision makers (in this case the deer committee members, not the RAC/WB members), and make your case based on merit. I have seen first hand proposals from SFW get shot down, while proposals made by dough heads like me get passed. Making the first mention of a proposal at the Central RAC will get shut down EVERY time, as it should.


> I've also been to a couple of UBA meetings....With you at one.
> I just feel that the only real voice listened to is the SFW, and that other things can get passed as long as they dont conflict.


Attending the UBA meeting was a good thing, but NOTHING gets done by just going there and then not following up and doing more. We mentioned forming a committee that will draft our own proposals, based on your passion/opinions on this, I fully expect you to be on that committee with me. 8)


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I think most of us would like to see more big bucks. But the founding premise that there are two kinds of hunters isn't true.

What about those of us who don't fit into these two convenient boxes, or "user groups" as the Division likes to call us? What about those of us who just want to hunt? Should we all "go to Colorado"?

As happens all too often, the politics are getting out of hand and the politicians are forgetting what the point was in the first place. I think it's dysfunctional for us to divide ourselves and its bad news for wildlife. Since this proposal begins by suggesting that we should declare ourselves and climb into the little boxes that it provides for us, I see no merit in it at all.


----------



## pintail (Apr 20, 2008)

i dont get this proposal i guess. i am a lifetime license holder and hunt the south every year. if they go with plan A are they saying that i will get a tag 4 out of 5 years? if so i would like the money back i payed for it. i dont expect to shoot a deer every single year and have come home empty handed many times from passing small bucks as many of us have and i am more than happy to do so. why limit your hunting to 4 out of 5 years? if i choose to go with plan B im doomed like the rest of us are to get a tag. they are kidding if they say that you will draw a tag every five years in a limited entry region. its hard enough to get a freakin limited entry elk tag in this state even having 12 bonus points like my dad does. don is a great friend of mine and lives close to me and has done amazing stuff for wildlife here in utah but if you look where hunting is going its turning to a rich mans game and many people are going loose the thrill of hunting.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> I think most of us would like to see more big bucks. But the founding premise that there are two kinds of hunters isn't true.
> 
> What about those of us who don't fit into these two convenient boxes, or "user groups" as the Division likes to call us? What about those of us who just want to hunt? Should we all "go to Colorado"?
> 
> As happens all too often, the politics are getting out of hand and the politicians are forgetting what the point was in the first place. I think it's dysfunctional for us to divide ourselves and its bad news for wildlife. Since this proposal begins by suggesting that we should declare ourselves and climb into the little boxes that it provides for us, I see no merit in it at all.


My viewpoint exactly! I'm an archery hunter, in part, because of the advantages of a longer season and larger area which compensate for the additional challenges of bowhunting. I'm also a trophy hunter, but only in the sense that I'd like to get one trophy per species. I don't need or want my den covered with mule deer heads, or elk heads, or ? heads and I certainly ain't looking for a bigger one than last year, though I'd take one if he showed. I have my elk and antelope already and I'm currently looking for a P & Y mule deer, and the current system already allows me to accumulate bonus deer points to hunt an LE unit.

So, in which category am I? I'm a trophy hunter, but I certainly don't want to be locked into a trophy hunt for 5 years, every 5 years, because once I get a big one, I'll become just another hunter (for mule deer, at least), so I don't want Hunt B. That leaves me with Hunt A, which is what I already have.

I already know many people who have quit hunting because of the complicated system we already have. And this proposal doesn't simplify anything. And it doesn't make the herds any easier to manage. Nor does it benefit the herds any more. I hope this proposal becomes null and void!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I already know many people who have quit hunting because of the complicated system we already have. And this proposal doesn't simplify anything. And it doesn't make the herds any easier to manage. Nor does it benefit the herds any more. I hope this proposal becomes null and void!!!


Our current system is simple and this proposal is very simple, but as you can read from comments on this thread......people can't read and follow along and understand a simple proposal. How much simplier does the proposal need to be?


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

It seems to me we already have Type A units and Type B units with the general and LE units in place. This proposal just makes you decide between the two and should save everyone $10.00 by forcing you to make a choice.

I don’t like #3 at all!! Things change in life and to be locked in for 5 years to apply to the same type unit is bad. 

I would like to see a Type C or a not so LE unit started with a buck to doe ratio of say 20 to 25 with the 1/3 rifle 1/3 muzzleloader and 1/3 archery tag split. With a 3 or 4 square mile road less area in each unit. 

Allen


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

We have what.... five "general" units now? Then you have all your LE units.... the exception at this point would be the statewide archery. Unless you've done this for a while... its not simple. I can totally see how this would be confusing for somebody trying to get into hunting... what do I pick? How do I pick? What if I screw up and choose the wrong thing? Now we have a proposal to break things down even smaller and micro manage units based on what type of hunter you are. Its getting more complicated, not easier to understand. Do I get it?? Yeah, I think so.... but I had to read it a couple times to make sure. I agree with Finn that I don't want to be clumped into one group or another.... I want to hunt every year.... thats why I bought a bow and even got involved with this, otherwise I'd still be killing wads of ducks, rabbits and other small game. I was fine with that but liked the idea of being able to hunt deer and elk close to home. Now if I decide I want to chase a deer just for a big rack, I get that taken away from me?? Nah... I don't think so. I may kill a doe this year.... because like I've been told by our good friend Tex, you have to start somewhere. However, I like to sit and think that possibly while I'm up on the front, I'll get a look at a huge muley and have the opportunity to stalk him and maybe get a shot at the biggest deer I'll ever kill. I like having that choice.... having a choice is a good thing and this proposal seems like its set up to limit the choices people have with regard to how and where they hunt. I just don't like that part of it I guess.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

If this is true, it is a horrible plan. I better get a attorney on retainer. It will take one to figure out how to apply for a tag.

I really enjoy the part where Don says-

"They can go hunting with Dad on a Trophy unit and see what real hunting is like and they just might get to blast a pretty big buck on Dad's tag, and if they are like my son, they will go from just killing a deer, to wanting a BIG one in short
order." :shock: 

That says volumes about SFW and what thier motivation is.

It's my hope that Don will some day know what real hunting is!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> It's my hope that Don will some day know what real hunting is!!!


It is my hope that you will enlighten me to exactly what "real" hunting is. :?

Don doesn't just pull this stuff out of the air, this came from the SFW membership, who are people like myself who are "real" hunters! :roll:


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > It's my hope that Don will some day know what real hunting is!!!
> ...


You know I like the basic Idea behind the proposal. It does need fine tuning though. But, statements like this that seem to make reference that trophy hunters are the only "Real Hunters". P!$$ me off!! If I am less of a hunter or hold less value to the organization because I shoot a two point or spike then I won't support there ideas. I have kids and if the first animal he shoots is a doe, that to me will be a bigger trophy than anything a "Real Hunter" will shoot on a type B unit in November with your rifle.

Hunting cannot be broken into to types or groups. Dividing us only leads to the demise of what we all hold "deer".


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You know I like the basic Idea behind the proposal. It does need fine tuning though. But, statements like this that seem to make reference that trophy hunters are the only "Real Hunters". P!$$ me off!! If I am less of a hunter or hold less value to the organization because I shoot a two point or spike then I won't support there ideas. I have kids and if the first animal he shoots is a doe, that to me will be a bigger trophy than anything a "Real Hunter" will shoot on a type B unit in November with your rifle.


Well it will benefit both types of hunters because now people who want to hunt every year can't backlog the LE pool and build points while hunting every year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

truemule said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Longfeather said:
> ...


true, my use of the term "real" hunter is from Longfeather saying he hopes Don becomes a "real" hunter someday, not that 'trophy' hunters are "real" hunters. I am STILL waiting for Longfeather to enlighten me/others on what a "real" hunter is. :?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Maybe a simple DNA test would show if you're a "Real hunter" or not. We test the mtDNA or the Y Chromosome and you would just need to swab the inside of your cheek to collect the dead cells.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > It's my hope that Don will some day know what real hunting is!!!
> ...


It's a stupid statement and it tells a lot about SFW motives. It doesn't matter if it came from the SFW membership or not it is still a stupid statement.

Pro you know it's a stupid statement. But because Don said it, you think you have to defend it.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

[quote="proutdoors".[/quote]true, my use of the term "real" hunter is from Longfeather saying he hopes Don becomes a "real" hunter someday, not that 'trophy' hunters are "real" hunters. I am STILL waiting for Longfeather to enlighten me/others on what a "real" hunter is. :?[/quote]

Don is the one trying to define what a real hunter is. Anyone who hunts legally is a real hunter in my book.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Don is the one trying to define what a real hunter is. Anyone who hunts legally is a real hunter in my book.


Sorry, but that is BS! *You* posted: I


> t's my hope that Don will some day know what real hunting is!!!


Explain YOUR comments.

I feel NO need to defend anything Don says, I only defend what I believe in. I am nobody's parrot! Keep taking cheap shots, it really helps your stance. :roll:


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Don is the one trying to define what a real hunter is. Anyone who hunts legally is a real hunter in my book.
> ...


I've clarified my statement. It doesn't get any clearer. A real hunter is anyone who hunts legally.

Your right I'm assuming you must be defending Don. I can't think of any other reason anyone would defend Don's statement.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Longfeather, im just curious, but are you also Wyo2ut?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Well look at that, Don reads this forum and we didn't even know it. He steals my I-401 elk management idea, tweaks it a little for deer management and doesn't even give me any credit. :lol: :lol:



> I 401
> by 10000ft. on Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:10 pm
> 
> Here is an idea (that's what this forum is for right) it is still in the rough but just thinking out load.
> ...


Well that's OK, I won't press charges for copyright infringment this time.

I think PRO, MR. Peay, Mossback, SFW.....and everyone else who would like to see more "trophy opportunity" (who made the Hoggle Zoo comment, that was kind of funny) are about to set themselves up to see much of there current LE opportunity returned to the balance of hunters who want to pursue *trophy class animals every year on the General Season!!!!!* -()/-


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Longfeather, im just curious, but are you also Wyo2ut?


Nope. I only acess this site from one computer and I only use one name.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> I think PRO, MR. Peay, Mossback, SFW.....and everyone else who would like to see more "trophy opportunity" (who made the Hoggle Zoo comment, that was kind of funny) are about to set themselves up to see much of there current LE opportunity returned to the balance of hunters who want to pursue *trophy class animals every year on the General Season!!!!!* -()/-


That is exactly what should happen if that is what the hunters want, I have NO problem with that, but if the numbers show the opposite are you fine with it? Or is this a one way street? :wink:

Longfeather, which statement of Don's do you find so indefensible? Just so I know. :?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Well I haven't read all the posts but figure I will jump in on page 7 and tell what I think about MY modified I-401 plan for deer management.

First, I think it is funny that Mr. Peay speaks with such confidence about Type B hunters being able to draw every *5* years. Yeah it may start that way like Utahs LE elk did but the dirty little secret is you can't limit hunters opportunity to create a little trophy unit and think the waiting period will stay the same year after year. When the waiting period starts to climb but the percentage of hunters wanting to hunt GS vs. LE doesn't are you trophy guys going to be cool with that?

Second, to answer your question PRO, IF the numbers showed we needed to make more LE units I would be fine with that as long as the remaining GS units were set up such that a GS guy could get a tag AT LEAST every 4 out of 5 years if not every year.

Here is what many are not taking into account. We act like hunter recruitment is not even a factor in the survival of Utahs hunting. Do you think all these hunters getting dieplaced off of Nebo, Beaver, the Dutton.....is going to help hunter recruitment?

Yeah I will adapt and go to new areas if I get pushed out of mine but not all will.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 10000ft. said:
> 
> 
> > I think PRO, MR. Peay, Mossback, SFW.....and everyone else who would like to see more "trophy opportunity" (who made the Hoggle Zoo comment, that was kind of funny) are about to set themselves up to see much of there current LE opportunity returned to the balance of hunters who want to pursue *trophy class animals every year on the General Season!!!!!* -()/-
> ...


This one.

"They can go hunting with Dad on a Trophy unit and *see what real hunting is like *and they just might get to blast a pretty big buck on Dad's tag, and if they are like my son, they will go from just killing a deer, to wanting a BIG one in short order."

Apparently real hunting only happens on trophy units and only if you shoot a big one.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> First, I think it is funny that Mr. Peay speaks with such confidence about Type B hunters being able to draw every 5 years. Yeah it may start that way like Utahs LE elk did but the dirty little secret is you can't limit hunters opportunity to create a little trophy unit and think the waiting period will stay the same year after year. When the waiting period starts to climb but the percentage of hunters wanting to hunt GS vs. LE doesn't are you trophy guys going to be cool with that?


If 70% of the hunter choose the HUNT A group then that means 70% of the hunters will move out of the LE pool making it easier to draw a LE tag if only 30% of the people now are applying for them.

So yes you will draw a LE tag faster.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

If indeed this email did originate from Don, it's a little disappointing that he would write the paragraph you quoted.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > First, I think it is funny that Mr. Peay speaks with such confidence about Type B hunters being able to draw every 5 years. Yeah it may start that way like Utahs LE elk did but the dirty little secret is you can't limit hunters opportunity to create a little trophy unit and think the waiting period will stay the same year after year. When the waiting period starts to climb but the percentage of hunters wanting to hunt GS vs. LE doesn't are you trophy guys going to be cool with that?
> 
> 
> If 70% of the hunter choose the HUNT A group then that means 70% of the hunters will move out of the LE pool making it easier to draw a LE tag if only 30% of the people now are applying for them.
> ...


True, it would seem that drawing an LE would be easier, but how much easier would it be? IMO, 5 years is pretty optimistic. Also, I could be onboard if general season hunters would be guaranteed about the same odds of obtaining a tag every year. 4 out of 5 years could very quickly become 2 of 5. There are too many 'what ifs' with this deal. It wreaks of a politicians promise to fulfill.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Longfeather, which statement of Don's do you find so indefensible? Just so I know. :?





> This one.
> 
> "They can go hunting with Dad on a Trophy unit and *see what real hunting is like *and they just might get to blast a pretty big buck on Dad's tag, and if they are like my son, they will go from just killing a deer, to wanting a BIG one in short order."
> 
> Apparently real hunting only happens on trophy units and only if you shoot a big one


.I missed that phrase, and I do NOT agree with it! And nowhere in any of my posts did I! I said in my first post on this thread I agree with MOST of it, not ALL of it! I don't like the comment at all. IF Don wrote this proposal, he should explain the comment, to me and you.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Does this mean this thread is over? :mrgreen:


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

Hell Ya .. I;ll rant one more time L:ets see a tag evey 5 years. I'am 63 So at age 68 and 73 I'll have 2 more chances? So anyone whos under the age of 30. What the heck will it be when your and old fart like me?? THINK ABOUT IT.?? Just be very careful what ya ask for>> you just might get it.. As for Don and the boys. follow the money and special intrest groups.. I guess if I make to 73 I;ll be srtinging my bow in another state.. Hate that!!!


----------



## ram2h2o (Sep 11, 2007)

Glad I get to go back to Mississippi to hunt Whitetail deer. Just buy a licence and go hunt from first of Oct thru the end of January. Keep it simple!


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, way to call a spade a spade. Though...it is about as bad a quote as I've ever seen from anyone on hunting. Great Peta and HS fodder. And you guys think I'm being cruel when I say someone ought to offer PR/editing assistance. 

You SFW folks don't deserve any help on this particular proposal: but if you want to add something valuable to this state and the way tags are given, you ought to consider proposing something that gives those over a certain age a more direct path to a tag. I could be wrong, but I wager that most people shoot fewer deer past a certain age. Why not get the revenue from the tags and allow people who have earned our deserved respect the right to go out and enjoy. My dad missed out on a tag (general) for the first time in 30 plus years not long ago. He has killed one deer in 15 years. Let me say that again: 1 in 15. If there are others like him, I would assume that something could be done. I think, at the least, they ought to get a statewide tag if they get one at all. They ought to be able to hunt with their grandkids wherever they may land in this new, improved era of tag hunting. Errrrr.....deer hunting.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I also vividly remember the reaction from the older hunters back when the 5 areas were created. I think we can count on losing a lot of the older hunters to the kinds of changes proposed by Don. Even more reason to consider some kind of age break/benefit. I'm sure the Division could come up with something sensible.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > First, I think it is funny that Mr. Peay speaks with such confidence about Type B hunters being able to draw every 5 years. Yeah it may start that way like Utahs LE elk did but the dirty little secret is you can't limit hunters opportunity to create a little trophy unit and think the waiting period will stay the same year after year. When the waiting period starts to climb but the percentage of hunters wanting to hunt GS vs. LE doesn't are you trophy guys going to be cool with that?
> 
> 
> If 70% of the hunter choose the HUNT A group then that means 70% of the hunters will move out of the LE pool making it easier to draw a LE tag if only 30% of the people now are applying for them.
> ...


NO! NO! NO! If 70% of the hunters choose the HUNT A, I dare say that nothing will change for trophy hunters' chances because 70% or more of Utah's hunters can't "move out of the LE pool" because they were never there in the first place! You're assuming that ALL of Utah's hunters apply for LE deer tags, but that is far from the truth. A vast majority of them only apply for or buy General Hunt tags. Or they apply for LE elk or pronghorn. I've been bowhunting Utah for over 20 years and I've NEVER yet applied for a LE buck deer tag. I've gotten several archery pronghorn tags and have several elk points, but I can hunt archery deer every year without wasting those LE points. And I can hunt trophy deer at that! All I have to do is what every trophy hunter does; scout, get away from the roads and crowds, use the wind, keep quiet, etc.

The only thing this proposal possibly changes is the number and/or location of the LE units. And there's no way of knowing at this point whether that favors trophy hunters or not, but I suspect ulterior motifs (the influencing of decisions regarding the numbers and/or locations of LE units) on the part of SFW. This proposal doesn't change the management of the herd, doesn't grow the herd, doesn't improve habitat, doesn't change the recruitment of new hunters, doesn't add revenue, doesn't retain hunters, and doesn't make the system any easier to get through. So what is it's purpose? Maybe Don P can complete the story instead of just telling us what the plan is and not what the plan does.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Tree said it best when he said



> It wreaks of a politicians promise to fulfill.


Boy I'm already predicting 2009-2012 to be the era of lost opportinities in more than one way. Not that I dont believe a TRUE VOTE or SURVEY would not show opportunity needed to be returned to GS hunters but that I have little confidence in the "powers that be" that make decisions and control our wildlife management. Would they follow through with expanding General Season units if the numbers showed the need? :? I know for sure they would like nothing better than to convert more GS into LE units and start to extend the length of time it tags a GS hunter to get a tag in order to reduce his wait to get into the trophy farm.

To help solve the problem mentioned about older people not drawing tags here is an idea for the *GRANDPA TAG* or for anyone else that fits the mold.

- Grandpa Tag can be *baught over the counter *for $210 (price for 6 seasons)
- Grandpa Tag is good for 6 hunting seasons
- Grandpa Tag can tag 2 deer in 6 years.
- Grandpa Tag has to choose unit at date of purchase but can apply to change his unit, if desired, in the draw each year.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I wouldn't hesitate to flip the switch on statewide deer for everything. Yep. I know it's crazy talk (especially to guides and trophy (guys who want to hunt really big, limited, gauranteed deer but are too cheap to pay to go on private property and want everyone else to wait, pay amd suffer so they don't have to pay to get what Don describes as the best way to hunt or however he phrased it so well) "hunters")

BUT- if it were statewide you would get a few things. Some areas would immediately get hammered. You could impose a 3 or better to ease them down perhaps, but everyone would head to those places none of us will ever really get to go to now. Well, once or twice if we are lucky as it is now. Henries, Paunsagant, Books, wherever.

So those places get slammed. Guess what that means? Great areas like Wasatch, Beaver, some good northern areas, Strawberry, Uinta, Manti, all get largely ignored. At least, they wouldn't get the attention in year one as they did the year before. Guess what that means? They are all good areas the next year or two and so it goes back and forth until nowhere is gauranteed, but in all units there will be those few bucks that make everyone think their unit could be the one that year. 

It would almost be like we were hunting again. Less management, fewer application woes, and it's still very feasible that trophy mule deer would make it through each year, somewhere.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> It would almost be like we were hunting again. Less management, fewer application woes, and it's still very feasible that trophy mule deer would make it through each year, somewhere.


GTHO WITH THAT NONSENSE... MAKES WAY TOO MUCH SENSE FOR THIS CONVERSATION!!!Man... what is your problem anyway? :lol:

Just kidding by the way.... I'm right there with you in theory anyway.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I know, it is nonsense. That stuff only works in a free market, and hunting in Utah is far from a business. 8) 

BTW, Don's proposal also made me wonder about how this would affect elk and the CWMU system. It would mean that either we all start using our one of two draw options for a limited like a moose, bison etc. and then would we all then put in for elk? Because a type A (stands for awesome  btw) hunter has the same right as a B (stands for bad  ) to put in for an elk right? So then that gets kind of messed up doesn't it?

What about CWMU. Is it just the same as always, or do only Bad hunters vs Awesome hunters get to hunt there. Not that I'm dividing people into two types or anything, I'm just basing this off of what we've been given. :mrgreen: 

In seriousness though, I think this change would affect elk and CWMU as well, at least, the way we try to draw tags. Maybe elk just become OIL as they are almost that anyway. All right, I'll shut up now. At least for today. Going scouting tonight, hope to see a few little A hunt type bucks. Man, I hope no one tells my deer that they are A type deer. They might just hurl themselves off a cliff. :shock:


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

SteepNDeep .. I'am a grand-pa. I've shot one deer in the last 9 years. That was a buck I drew a tag on in the BOOKS.. (ARCHERY) Thats the only hunt i particepate in. 45 years. I.ask not! for any special treatment. But then again like your POP's I'd like to finish out my hunting days with my 2 boys 2 grandsons. and my wife bow hunting this beautiful country we have here. So thats 6 of us. we hunt archery only. we've take a grand total of 4 deer in 9 years.. So I guess we can account for the decline of mule deer?? I've seen more deer in Parleys Canyon (Road Kill ) They!! whom ever tTHEY maybe ought to extend the archery only to Heber. and Coalville.I guess hunting in someones back yard would be OK? Because the days of hunting that country with a gun is coming to an end..IF IT AIN"T BROKE JUST LEAVE IT TH HELL ALONE!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> NO! NO! NO! If 70% of the hunters choose the HUNT A, I dare say that nothing will change for trophy hunters' chances because 70% or more of Utah's hunters can't "move out of the LE pool" because they were never there in the first place! You're assuming that ALL of Utah's hunters apply for LE deer tags, but that is far from the truth. A vast majority of them only apply for or buy General Hunt tags. Or they apply for LE elk or pronghorn. I've been bowhunting Utah for over 20 years and I've NEVER yet applied for a LE buck deer tag. I've gotten several archery pronghorn tags and have several elk points, but I can hunt archery deer every year without wasting those LE points. And I can hunt trophy deer at that! All I have to do is what every trophy hunter does; scout, get away from the roads and crowds, use the wind, keep quiet, etc.


This statement holds no merit without facts. Can you please post the numbers? How many hunters who apply for both a LE deer tag and GS tag quit applying for the LE tag because they want to hunt more often?



> I dare say that nothing will change for trophy hunters' chances because 70% or more of Utah's hunters can't "move out of the LE pool" because they were never there in the first place!


You don't even count those people because they need to be applying for a LE tag to begin with to even be counted. So they wont be in that pool.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Well, Fudd, I think you've earned the right to hunt with your family, and I'm hoping the younger people running the show will recognize that. I know I want to hunt with my dad and have gone out of my way to do so some years. Saying it that way is actually pretty petty as he went out of his for 20 to get me up and running. All I mean is that I have chosen tags I knew he could get so I could be "gauranteed" to hunt with him. I've stayed out of southern and southeastern general so I could be sure we could hunt together. Even though we used to hunt (pre draw) in Fillmore, Dog Valley, Manti, and Fish Lake/Parker. I would love to hunt Pine Valley, Beaver/Tushars, Lasal and Boulder, but I haven't wanted to risk it. Finally got him on dedicated so I can now do that. However, it shouldn't have to be that way. 

OK, I'm really gone.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I can understand where many are coming from, but things are changing and we will never have 500,000 deer like we had in the 1960's. We loose habitat every year and it keeps getting smaller and smaller. People fight against people selling tags to raise money to help restore habitat. Yes it great to have families hunting together because that is what hunting is all about.

What is the perfect plan in Utah that will allow the following to happen?

1. families hunting together.

2. Provide trophy hunting opportunities

3. Provide the opportunity to hunt every year or every other year.

4. MORE days to hunt in the field

This has to be a Logical plan where ALL hunters benefit. We cannot make everything General Season or all LE but a mixer of both to make this happen.

Some people will hate any plan so when you think of ideas then think about the majority. Next old people hate change.

When you think of these ideas then realize that not everyone wants to hunt the same as you do.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > NO! NO! NO! If 70% of the hunters choose the HUNT A, I dare say that nothing will change for trophy hunters' chances because 70% or more of Utah's hunters can't "move out of the LE pool" because they were never there in the first place! You're assuming that ALL of Utah's hunters apply for LE deer tags, but that is far from the truth. A vast majority of them only apply for or buy General Hunt tags. Or they apply for LE elk or pronghorn. I've been bowhunting Utah for over 20 years and I've NEVER yet applied for a LE buck deer tag. I've gotten several archery pronghorn tags and have several elk points, but I can hunt archery deer every year without wasting those LE points. And I can hunt trophy deer at that! All I have to do is what every trophy hunter does; scout, get away from the roads and crowds, use the wind, keep quiet, etc.
> 
> 
> This statement holds no merit without facts. Can you please post the numbers? How many hunters who apply for both a LE deer tag and GS tag quit applying for the LE tag because they want to hunt more often?
> ...


You don't even count those people because they need to be applying for a LE tag to begin with to even be counted. So they wont be in that pool.[/quote:3hy2ghue]

Per the DWR website 2007 drawing odds, 24,041 hunters applied for LE deer tags (including Premium LE, Premium CWMU, regular LE, regular CWMU) while 80,649 applied for GS tags. That's 104,690 total. 24,041 divided by 104,690 = 22.96% (23% LE Applicants) which leaves 77% GS Applicants. How many of them crossed over is hard to say, but I suspect very few. I'm sure a lot of them bought left over tags (Archery & Northern Any Weapon), but only because they wanted to hunt somewhere.

And the 23% of LE applicants is already below your magic number of 30% and look how hard it is to draw now. And are you saying that 70% of those 24,041 current LE applicants (16,829) could drop out, leaving only 7,212 Hunt B types? Ain't gonna happen!! Especially if you leave them out for 5 years!! Yet that's what it will take to guarantee a tag even every 6 years (7,212 hunters divided by 1,228 LE tags (2007) = 5.87 years.).

No matter how you look at it, the answer is still NO! NO! NO!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> And the 23% of LE applicants is already below your magic number of 30% and look how hard it is to draw now. And are you saying that 70% of those 24,041 current LE applicants (16,829) could drop out, leaving only 7,212 Hunt B types? Ain't gonna happen!! Especially if you leave them out for 5 years!! Yet that's what it will take to guarantee a tag even every 6 years (7,212 hunters divided by 1,228 LE tags (2007) = 5.87 years.).
> 
> No matter how you look at it, the answer is still NO! NO! NO!


Elk...how many of those 24,041 hunters will choose the HUNT A Plan because they can draw a tag more often and hunt more often? How many of those hunters are willing to go without hunting for 5 years if they choose the HUNT B plan. The LE applicants pool will go down because many people arent willing to wait 5 years to get a chance to hunt. The applicants are high now because people can do both, but when they have to ONLY choose one or the other then which would they choose?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 5. The Hunt A units and Hunt B units would then be determined. Hunt B
> units would probably include Paunsagunt, Henries, Book Cliffs, San Juan, and
> then possibly add some Units like Pavant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo, and South
> Cache. (Whatever Number of deer required to get an equal percentage of deer
> as percentage of Type B hunters)


(


> 7,212 hunters divided by 1,228 LE tags (2007) = 5.87 years.).


You also have to remember that by adding the Pahvant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo and South Cache then MORE LE tags are issued so you might increase the amount of LE tags to 2300. 10,000 hunters divided by 2300 LE tags = 4.34 years


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > 5. The Hunt A units and Hunt B units would then be determined. Hunt B
> > units would probably include Paunsagunt, Henries, Book Cliffs, San Juan, and
> > then possibly add some Units like Pavant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo, and South
> > Cache. (Whatever Number of deer required to get an equal percentage of deer
> ...


You also have to remember that by adding the Pahvant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo and South Cache then MORE LE tags are issued so you might increase the amount of LE tags to 2300. 10,000 hunters divided by 2300 LE tags = 4.34 years[/quote:svmwssog]


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > 5. The Hunt A units and Hunt B units would then be determined. Hunt B
> > units would probably include Paunsagunt, Henries, Book Cliffs, San Juan, and
> > then possibly add some Units like Pavant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo, and South
> > Cache. (Whatever Number of deer required to get an equal percentage of deer
> ...


You also have to remember that by adding the Pahvant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo and South Cache then MORE LE tags are issued so you might increase the amount of LE tags to 2300. 10,000 hunters divided by 2300 LE tags = 4.34 years[/quote:3b065ycc]

Which brings us back to motive!! Adding more LE tags for fewer "serious" hunters. And adding more GS hunters to fewer tags and a smaller total area. The answer is still NO! NO! NO!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The answer is still NO! NO! NO!


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

The answer is YES! YES! YES!!!!!! and one more big FAT YES!!!! No one can predict what will happen. They have done surveys, but more people will be applying for GS tags that were also applying for LE tags.

If they make it happen and give out 85,000 GS tags and 2,300 LE tags then the GS tag holder have the better advantage.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Keep in mind Elk that the DWR can make two rifle hunts like Colorado does. They can have one early October and one around the time we have it right now. They could issue more tags and more primitive weapon tags.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > The answer is still NO! NO! NO!
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ...


You tell me "No one can predict what will happen" But in the next sentence you do just that by talking about vague "surveys" done by vague "they" which tell us "more people will be applying for GS tags that were also applying for LE tags." You asked me for facts about the various numbers of applicants and I gave them to you. Now, produce those surveys!!

Then you tell me if they (I'll plug in SFW & DWR) "MAKE" it happen 
and give out 85,000 GS tags to the current number of GS applicants + 17,000 more who switched over, that GS hunters will have the better advantage.

And then in the next post you suggest how they can "MAKE" it happen by splitting seasons, adding MZ seasons, or some other exotic changes which we all now need to be happy.

However, in spite of the facts, figures, and sound logic which I gave you, you've won the argument 'cause you added one more big fat YES! than I had NO!'s, and I'm only one unaffiliated voice while you have lots of backing and those things count in these highly emotional discussions. Congratulations! I'm on to better things.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> However, in spite of the facts, figures, and sound logic which I gave you, you've won the argument 'cause you added one more big fat YES! than I had NO!'s, and I'm only one unaffiliated voice while you have lots of backing and those things count in these highly emotional discussions. Congratulations! I'm on to better things.


Oh come on don't poop out on me now. :lol: :lol:



> And then in the next post you suggest how they can "MAKE" it happen by splitting seasons, adding MZ seasons, or some other exotic changes which we all now need to be happy.


Well the SFW proposal is just a draft and there is no reason NOT to sweeten the deal.



> Then you tell me if they (I'll plug in SFW & DWR) "MAKE" it happen
> and give out 85,000 GS tags to the current number of GS applicants + 17,000 more who switched over, that GS hunters will have the better advantage.


Yes GS hunters will be hunting almost every year and LE hunters hunting every 5 years. GS hunters have the advantage. MORE hunting opportunities. It depends on how you view it.



> You tell me "No one can predict what will happen" But in the next sentence you do just that by talking about vague "surveys" done by vague "they" which tell us "more people will be applying for GS tags that were also applying for LE tags." You asked me for facts about the various numbers of applicants and I gave them to you. Now, produce those surveys!!


The number of applicants is public info where as the survey isnt at this point. BUT I doubt everyone who is applying for a LE tag will keep applying for a LE tag and wait 5 years to hunt. I think this is more COMMON SENSE. People arent willing to put in the time and wait for the tag.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > However, in spite of the facts, figures, and sound logic which I gave you, you've won the argument 'cause you added one more big fat YES! than I had NO!'s, and I'm only one unaffiliated voice while you have lots of backing and those things count in these highly emotional discussions. Congratulations! I'm on to better things.
> 
> 
> Oh come on don't poop out on me now. :lol: :lol:
> ...


Well the SFW proposal is just a draft and there is no reason NOT to sweeten the deal.



> Then you tell me if they (I'll plug in SFW & DWR) "MAKE" it happen
> and give out 85,000 GS tags to the current number of GS applicants + 17,000 more who switched over, that GS hunters will have the better advantage.


Yes GS hunters will be hunting almost every year and LE hunters hunting every 5 years. GS hunters have the advantage. MORE hunting opportunities. It depends on how you view it.



> You tell me "No one can predict what will happen" But in the next sentence you do just that by talking about vague "surveys" done by vague "they" which tell us "more people will be applying for GS tags that were also applying for LE tags." You asked me for facts about the various numbers of applicants and I gave them to you. Now, produce those surveys!!


The number of applicants is public info where as the survey isnt at this point. BUT I doubt everyone who is applying for a LE tag will keep applying for a LE tag and wait 5 years to hunt. I think this is more COMMON SENSE. People arent willing to put in the time and wait for the tag.[/quote:29mvqwd6]

I'M BACK!! I couldn't sleep 'cause those "better things" include loading the Blazer so I can set up two ladder tree stands and refresh some salt licks by tonight, (Thursday) so I can get some sleep, so I can drive 260 miles to Magna tomorrow morning (Friday) to meet my 87 year old dad, so we can make final preparations, so we can leave with some friends by Saturday evening for a week of salmon fishing at the mouth of the Colombia River and beyond. He's been doing this almost every year for about 25 years. I've gone with him 8 times, but I believe this is the last time 'cause he's not very steady in the friend's boat anymore and I wanted to be with him again. Enough about my "troubles".

I guess it does depend on how you view it! I don't consider splitting the season, or any other exotic changes as sweetening the deal. I consider it as appeasing the masses while at the same time confusing them with more complications and thus driving more of them away. And does splitting the season mean we can hunt both splits or do we also have to make a choice there too. Yes, I know, this is a rough draft, but it is so rough that I can't see how it can be modified enough to be workable. There are just too many unknowns and variables, especially for a 5 year plan.

It's true that GS hunters will be hunting almost every year, but that's true now, especially with bowhunters like myself and Northern hunters. But there are ONLY two ways LE hunters can hunt every 5 years. You have to either reduce the number of LE hunters and put them in the GS hunts which adds to that pool and thus reduces the GS draw odds, or you can increase the number of LE tags by taking away some of the GS tags thus also reducing the GS draw odds, or you can do both, which is what is proposed. No matter how you do it, you reduce the odds for GS hunters and increase the odds for LE hunters. And that is what this proposal is all about; increase the drawing odds of the trophy hunters at the expense of the "average joe hunters" because they aren't "serious " enough.

This proposal doesn't increase benefits to the herd, doesn't improve habitat, doesn't increase revenue (oh, I said this already in a previous post.)

I'll take your word on the survey, but I don't follow your reasoning about LE hunters not willing to keep applying for an LE tag because it might take them 5 years to draw. It takes them a lot longer to draw now and a 5 year wait would be heaven-sent. And, of course , not ALL of them will have to wait the full 5 years, only 20%. Those are even more attractive odds!

Most trophy hunters are after big deer period, and don't care whether they hunt every year. I have a friend (DH hunter) who brags about taking only ! deer in the last 5 years because he passed on 10 or 15 trophies that just weren't what he wanted and he hates that I bowhunt statewide for 3 weeks every year because people like me are ruining the herd and his hunt. He and I are worlds apart on our views of hunting, but, unlike him, I think all types of (ethical and legal) hunters are a vital part of proper deer management.

This proposal tweeks the balance of the scales towards the trophy hunter in ways that will eventually cost us all with fewer hunters and lost revenue.

Now, it's late (or early, depending how you view it :lol and I've really got better things to do. I'll be in heaven (Illwaco) if you need me!!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Boy this idea is really starting to fester and stink. Let's get it to the "gut pile" where it belongs. :wink:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Boy this idea is really starting to fester and stink. Let's get it to the "gut pile" where it belongs. :wink:


Heres a thought I just had... and somebody has probably already mentioned it. We're hearing it will create more opportunity by splitting the state into different units and splitting hunters into one of two drawing pools..... and if I choose Hunt A then I draw 4 out of 5 years. Ok.... great.... EXCEPT for the fact that at this point, I don't have to draw an archery tag. I went online and bought one of the leftovers. If the system doesn't change, I get a tag every year this way.... so how does getting a tag 4 out of 5 years mean more opportunity than me getting a tag 5 out of 5 years the way its working now?? I think people just have an itch they feel the need to scratch and so they won't leave well enough alone.... I like things the way they are for that reason.... I have plenty of opportunity to hunt pretty much whereever I'd like to without having to declare the type of hunter I am to anyone and it seems that anywhere you go, if you get away from roads/trails and other folks, you can find plenty of deer. I'm not down with anything that cuts into opportunity to be in the field for hunters and if the deer herd needed these drastic measures, fine, micromanage the unit that needs help... leave the rest of it alone if its not a hurting unit because it seems folks enjoy the opportunities we already have. Its not like you can't find big deer on a general unit... you just have to work a little harder to get them. Is that the problem here??


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

> What is the perfect plan in Utah that will allow the following to happen?
> 
> 1. families hunting together.
> 
> ...


1 Families hunting together: This plan is inherently divisive. We're no longer deer hunters, but type A and B. It has some wacky 5 year lock, spells trouble for the brother who has been putting in for limited deer for last 6 years and the dad and other brother who have been putting in for elk over same time. More regs about drawing tags = more trouble hunting as a group. Period. We already learned that lesson by merely (I say merely now though then it was hardly seen that way) going to 5 statewide units. My family, and many others, still feel that one on a yearly basis.

2 Provide Trophy Opportunities: Currently, I am a type A and B hunter as I wait for my turn in the limited. Impatiently, yes. I'll admit that. However, I can now begin to choose to draw in the books or certain CWMU's or wait for something else. Depending on the weapon, location, and how patient I want to be I can reasonably affect my own wait time. It's telling that this is your number 2. Since when was it ever the right or duty of the Division to provide us trophy opps? As others have mentioned, herd management and conservation - the ABSOLUTE duty SFW and other groups have- can't say that loud enough *ABSOLUTE* when they fund their efforts using several of the best tags in the state on a song. The way to a steak dinner, if you can't stomach hamburger, is to go to Ruth's Chris take the kick in the balls and enjoy your steak. In short: Trophy Opps already provided. If you can't wait, apply in other states (similar price when you add up 5 years of tags, 2 to 5 year wait) or pony up the money for a private lease/land hunt. In Utah you can also buy premium tags any old time you want. They auction them to anybody that wants them  .

3. Provide the opportunity to hunt every year, or every other year: Also done in current plan. This new proposal makes it less likely, not more likely to happen. Once you drop, Nebo, Beaver, Pahvant, or whatever else slips in the GS hunters have less chance, not more.

4. MORE days to hunt in the field: ? What? Why? Why do we need this? If you choose dedicated you get loads of hunting days, if you can't do that but choose archery you get weeks. Do we want longer rifle seasons? Not really. I don't see how this is an issue based on already having a good thing going. Oh hey, you can buy a tag that let's you have a longer season than anyone else. :mrgreen: They sell that too.

Lastly, you said in that post that old people hate change. I'm "full of hate", "old people hate change" and you're full of opportunity. You sure know a lot about what people hate but have somehow missed the fact that the proposal isn't well received. Here and on Monster Muley's people are outraged by some of the statements made by the leader of your pack. You guys have funny ways of defining things. Conservation doesn't actually mean finding ways to have trophy opportunities. Nor is it a good enough shield to veil the fact that you're pushing for same at expense of hunters. Not type A, or B, but hunters. We're all a little A and B. Increased opportunity does not mean more from same pie for a smaller bunch of people. That is someone else's loss, not gain.

This plan is awful, not a logical plan where: "ALL hunters benefit." -cs No magical word like "Conservation" or "Opportunity" will change that.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Yeah, what he (SteepNDeep) said. And to reiterate one more time, the current system already provides *ALL* of the following:

1- the oppurtunity for families to hunt together, 
2- trophy oppurtunities,
3- the oppurtunity to hunt every year,
4- the oppurtunity to spend several days in the field (in the case of DH, over 40 days).

Believe it or not, trophy deer are taken on general season hunts every year right here in Utah. It's true that you actually have to hunt for them. It will be a very sad day if our deer hunt one day follows the trend of extremely limited oppurtunity that our elk hunts have taken, and that is what I believe people are looking for when they complain about a lack of trophy oppurtunity in this state.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 1- the oppurtunity for families to hunt together,
> 2- trophy oppurtunities,
> 3- the oppurtunity to hunt every year,
> 4- the oppurtunity to spend several days in the field (in the case of DH, over 40 days).


1. People have complained that families can't hunt as much together

2. YES we have trophy hunting opportunities

3. People might be able to hunt almost every year now but I doubt you will be saying this in the next 5 years because we have more hunters than tags available.

4. People keep thinking the 5 day rifle hunt is a good solution.

Reality is going to be hard for many of you to shallow. The Northen tags are selling out faster every year, Archery tags are selling out faster every year.

People have expressed more trophy hunting opportunity.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

My beef with it is bout what every one els has said, there is no guarantee that I can hunt B types every 5 years and on the other hand there is no guarantee that i can hunt A every year either. FACT is there is NO GUARANTEE what will happen.
The current system is pretty good if you ask me. Its all there like others have stated. If people would be willing to WORK they could chase big deer every year in Utah, what more do you want? OK I know what they want, they want to skip the work part.
The only things I would change is cut some rifle tags and issue them to archery and muzzy hunters. Lower harvest rate a bit and have a few bigger bucks around.
And only allow either a point or a tag to be selected each year.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

I nominate Steep and Deep for president!!!

8) 8) 8) 8)


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Well, I could run on a platform of hate. Or, perhaps, running the big deer show without any money. CS knows that's how I roll. I am obviously long winded. Not as long as Pro though  . That guy can go like Duracell. I don't know if I could use proper judgement around cute interns either. Yeah, I pretty much deserve to be president. 

For now though, I gotta go. My wife says I have to pull weeds on my lunchbreak. :mrgreen:

-~|-


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

If it not broken then leave it. leave it how it is. If you want to hunt big bucks every year then go hike your A$$ off and find them like the rest of these guys do.They seem to get there big bucks there after.Yea I want A big buck. but im wait for my LE TAG to get my big buck. intell then I will hunt with family and friends and spend time with them in this great state of utah with are great outdoors that we have hear. Don't get me wrong Im after a big bukc now. But if a nice buck or a two point walks by me he going down. LEAVE IT HOW IT IS AND STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT A TROPHY HUNTING STATE. good luck all on yoru hunts.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> If it not broken then leave it. leave it how it is. If you want to hunt big bucks every year then go hike your **** off and find them like the rest of these guys do.They seem to get there big bucks there after.Yea I want A big buck. but im wait for my LE TAG to get my big buck. intell then I will hunt with family and friends and spend time with them in this great state of utah with are great outdoors that we have hear. Don't get me wrong Im after a big bukc now. But if a nice buck or a two point walks by me he going down. LEAVE IT HOW IT IS AND STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT A TROPHY HUNTING STATE. good luck all on yoru hunts.


Well said man. I nominate you for VP if Steep and Deep gets the Pres spot.... you guys are looking out for the little man and I dig that. 8)


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > If it not broken then leave it. leave it how it is. If you want to hunt big bucks every year then go hike your **** off and find them like the rest of these guys do.They seem to get there big bucks there after.Yea I want A big buck. but im wait for my LE TAG to get my big buck. intell then I will hunt with family and friends and spend time with them in this great state of utah with are great outdoors that we have hear. Don't get me wrong Im after a big bukc now. But if a nice buck or a two point walks by me he going down. LEAVE IT HOW IT IS AND STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT A TROPHY HUNTING STATE. good luck all on yoru hunts.
> ...


No thanks man. I will pass it on to you or somebody else.I just said how I feel. we already got trophy bucks and bulls the way it is not. there is no reasone to try to change that.


----------

