# Late season muzzy deer.



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

What is everyone's take on these new Late season LE muzzy deer hunts? At first I thought it may be a good opportunity but quickly realized they open only 2 days after the general rifle. Unless they move the dates further into November, I don't see any incentive to use my LE deer points.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Bucksnbulls08 said:


> Unless they move the dates further into November, I don't see any incentive to use my LE deer points.


This is my take. If they moved it back just one week it be a lot more lucrative.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Having hunted cows the first week of November, you see some nice deer start to show their heads but like has been said, if the end date was the start date, I would put in for it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm really surprised how steep the draw odds were last year...

Most were taking 9 or 10+ points to get into the bonus permits.

This years dates are as good as it will get. Nov 2-10...
New scope law too.

5 new units ...

I'm thinking units like Boulder and Zion may take 12+ points to draw a bonus permit.


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

I was thinking Boulder but with only 2 days difference from rifle, I don't normally see anything during that time frame that I couldn't get on the rifle. I had no idea there was that much interest in burning LE points on these hunts. Maybe in the near future DWR will move these hunts back a week or 2.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Just a week can make a big difference on those migration route units but I agree with the idea that it would be much better to be a week later and not have to compete with the muzzleloader elk hunters too.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I've come across some really good bucks while on the muzzleloader elk the last couple years, only one though that would make me think about punching a limited entry tag... most are just good looking general bucks.
I'm with Goof though, I am a little surprised by how many points it took to draw these tags last year so I guess if you are just looking for more opportunities to spread the point pool around then it's doing its job. But to really get the attention of those guys with lots of points and draw them away from the traditional limited entry units then moving the dates back a week or two just might do it.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

It was always that same time frame when the muzzle was a november hunt. We hunted muzzle deer in the 80's and and 90's. Used to see the good bucks all the time. Usually had a good storm or 2 and the deer had started coming down. Was a bunch of fun. 
If we would have had the muzzle guns then we have now we would have been very successful. The 'old ball and patch Hawken was a bit frustrating. We did okay, but saw some great deer. 
I think the late tag would be fun.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

if they would move it just a week back further it would be sweet but than again I find dandy bucks every year on the muzzle loader elk hunts and there already getting into pre rut activity had a dandy 4 walk right in front of my truck trailing some does and that was the first week of November. you get some weather at all and it gets pretty interesting pretty fast.


----------



## muleymadness (Jan 23, 2008)

You asked...here's my take. I don't like the tags at all...but this year will be IDEAL for for it. There will be some awesome bucks killed IMO because it's much later than last year and like mentioned a few days can make a BIG difference. There will be some SERIOUS rut activity during that hunt and the big boys will be out. Would be a VERY good and fun tag, I've seen some great bucks during those dates rutting the last couple of years.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

Id like to see them up the tags a little on Zion and make some cuts to the rifle hunt. That rifle hunt is getting scary crowded. They keep raising permits and every hunters squeezes on to the public land.


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

I know of at least 1 person burning 15 points.
The bucks we have been seeing the last 2 years during the 1st part of November makes it a no brainer putting in for the later hunt


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

In the end, these new hunts do provide more opportunity for the LE hunters with very little impact on the buck ratios. I support them.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> In the end, these new hunts do provide more opportunity for the LE hunters with very little impact on the buck ratios. I support them.


^^^^ This.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I'd agree that 5 or so of these permits will not make much of a difference in BD ratios. It can impact the higher-end bucks on a unit, but that is most likely minimal also. What worries me is that we have opened the door to LE management strategies on General Season units. Instead of issuing General Season permits to manage general season herds, we will see a push to offer more LE permits. Which in turn goes contrary to the General Season management objectives. What is the incentive to manage a unit to its General Season BD ratios if there is a contradicting incentive to manage outside of that objective and offer LE tags? Now we are seeing an increase in these LE ML units. I'll hold off on the actual judgement when I see the permit number recommendations later this month. If we see increased LE tag numbers and not a comparable increase of GS tag numbers then it is a problem (imho).

Fin-- I agree with your sentiment on public lands areas being hit harder. I would think private lands only tags would be a viable strategy to reduce pressure on public lands, while offering opportunity within a unit.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> I'd agree that 5 or so of these permits will not make much of a difference in BD ratios. It can impact the higher-end bucks on a unit, but that is most likely minimal also. What worries me is that we have opened the door to LE management strategies on General Season units. Instead of issuing General Season permits to manage general season herds, we will see a push to offer more LE permits. Which in turn goes contrary to the General Season management objectives. What is the incentive to manage a unit to its General Season BD ratios if there is a contradicting incentive to manage outside of that objective and offer LE tags? Now we are seeing an increase in these LE ML units. I'll hold off on the actual judgement when I see the permit number recommendations later this month. If we see increased LE tag numbers and not a comparable increase of GS tag numbers then it is a problem (imho).
> 
> Fin-- I agree with your sentiment on public lands areas being hit harder. I would think private lands only tags would be a viable strategy to reduce pressure on public lands, while offering opportunity within a unit.


That's the hope with these migration units. To be able to hunt some of those private land bucks migrating off the private lands onto public.
I'd like to see a higher split on the CWMU hunts, something like 30% going to the public.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

fin little said:


> Id like to see them up the tags a little on Zion and make some cuts to the rifle hunt. That rifle hunt is getting scary crowded. They keep raising permits and every hunters squeezes on to the public land.


I respectfully disagree. I do not like seeing general hunts converted into limited entry hunts.They have hardly raised permit numbers.

I suspect you are going to the dunes. The crowds are flocking there because the deer have migrated earlier the past few years for some reason. I hardly know a person that goes to Smiths or Laverkin Creek anymore which used to be the go to on the 2nd weekend. Now people head to the sands opening day. I suspect there are plenty of areas you can hunt with less crowd, I hate to see cut tags on the whole unit just because everyone wants the same rock.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Packout said:


> What worries me is that we have opened the door to LE management strategies on General Season units. Instead of issuing General Season permits to manage general season herds, we will see a push to offer more LE permits. Which in turn goes contrary to the General Season management objectives. What is the incentive to manage a unit to its General Season BD ratios if there is a contradicting incentive to manage outside of that objective and offer LE tags? Now we are seeing an increase in these LE ML units. I'll hold off on the actual judgement when I see the permit number recommendations later this month. If we see increased LE tag numbers and not a comparable increase of GS tag numbers then it is a problem (imho).


That statement should be bolded, put in 24point red blinky font and sticked to the top of the forum.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Utah screwed up when they went to the hunting regions and created two different type of deer hunts, the general season and the LE hunts. Not to mention two different type of points for each. If they would of went to the 30 or whatever units and one point system I personally think that they would of been better off. 

You can look at Colorado as a example. At one time you could hunt just about the whole state on the general season tag. Then they went to a draw for each unit. At first it was one unit one tag, now it has grown to one tag for 3 or 4 units and there is just one point system. If you want to hunt anterless and have 20 deer points and put in for it as your first choice you loose all your deer points, there are no buck and doe tags just deer tags.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

Provider, let me reword my post a little. I would like to see them stop increasing the Zion rifle permits every year and instead have more late muzz limited tags. The intent of the limited entry muzz hunts was to add some tags on units over the buck to doe ratios with out adding more to already over crowded general hunts. Zion is ideal due to the amount of private at the mid elevation. Most years many of the units deer are at mid elevation during the rifle season. A late limited entry archery season would also provide opportunity without taking away from the general tags.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I totally agree with Packout on this. Not a good trend! I'm particularly bugged about this hunt on the East Canyon herd unit where I hunt. The big bucks on this unit are already getting pounded by all the Wasatch Extended archery hunters. Heck, it gets hit hard on general archery, muzzle loader, and rifle too. Then the extended season, and now late muzz tags! I've been hunting there for about 10 years now and have seen a steady decline in big buck numbers. Ratios are great since its rugged and nobody wants to shoot a yearling up there...so the answer is to target more big bucks during the rut? Stupid!!


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

There's a reason very few people hunt Smiths or LaVerkin creek anymore. There's very few deer in there during October anymore!


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Packout said:


> What worries me is that we have opened the door to LE management strategies on General Season units. Instead of issuing General Season permits to manage general season herds, we will see a push to offer more LE permits. Which in turn goes contrary to the General Season management objectives. What is the incentive to manage a unit to its General Season BD ratios if there is a contradicting incentive to manage outside of that objective and offer LE tags? Now we are seeing an increase in these LE ML units.


I hadn't thought about it like this before... I had always just considered it another "opportunity".

Well put Packout.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> That's the hope with these migration units. To be able to hunt some of those private land bucks migrating off the private lands onto public.
> I'd like to see a higher split on the CWMU hunts, something like 30% going to the public.


Totally agree with you Ridge. The State needs to relook at the public/private split on CWMUs. I am in complete agreement that a landowner needs to have a fair incentive to allow public hunters onto their land, but the current 10% allocation is way to low. I'd agree that 25-30% would be a fair number for the public tags. It would REALLY help with the bottleneck in the other LE hunt pools too!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

^^^ 10% fits some CWMU's now. I'd get rid of the percentage altogether. Tag allocation shouldn't be left to the CWMU's operator alone. Tag allocation should be set on CWMU's based on deer population b/d ratios acreage ect. 

Say a unit is 30,000 acres and only wants 10 tags. But has 2000 deer and a B/D ratio of 40/100 and 2000 deer. My take is that way more public tags should go there. 

But another unit is 10,000 acres and a guy wants to sell 30 tags and there is only 500 deer and a B/D ratio of 15/100. 3 public tags seem sufficient there. It wouldn't make sense to put 10 there.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

IB - 
For wildlife departments that are already stretched, I think there is too much footwork required in you example IMO. A simple percentage is easier. It doesn't matter if a CWMU requests 5 or 50 tags. 25-30% go to the public, then it's up to each hunter to do the research and see if it is worth burning their points on a particular CWMU.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

And if a CWMU continues to mismanage a public resource that's going to sit well with anyone? 


Maybe we could put a few million of wasted habitat money to something beneficial instead.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

My understanding is that permit numbers for CWMUs are set by the DWR, so if there is blame to be spread about mismanagement, that would fall on the DWR first. As to mismanagement of a hunter's experience (limiting public hunters to a certain area of the CWMU, deliberately leading a hunter away from the better animals, etc), it is up to each hunter to report abuses so they are not perpetuated in the system.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

The rule states that the landowners and DWR work together to determine permit numbers. Once the total number is determined the CWMU gets to choose which ratio of public permits to issue:

*TABLE 2: ELK AND DEER*

*Bulls/Bucks:Antlerless

* CWMU Share 
1 90% 0% 
2 85% 25% 
3 80% 40% 
4 75% 50%

Public's Share
1 10% 100% 
2 15% 75% 
3 20% 60% 
4 25% 50%

This arrangement would be totally fine and dandy, IF they had the same hunting season dates as the public. My issue with CWMUs is how they are allowed to hunt outside the regular hunting seasons. The Alton especially irks me: During the rifle season all of the deer have migrated off the ranch. But, since they are allowed to rifle hunt almost 2 months before the public they can sell tags for $25k apiece and shoot all the big bucks early. If they are granted such liberal hunting seasons to harvest public animals they absolutely should be giving a higher percentage of tags. Unfortunately the Alton and many of our CWMUs are part of the bigger problem of money, politics, and corruption that is rampant in our state.

People will say the CWMU program is a great thing because without it the public would never be able to hunt those ranches. Well just look at what things were like before CWMUs! Anybody could pay an affordable trespass fee and hunt those same ranches during the regular hunting seasons. Opportunity to the public was vastly superior. Remember "United Sportsmen"? You could buy a membership for a few hundred bucks per gun, and have access to dozens of private ranches. The ability to cheat on hunting seasons has made the private permits much more valuable and now access is severely limited. Heck, give me a 2 or 3 month rifle season for deer on any general unit and I'll sell it for 5 grand.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You lost me at "United Sportsman." This organization was the precursor, and really the catalyst to where we are. Not to mention rolled in and took control of the land my dad was able to hunt all the way up until a few short years before I could hunt. 

To say look at the system before CWMU's as a knock against the CWMU program is flawed reasoning. Hunting is not today what it was in the 80s. Whether it was the CWMU program or rising trespass fees, the days of knocking on a door to get permission to hunt private land were coming to an end either way.


----------

