# Turn all power over to the DWR?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

A lot of you seem to think the division needs to be left to manage our wildlife. So what would you think if for 5 years all power for management was given to the DWR. No legislative management decisions no wildlife board, etc... Would you be for it and see what would happen?


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

*Re: Turnll power over to the DWR?*

D.W.R. does not look after the best interests of sportsmen. It is guaranteed the license money. The only variable funds come from private interests. Politicians listen to voters or they may loose their positions. If we were a serious voting bloc, big game hunting would improve.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

*Re: Turnll power over to the DWR?*



redleg said:


> D.W.R. does not look after the best interests of sportsmen. It is guaranteed the license money. The only variable funds come from private interests. Politicians listen to voters or they may loose their positions. If we were a serious voting bloc, big game hunting would improve.


one of the funniest posts I've read in a long time!! Thanks for the laugh.

Seriously? "Politicians listen to voters of they may lose their positions"??? That's a laugher!! Since when do they listen? They don't lose their positions either -- just look at Noel. When nobody runs against these clowns, they do whatever they want....

Besides -- all those same politicians would NEVER allow the DWR to do what they want!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I have longed dreamed for biology to solely govern wildlife issues, not politics, special interests, and money. 

However, even under your proposal the DWR would still be subject to all those influences. Nothing would change. Politicians still set their budget. They're still subject to the money and influence of powerful groups. I'm not a DWR hater. I think they do the best they can with the deck stacked against them in many instances. Because of the politics of things, many of their strong feelings are suppressed or ignored when decisions are made.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> A lot of you seem to think the division needs to be left to manage our wildlife. So what would you think if for 5 years all power for management was given to the DWR. No legislative management decisions no wildlife board, etc... Would you be for it and see what would happen?


Why is everything with you a "lets try this for 5 years" deal? Then on to the next idea after 3 months. :?

I have long been wary of an all powerful Wildlife Board, derived wholly from political appointees, and the currently impotent DWR. (What we have now) But why "all"? I favor a system that has checks and balances. Instead of all or nothing, why not set up a Wildlife board where the DWR actually has a voting voice in the decisions it renders. As it stands now, the director is a non-voting member. Allow the director to vote and allow the DWR section head of the issue being decided to also vote. The result would be a DWR with real representation, but not a DWR that is all powerful either.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll bite on this one 1-I. I can give you one major reason this could never happen, but for the sake of your argument - lets just pretend they could. 

I believe that if DWR could control ALL the variables surrounding game management in Utah, that the herds would improve for all big game species, hunting opportunity would expand, and hunting both in quality and quantity would increase for all species. I think that DWR have the best interests as sportsmen behind their desires to manage wildlife. I also think if they had total control, we'd see other animals improve as well - non-game animals. 

Now that said, the biggest challenge I believe DWR faces is that they are charged to manage the wildlife, but for the most part, have absolutely no control on management of the habitats outside the few WMAs in the state. And ALL other land owners/manager - private farmers/ranchers, the Forest Service, and BLM all have other demands on the lands - for livestock, crops, recreation, mining, etc..... Wildlife is one of MANY other things they can manage for. With no control (though DWR does provide input on NF and BLM lands) over the habitats, it is an uphill battle all over.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Funniest thing I ever heard, politicians following their constituents wishes, you need to lay off the koolaid. :mrgreen: 

Anyway for the sake of argument, when and if ever the the DNA was given total control, who decides who runs the Dnr??? The governor, the legislature, or lord forbid the voters? Keep in mind if its up to a vote every Wacko anti hunters could vote as well as the rest of the public, I see nothing but a disaster coming from that.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

The DWR exists to implement the wildlife management and law enforcement components of what really are social policies.

If it weren't for people who like to hunt, there would be no real need to manage game and predator populations. These things would just balance themselves out to whatever level of equilibrium between habitat, prey and predators worked. If not for people who liked to fish, there would be no need to keep up expensive hatcheries to plant hundreds of thousands of non-native trout into our streams and reservoirs. Whatever wildlife laws there were could be handled by county sheriff departments.

In other words, the DWR is responsible for making sure that society's desire to hunt certain species, fish certain species and enjoy wildlife are maintained in ways that best balance society's wishes with the biology and law enforcement needed to make it happen and sustain it over the long haul. You can't remove the social policy element from wildlife management.

The DWR is not an organization staffed by social scientists and politicians — they're biologists and law enforcement specialists who make suggestions and are given objectives by the Wildlife Board and the State Legislature. It's up to the DWR to figure out ways to implement these objectives in a biologically responsible and sustainable way.

For example, the decision to divide the state into smaller hunting units was a social decision made by the wildlife board. Since, according to the DWR, this decision would have no significant biological consequences, they simply figured out a way to best implement the new social policy that they were given. The same is true for nearly everything the DWR does — they provide biological and enforcement feedback and recommendations when new wildlife-related policies are considered, then after the decisions are made, the DWR does it's best to implement them in a biologically responsible way.

Eliminating the legislature and the Wildlife Board from this equation would really knock things out of whack by granting exclusive control of the state's wildlife to biologists and law enforcement people who wouldn't necessarily share the concerns and objectives of the state's citizens.

Of course, for the most part, the people at the DWR are just like the rest of us in that they enjoy hunting and fishing, so it's not as though they would turn into a bunch of science-only-focused environmental dictators with hugely skewed points of view.

Still, as awkward as it sometimes is, the current system of checks and balances works reasonably well at keeping competing social objectives and biological concerns in balance. I think the system could be tweaked some, like a more diverse group of legislators being elected and passing a basic IQ test being required for Wildlife Board members, but I really don't think giving the DWR total control over the state's wildlife management would, in the long run, work out very well.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> Still, as awkward as it sometimes is, the current system of checks and balances works reasonably well at keeping competing social objectives and biological concerns in balance. I think the system could be tweaked some,


Well written response, but I would ask; What are the checks and balances on the Wildlife Board? A ticked off Governor? That's about it. As I wrote earlier, I would prefer a system that lessens their absolute power, but as you explained very well, just turning everything over to the DWR doesn't improve the overall situation at all.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Catherder said:


> What are the checks and balances on the Wildlife Board? A ticked off Governor? That's about it. As I wrote earlier, I would prefer a system that lessens their absolute power, but as you explained very well, just turning everything over to the DWR doesn't improve the overall situation at all.


I pretty much agree with what you wrote in your previous post.

The current checks and balances, I suppose, involve having a wildlife board and RAC members that supposedly represent the various constituencies across the state. This, theoretically, keeps the DWR's day-to-day management in check by giving the public a say. The legislature can also override the wildlife board whenever it feels like it. And the courts can overrule the legislature and vice versa when the need arises.

Anyway, like we've both mentioned, it's an imperfect system that could certainly use some tweaking. The biggest tweak, I think, would be for the governor to treat the wildlife board as a serious decision making board with important responsibilities rather than treating it as mostly a reward & retirement position for political cronies.

I feel much better about the existing board than the group that was in place a couple of years ago, but we could end up with another parade of goofballs at any time. Personally, I think the majority of the board members ought to be well-grounded in the science and biology of practical wildlife management. Yes, I think the DWR ought to have a voting seat on the board, but more important than that, I think, would be a selection criteria that ensured that competence, experience and intelligence was weighted more heavily than special interest pressure, reciprocal back scratching and politics.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Well said HunterGeek, you pretty well summed up my thoughts as well.

Just as a reminder too, just like us sportsmen, the DWR is rarely unified in it's approach to wildlife problems. DWR biologists come from many different backgrounds and subscribe to many competing schools of thought. It is unlikely that any two biologists are going to agree on everything or see things the same way. Some governing committee or person would still have to act as an overseer and referee because undoubtedly there would be squabbles and infighting within the ranks. Basically, we'd end up where we started.....only with less chance of oversight.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Until wildlife and government lands are privatized, things will be cluster****ed! The government is terrible at managing *EVERYTHING.* I wish wildlife were managed for money, then there would be an abundance of wildlife. It's pert near impossible to make a mint with minimal resources.....think about it!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Pro, you used the word "abundance". Come on now!!!!!!


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

proutdoors said:


> Until wildlife and government lands are privatized, things will be cluster****ed! The government is terrible at managing *EVERYTHING.* I wish wildlife were managed for money, then there would be an abundance of wildlife. It's pert near impossible to make a mint with minimal resources.....think about it!


Isn't this the theme for SFW. Wildlife not being managed for the good of all, but simply for profit? Awesome concept. I am sure there would be no conflicts of interest then, or corruption! Last I read a book, when wildlife was profit driven, elk were gone, bison were nearly extinct, turkeys were gone, beavers were gone, etc, etc.

As for Hunter Green. REALLY???? Left to its own, wildlife DO NOT BALANCE. They would ride a wave of boom, bust cycles. That would be in a natural state, those cycles would be maginfied due to human population. Not to mention, are we really to believe that the "do gooders" would stand for watching an over abundance of any species starve to death due to overpopulation vs. there food source? Or for that matter all the lap dogs that would become food for the predators when they were at the top of the boom cycle? The funny part of all these arguments is that guys talk about wildlife managment as if there isn't a human population. Humans are the BIGGEST variable imaginable in wildlife science. 
I believe the biggest problem in big game management is the fragmentation. Look at waterfowl hunting. Yes there are clubs, private hunts, etc. However they follow the same rules and regs as everyone else. The states work together and have consistant managment across the country. I believe that in any science experiment(wildlife is science) consistancy is the most important aspect. In utah we change rules, regs, yearly. We have public hunts, CWMU, landowner, auction, governor, etc, etc. Big game hunting in Utah is so fragmented there is no way to consistantly improve in a long term way.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

hossblur said:


> As for Hunter Green. REALLY???? Left to its own, wildlife DO NOT BALANCE. They would ride a wave of boom, bust cycles. That would be in a natural state, those cycles would be maginfied due to human population.


This tangent isn't particularly relevant to the thread, but since you bring it up, I'll go there with you. Most unmanaged wildlife species don't go through dramatic boom and bust cycles, but even for those that do, that cycle becomes the norm. There's no such thing as absolute stability in nature, but there's always a tendency that pulls things toward an equilibrium where the different factors in the equation more or less balance themselves out. As the equation shifts (drought, fire, invasive species, human encroachment), so do the points of relative equilibrium. Regular expansion and contraction cycles for some species are part of that relative equilibrium.



hossblur said:


> Not to mention, are we really to believe that the "do gooders" would stand for watching an over abundance of any species starve to death due to overpopulation vs. there food source? Or for that matter all the lap dogs that would become food for the predators when they were at the top of the boom cycle?


"Do-gooders" do that now. There are somewhere between 600 and 700 vertebrate species in Utah. Only a handful of the more charismatic species seem to elicit much attention from the general public. Anyway, I don't think that mass starvation or dramatic boom and bust cycles for game animals as being the most likely possibilities. In the unlikely hypothetical scenario of game animals no longer being managed or hunted, I think it more likely that we'd just see a general decline in both prey and predator numbers. There would be ups and downs but the trend line would be generally down until it reached a point where it, more or less, flattened out and stabilized.



hossblur said:


> The funny part of all these arguments is that guys talk about wildlife managment as if there isn't a human population. Humans are the BIGGEST variable imaginable in wildlife science.


I'm not aware of any respectable scientist or knowledgeable person who isn't painfully aware of the effects that humans have on wildlife. As you said, it's the biggest variable.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

HunterGeek said:


> hossblur wrote:Not to mention, are we really to believe that the "do gooders" would stand for watching an over abundance of any species starve to death due to overpopulation vs. there food source? Or for that matter all the lap dogs that would become food for the predators when they were at the top of the boom cycle?
> 
> "Do-gooders" do that now.


I was thinking about this thread last evening and this subject actually dovetails (a bit) back to the subject of what we were talking about.

Not that it means much, but I do have a biology degree. (U of U, class of 89, magna cum laude  ) Way back then, the biology department tended to have 3 types of students; 1. the professional school types (pre-med, pre-vet, pre dental, etc) 2. Guys interested in positions with agencies like the DWR or the Feds, mainly men and often from hunting and rural backgrounds, and 3. What you guys here might call the "granola" types. Some of these folks tended towards a phd track and professorships, others tended to end up teaching or with government jobs. Men outnumbered women. In talking with students that work for me now, the student population dynamic has changed some. The pre-professionals are there, as always, but there are fewer folks in the second category in total, and a larger percentage of them are women from urban backgrounds. Also, the "granolas" are increased. The students are every bit as smart and motivated as we were "back in the day". The upshot however, is possibly this. Your DWR manager of the future is more likely to be female, less likely to have a hunting background, and may be more inclined to want to save endangered species, be a "do gooder", and cuddle with baby bears than manage a bear hunt. It is possible that the future DWR will be subtly or not subtly less pro hunting than they are now. This is why it is important to have a management system that has check and balances and turning everything over to any one entity is fraught with risk.

By the same token, what would happen if a anti-hunting liberal governor was elected here? (I know not likely) He/she could stack the deck of the WB with Peta types and without checks and balances, we'd be out of luck. That would be worse than when we had Tom Hatch and Mr. Johnson in there guarding the henhouse. Anyway, as I've noted previously, having a voting board that gives voice to the DWR, but doesn't give them absolute control or gives the governors appointees absolute free reign either seems the best way to call the shots, both now and in the future.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> ... for the most part, have absolutely no control on management of the habitats outside the few WMAs in the state. And ALL other land owners/manager - private farmers/ranchers, the Forest Service, and BLM all have other demands on the lands - for livestock, crops, recreation, mining, etc.....


Remember, we also have county governments to "contend" with as well.

Utah is currently in a very scary pattern. The State wants to kick the Feds out and take control. But it doesn't stop there. We're already seeing counties going another step further and kicking the State out. Look at Piute and even Garfield counties. Garfield county recently passed an ordinance making it illegal for State employees to transplant protected species into Garfield county!

politicians are a major problem in our state right now. If they don't like something, they just change the laws! And they certainly don't listen to their constituents!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> Pro, you used the word "abundance". Come on now!!!!!!


 **** straight I did! There are loads of examples of this being the case, how many do you want? When resources are managed for minimums, you will end up with scarcity. When you manage for maximums, you end up with abundance.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Utah is currently in a very scary pattern. The State wants to kick the Feds out and take control. But it doesn't stop there. We're already seeing counties going another step further and kicking the State out. Look at Piute and even Garfield counties. Garfield county recently passed an ordinance making it illegal for State employees to transplant protected species into Garfield county!


 Oh the humanity. Having control at the most local level possible, just as the Founders wanted and intended, radical eh?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

proutdoors said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > Pro, you used the word "abundance". Come on now!!!!!!
> ...


I'd like two examples that have nothing to do with white tail deer. You may include monkeys.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

For Christ Sake Bart Peay!!!! Private land
And commercialized wildlife???

You mean private land watchdogs like BP
In the Gulf?? Chevron in Salt Lake or 
70,000 something gallons in the Willard Spur??
Kennecott??

Go sell that BS somewhere else. 

Eventually you will get your head out of
Your ass on this subject. Hoping for a change
/ epiphany like you had with conservation tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > klbzdad said:
> ...


I am assuming you want stirctly wildlife related examples.....the first that comes to mind in the game preserves on the African land mass. If you want to see elephants, lions, gazelles, zebras, eland, kudu, and a whole lot of other wildlife, you would be wise to go to PRIVATE game preserves, rather than government owned lands (AKA wastelands). Another example would be the ABUNDANCE of red stag, tar, and other exotics in New Zealand....on PRIVATE lands. Another, the number of exotics in Texas on PRIVATE lands......which won't be for long now that the government has stuck is life sucking tentacles into the management of exotics in Texas....! Do you want to look at management/production of lumber and the abundance, or lack of abundance on private vs public lands? A little hint, public land in the western US takes up more than 60% of the available forest acreage, and yet it produces less than 40% of the lumber. Add in the MILLIONS of acres of dead forests due to TERRIBLE management of trees, and it will soon get much WORSE. You want to know the real threat to wildlife down the road, it is NOT wolves, it is NOT hunters, it is DEAD forests! I am sure with minimal effort I could come up with an example of monkey success for you, but I prefer to stick to the ones I listed. Fire away. o-||


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> For Christ Sake Bart Peay!!!! Private land
> And commercialized wildlife???
> 
> You mean private land watchdogs like BP
> ...


Funny how you cherrypick a few supposed mis-managed issues, which ironically are easily debunked or shown as good management........How about you explain the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of mis-managed government lands? Within 30 minutes of driving I can view 'lovely' stands of dead forests, that were ALLOWED to keep dying. Or, I can drive to PRIVATE forests, where they plant 4-5 trees for every one they harvest, and see thriving forests that are essential to thriving wildlife. I wonder, when looking at land right next to PRIVATE acreage such as Deseret Land and Livestock, which has an abundance of wildlife and wildlife friendly habitat, and which has a scarcity of wildlife and wildlife friendly habitat? Think about it! One has a PROFIT incentive.....oh the horror.....! The other has NO profit motive. Bazinga!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't know Pro, I appreciate your view on this, but I prefer my deer and elk wild and not ranched.

There are precious few land operations in the state with enough contiguous winter/summer habitat acreage to adequately manage migratory animals without fencing them in and feeding them. I suppose that selling off tens of thousands of contiguous forest service and BLM property to big private corporations could mitigate that problem, but I'd be hard pressed to see them returning enough of a profit on it unless the animals were secondary to whatever other reason they bought it for. At best, it would be a very fragmented management.

We're dealing with muleys and elk on marginal habitat in Utah, not whitetails living in a forest back east — our big game animals generally need space to roam. As for the comparison with forests, well, trees stay put and can be farmed. Besides, when I buy lumber, I don't care how it was grown, I'm not after the tree chopping or hunting experience.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I NEVER called for high fence wildlife management! There are many ways to manage wildlife and habitat in the hands of individuals w/o putting 8-10' fences everywhere, yes? 

As for the lumber, you apparently missed the forest for the lack of trees........I don't really care where my lumber comes from either, that wasn't my point! My point is, more lumber comes from less land off of privately held/managed forests than on government held/managed forests. In otherword, there is an ABUNDANCE of lumber being harvested and grown on PRIVATE land, and a SCARCITY of lumber being harvested and grown on GOVERNMENT land. Hopefully that is more clear.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

proutdoors said:


> I NEVER called for high fence wildlife management! There are many ways to manage wildlife and habitat in the hands of individuals w/o putting 8-10' fences everywhere, yes?
> 
> As for the lumber, you apparently missed the forest for the lack of trees........I don't really care where my lumber comes from either, that wasn't my point! My point is, more lumber comes from less land off of privately held/managed forests than on government held/managed forests. In other word, there is an ABUNDANCE of lumber being harvested and grown on PRIVATE land, and a SCARCITY of lumber being harvested and grown on GOVERNMENT land. Hopefully that is more clear.


ABUNDANCE of lumber on private land in Utah? Come on man, most of this state is land tied up by the feds and that includes lands that should have been harvested that are just now being thinned because of the beetle and a renewed attitude toward forest fire fuel management. Lumber is not a renewable enough resource worth privatising land in Utah.

I can guarantee you that you will change your mind on this if Utah were to prevail and sell off tracks of prime wildlife habitat to a certain someone who is lobbying for that opportunity and trying to snuggle up to people who already see through him and others who want privatise land and wildlife in Utah. If this travesty of a scenario were to play out, everyone who loves hunting the way we enjoy it now (restrictive as it might be) will need and ABUNDANCE of money in order to do it on lands that once were accessible by everyone. Not all landowners are as good about wildlife and hunters as you are when it comes to access.

THIS is quite telling. http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm

I wish every farmer/rancher/landowner were like you my friend, I really do.


----------



## silversurfer (Oct 30, 2011)

I would let the DWR manage anything, they have proof are ready that can't do it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Your confusing me bart on one hand your saying privite is the only way to go because big government cant run anything. You gave the deseret as an example as a positive.

The deseret do accurate counts of there game and only give out tags for the amount of mature animals they want harvested. This is the same thing ive been saying all along. Yet its no good for public to manage this way? 

Imho there is a big difference in privite and public. on privite you wouldnt go out and harass you animals year round. You dont tear up your land with wheelers. You dont burn it to the ground and let it turn to thistle and crab grass, on private you dont allow your animals to over graze your ground till they starve. On privite you dont issue 10 times the tags and wonder why you have low buck to doe ratios.

in a way Bart sfw wants to run the public land like privite. But you/i oppose them. Why?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Actually i know why i oppose them


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

So you want to compare the KCC land with the Wasatch Front Extended area across the valley?? Wanna give it a go?? One unit has been "one of the chronically struggling units" for years. Hey SW, PRO just wondering when this PRIVATE land has supported anything other than a LE hunt?? It's private there should be deer everywhere right?? Last I looked the WFE 
allowed Rifle, Muzz and bowhunts from mid August through December. 
Your view's against anything PUBLIC TRUST are opposed to supporting the North American Model. Kings Deer?? Sold to highest bidder?? You are letting one small portion of your warped extreme political views to over ride any brains you may have.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Pro's rational in this thread is the single greatest threat to hunting in Utah for the public that we have today. 

He used examples of Africa, New Zealand, and exotics in Texas to show why his idea would work. What is the common denominator in each equation? The local public is completely closed off and only wealthy out-of-towners get to hunt the game that is in such 'abundance.' 

Follow pro's idea, and kiss hunting completely goodbye for the vast majority of Utahns. I'm sure that's exactly what the founding fathers envisioned.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

TS is one smart sumb!tch!!! Couldn't agree
More


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

+1

The countries ive been to suck if your an average joe.

England has loads of pheasants but to hunt them cost thousands of dollars. I tried to hunt some grouse over there. The game keeper told me for one weekend it would be about 2000 bucks. 

England has more lakes then i can count. Good luck being average and wanting to fish them. Nope your stuck having to pay high expenses and being stuck on that one lake or pond. Its a joke!

We got it good here!

How many Africans do you see shooting game? No its rich white hunters that can afford it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

And what does this have to do with DWR/Wildlife board reform? -Ov- 


Pro, we've debated this a dozen times here, TS30 nailed it on your "examples" and I don't think I have anything new to add except one additional point.

I lived in Europe for a couple of years. Wishing to have anything close to "their" hunting system compared to ours is beyond absurd IMO. But the consequences are worse than just having average folks unable to hunt. In areas/countries where a couple of generations are shut out from hunting, people fail to learn anything about what hunting is really about. With no knowledge of the reality of it, they assume the worst and fairly rapidly and in large numbers gravitate towards the animal rights movement and actively campaign to shut hunting down. Hunting loses at the ballot box. That is the death knell for hunting in that area. They even give generously to organizations that attempt to shut down hunting overseas. Whining that it will never happen here seems hollow to me when I've already seen it happen in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent, other European countries. 

Carry on. o-||


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

One last comment from me on this, since I am so 'dangerous' to the future of hunting...................

The amount of ignorance, yes IGNORANCE, on here amazes me. You all deserve the crap coming! Europe has land owned by a select few, NOT the general public. The single biggest factor in what once made America great was NOT public land, nor government controlliing every aspect of human life, it was liberty and the ability of all citizens to own PRIVATE property! Yet, you all think that private landownership and individual liberty are 'dangerous' and something to fear! I am deeply saddened, I truly am, by the lack of understanding, and thus fear of individual liberty! 
Scott, your comments I find even more troubling, trying to assert SFW is free-market in any way is beyond inane! They are crony-capitalists, which is the entity that has lead this nation to the sewer it is mired in now. 

I avoided this site for several months, and if it weren't for my stubborness I would have never came back........which after reading the anti-liberty comments, I regret! So, have fun in your socialist paradise, I have lost all hope in Utah sportsmen being part of the solution. Anyone wanting to discuss this further with me can chat with me on Facebook, I wash my hands of this place!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

So basically, you DO echo Peay.... The NAWCM is socialism and evil in your mind.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Is it possible for an average Joe to hunt pheasant in Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Iowa Colorado or Montana? Or has nobility priced that out of reach like England the Netherlands and to a lesser extent other European countries? Or are they hunting public cornfields?

Can an average Joe hunt deer east of the Mississippi? Pennsylvania? Are the 500,000 hunters there rich guys? Hunting is alive and going strong in Texas and its not on the public lands there supporting it.

Don't forget hunters are a minority. So when the majority make policy for us we get California.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The initial question had no reference to cost or opportunity. It was a matter of asking if DWR could manage things better if they were void of the political influence. 

Pro - you are correct in your assertion that public lands hunting is socialistic. Heck, public lands ownership itself is socialistic in its most pure nature. That is, the lands belong to everyone. 

From a bigger picture however, I am not sure a total private ownership of lands would result in better management of wildlife, or leave promise of overall improvement in hunting quality. And the reason is this: a private landowner will manage his/her land to their greatest advantage within the fences. That may mean elimination of species within those lands, or management specific for the most profitable species on those lands (and most profitable may be cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, elk, kudu, lion, elephant, or whatever.) The result is if a landowner does not own the entire ecosystem or ecoregion, then there will be give for all the individualized take. 

I think one of the biggest challenges to any wildlife agency is to attempt to manage wildlife (and hunters) without the ability to manage the habitats. Private landowners do have that ability, and the drive for doing it in a profitable way. This can be good. It can be bad. I'm not arguing that. It just is. But the end result is that wildlife and game availability for the general public will be changed, because to the private land owner, all things can be monetized with no regard to large ecosystems or overall wildlife goals. Put another way, the private land owner need only manage for the tree, with no regard to the forest.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few more comments.

1. Gary, good post! +1

2.


Iron Bear said:


> has nobility priced that out of reach like England the Netherlands and to a lesser extent other European countries?


That is perhaps possible in England, but is most decidedly not the case in the Netherlands.

3.


Iron Bear said:


> Don't forget hunters are a minority. So when the majority make policy for us we get California.


This is the point I'm making. Hunters *are* the minority. And the more folks we push out of our ranks, due to economic or other reasons, the worse it gets. The right to hunt is not a (US) constitutional one, and we depend on the acceptance of non hunters to continue it. The more inaccessible it is for the masses, the fewer people will start. And experience has shown in Europe and now in parts of the US, (the Northeast, maybe California), that a significant percentage of the populace will in time be actively against us if they do not know what it is about.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So when we give all species the same consideration. And strive for capacity in all species which is a ecosystem evolved void of humans. Where do 100,000 deer hunters fit into that dichotomy. IMO hind tit. 

Should we try to emulate pre settlement human harvests also?

Which begs the question why worry about hunter recruitment and retention. Do we want more people in this boat?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Lack of or perception of quality has probably had a bigger effect on loosing hunters than economic concerns.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> One last comment from me on this, since I am so 'dangerous' to the future of hunting...................
> 
> The amount of ignorance, yes IGNORANCE, on here amazes me. You all deserve the crap coming! Europe has land owned by a select few, NOT the general public. The single biggest factor in what once made America great was NOT public land, nor government controlliing every aspect of human life, it was liberty and the ability of all citizens to own PRIVATE property! Yet, you all think that private landownership and individual liberty are 'dangerous' and something to fear! I am deeply saddened, I truly am, by the lack of understanding, and thus fear of individual liberty!
> Scott, your comments I find even more troubling, trying to assert SFW is free-market in any way is beyond inane! They are crony-capitalists, which is the entity that has lead this nation to the sewer it is mired in now.
> ...


This is easily the most fallicious post I have ever seen, and I would respond to it, but it doesn't merit a response. Every sentence is a new red herring. What a joke.

Iron Bear, comparing Pennsylvania, as an example, to Utah hunting is not comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing apples to squash! The landowners out there in the past have been begging people to come reduce the insane and unhealthy amount of whitetails they have roaming around out there. And other states have the same proble. We don't have whitetails (yet) and we don't have too many deer, therefore we don't have that problem. They harvest about 350,000 whitetails per year in that state. Do we even have that many mule deer total? C'mon man! Let's be reasonable with that analogies.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Like comparing privatized hunting in the United States to hunting in England?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Privatized is great if you can get permission or pay for permission!

Out of all the door knocking I've done in utah I've found its a lost cause and i cant afford to pay for privite so ill take the welfare rout we have with our public lands.

You can have great public land if its not abused, over grazed, tore up by wheelers, and managed properly.

So in my eyes you can stuff privite where the sun dont shine.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I guess its how you want to quantify it. 

Iv'e heard guys here complain about a $30 tag but spent $50 on a box of shells and $150 in gas getting to their hunting grounds. 

You know better than most what it takes to harvest a trophy buck. Scouting optics ect. Its not cheap by any stretch. 

One of the reasons Utah private land is so expensive to hunt is simple supply and demand. The prospect of finding quality deer is slim and none on public grounds. And if you do find it you better keep tight lipped about it and even then it wont last. In percentages Utah has only a tiny bit of private land so they get to set the price high. Where else can you expect to see or shoot a good buck in one or two days of hunting besides private grounds. 

Money isn't the only form of wealth. I have more money than time. I can afford a $5000 hunt every yr if I have to. But I cant afford 30 days of scouting and 15 days of hunting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> Money isn't the only form of wealth. I have more money than time. I can afford a $5000 hunt every yr if I have to. But I cant afford 30 days of scouting and 15 days of hunting.


Yet the vast majority of people can't afford that. And I challenge your assertion that trophy animals are slim to none on public lands. You ever heard of the Henry's and Pauns for deer? I'm not too familiar with the units down in Arizona, but I believe the Strip is largely public lands (BLM) as well. One or two decent bucks are shot down that way every couple decades. What about the Boulder, San Juan, Pahvant for elk? Yes, they are limited entry units. But almost all public property, nonetheless. Trophy bucks aren't easy to come by on private lands either. Someone has to do the work. Whether it's you or the outfitter you're paying to do it for you....unless you just get lucky, there is still work to be done.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

A majority wont or cant afford it? 

Yet they can afford a cell phone and cable TV a new truck every 10 yrs.

Henry's Pauns the Strip? Well if you save $40 a month in the 20 yrs it takes to draw a tag on one of those units you can afford a top notch private hunt in Alton. Set $80 bucks aside every month and you can do it twice in the time it takes to get a tag. Save $160 a month and hunt Alton once every 5 yrs. Or you could hunt a dozen or more CWMU units every other yr for that kind of money.

So how much do you really want to hunt? Kinda crazy to think a guy could hunt Alton every 10 yrs for the same amount he spends on Mtn Dew. $20 a week.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Now you're changing the argument. You said that big deer are slim and none on public lands. That's blatantly false. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. I gave you factual info that proved it, so you change the argument. It's not about how bad I want to hunt. It's about if big deer are found on public land. Admit you were wrong to say that and then we can talk about how badly I want to hunt. 

I know the type. Throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks. Use red herrings to distract from the real issues. Circular argument after circular argument. Stick on topic. Otherwise it's not worth having the discussion.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> One last comment from me on this, since I am so 'dangerous' to the future of hunting...................
> 
> The amount of ignorance, yes IGNORANCE, on here amazes me. You all deserve the crap coming! Europe has land owned by a select few, NOT the general public. The single biggest factor in what once made America great was NOT public land, nor government controlliing every aspect of human life, it was liberty and the ability of all citizens to own PRIVATE property! Yet, you all think that private landownership and individual liberty are 'dangerous' and something to fear! I am deeply saddened, I truly am, by the lack of understanding, and thus fear of individual liberty!
> Scott, your comments I find even more troubling, trying to assert SFW is free-market in any way is beyond inane! They are crony-capitalists, which is the entity that has lead this nation to the sewer it is mired in now.
> ...


Pro, you know much about ignorance. You gonna tell us all again how we fought the revolution because the British would not let us own land? :rotfl:

Your out look is dangerous to the future of hunting, because you and just about everyone else around here, do NOT understand Public Trust Doctrine. Or how central it was to the founding of this country, or how the NAMWC, just like the Constitution, is based on 800 years of such principles, and common law. Until you have read and understood the Magna Carta, and studied the governing principles of the Iroquois League, both inspiring documents for our Constitution, you should probably get off your uneducated, misinformed, "I read it on facebook", soapbox.

Your right, private land ownership and individual liberty, are not dangerous, or something to be feared. But the fundamental non-understanding, by you and others, of how we came to hold those great responsibilities, is dangerous, and is something to be feared. If you don't know how you got here, you will easily believe the accounts of others, since your frame of reference has no bearing.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wow you really got me. You think I tried to say the Henry's and Puans doesn't have big deer. Man I feel foolish for trying to pass that notion off. I figured nobody had ever heard about those units and if I said there where slim to none buck on public ground nobody would be the wiser. 

But you where. :O||: :lol:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Admitting your statement was a lie and false, even sarcastically, is good enough for me! 

Now on to the next argument. I want to hunt very badly. That's why I do it every year. But see, I guess I view hunting a little differently than you. I view hunting as...well, just that....HUNTING! I don't view paying a private landowner a butt load of money to go and find a giant deer for me on their property and tie it to a tree so my rich kiester can come down and smoke it in one day of hunting because I have "more money than time." Others may view that as hunting, and that's fine. That's why America is great. But for me and my house, we will HUNT, not just KILL. It's all part of the experience for me. And I don't need $5000/year to buy landowner tags to do that. 

I feel sorry for those that do. But to each their own. I just hope those that can already do that don't try and force their skewed way of hunting on the vast majority of us that don't want that or need that. Because the rest of us aren't trying to keep you from going and hunting the Alton any time you want to buy the tag.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Pro's rational in this thread is the single greatest threat to hunting in Utah for the public that we have today.
> 
> He used examples of Africa, New Zealand, and exotics in Texas to show why his idea would work. What is the common denominator in each equation? The local public is completely closed off and only wealthy out-of-towners get to hunt the game that is in such 'abundance.'
> 
> Follow pro's idea, and kiss hunting completely goodbye for the vast majority of Utahns. I'm sure that's exactly what the founding fathers envisioned.


Agreed 100%. Would privatization make wildlife more abundant? Maybe, but for whom?

No, the DWR should not have complete control.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

TS30 said:


> Admitting your statement was a lie and false, even sarcastically, is good enough for me!
> 
> Now on to the next argument. I want to hunt very badly. That's why I do it every year. But see, I guess I view hunting a little differently than you. I view hunting as...well, just that....HUNTING! I don't view paying a private landowner a butt load of money to go and find a giant deer for me on their property and tie it to a tree so my rich kiester can come down and smoke it in one day of hunting because I have "more money than time." Others may view that as hunting, and that's fine. That's why America is great. But for me and my house, we will HUNT, not just KILL. It's all part of the experience for me. And I don't need $5000/year to buy landowner tags to do that.
> 
> I feel sorry for those that do. But to each their own. I just hope those that can already do that don't try and force their skewed way of hunting on the vast majority of us that don't want that or need that. Because the rest of us aren't trying to keep you from going and hunting the Alton any time you want to buy the tag.


+2

A Freakin men!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

TS30 said:


> I don't view paying a private landowner a butt load of money to go and find a giant deer for me on their property and tie it to a tree so my rich kiester can come down and smoke it in one day of hunting because I have "more money than time."


We agree on this.  That would be illegal.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

FYI I just did my taxes, I cleared $24,000 in 2012. My wife? 46K 

No rich guy here. 

I don't have a cell phone or a cable bill. Maybe that's where I'm getting all my money.


----------

