# New State and North America Record Mule Deer!



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I may have baited you a bit by saying "New State and North America record Mule Deer" when actually it was the selling of the permit that made the record books. 

I realize that there are a few on here that oppose the sale of "our tags". The expo was a huge success for Utahs wildlife. Many people will get tags of a lifetime for a mere $5.00. That is awesome in itself. The other numbers of the auctioned off tags speak great numbers in itself also. They will benifit the wildlife!

Utah Statewide Deer tag $187,500 sold by MDF. This is a new all time record for North America

Utah statewide Elk tag $150,000 sold by SFW. This is a new all time record for North America

Utah Bighorn $85,000 sold by UT. FNAWS. This is a new all time record for Utah

Utah Desert Bighorn $55,000 sold by Ut. FNAWS. A strong contribution to put sheep on the mountain.

Utah Moose $24,000 sold by SFW. A strong performance, one of the top for the lower 48 states

The wealthy are benifitting us! We will have more habitat, more grazing permits, more guzzlers, more emergency feeding programs and MORE ANIMALS!

I LOVE IT!


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I didn't have to pay anything for my Governors tag, I got the Washington D.C. Mule deer goverors tag. I am getting on line to find a good guide, does anyone have any information to help me line up someone good?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

EPEK said:


> I didn't have to pay anything for my Governors tag, I got the Washington D.C. Mule deer goverors tag. I am getting on line to find a good guide, does anyone have any information to help me line up someone good?


I think that you screwed up by putting in for that tag. Even for free it's not worth the ink that printed it. Save your money on your guide and stay in Utah. Our two points are better than ANY thing Washington has to offer. (I guess you could go to Arlington, that is worth seeing)


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

So who bought the deer and elk tag? 

I was amazed when I heard the price tag. That is a lot of cash for an animal, but I guess if I had that kind of money I would probably be in the mix as well


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

elkhunterUT said:


> So who bought the deer and elk tag?


I don't know who bought any of them. All I know is I would have to save up for a month to have that kind of money.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I bought the elk tag


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

A gentleman paid $40,000 for a Pahvant elk tag and *$315,000* for a sheep tag up north! Thanks to these fine sportsmen we will have money for habitat restoration/improvement, winter feeding programs, land easements, etc. I had a blast at the expo and met some great folks, and several forum members. Thanks to all who stepped up and helped.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

315k? Holy smokes! I hate it when I have to choose between a new house and a sheep hunt. Decisions, decisions.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

It still amazes me when you see that kind of money being spent into our wildlife, that people get upset that we auction "our" tags. What a great thing that someone is willing to spend that for us. THANK YOU "rich man".


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Awesome avatar Eric! That was a blast transplanting those sheep. Just think, 15 years ago the state of Utah issued 8 rocky mountain bighorn tags, in 2009 it will be more than 100. That looks like MORE opportunity to me.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...I'll take the bait:


> A few years ago the famed ungulate biologist Valerous Geist stated in a Bugle article that the reason hunting and game management works in the US vs. Europe is that even if you are the 'Emperor of China,' you have an equal opportunity at participation. These tags defy that principle and cause successive generations to quit hunting. The parasitic special interest groups advocating this type of tag distribution have become the most effective anti-hunting organizations in America.


"Advocates point out that one deer tag sold for $150,000 is worth it. But thousands of hunters must give up their hunts to produce an experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase. Additionally, the misconception is it's 'just one tag'. In Utah, it has grown in one form or another to hundreds. When game agencies eliminate hunting for thousands, they in turn must increase public tag and licenses cost. Utah has more conservation tags than all other states combined, as well as the highest resident tag prices coupled with depressing drawing odds. Sadly, other states seem poised to follow.

The Utah group Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife is the infected carrier of this diseased philosophy and the quarantine of state borders has failed, allowing its spread into Idaho and Wyoming. While this organization was not the first, they are the worst, and others have climbed aboard this gravy train. Each organization retains a portion of the tag dollars and increases their take by charging anyone interested in bidding with attendance and membership fees at their banquets - which include numerous costly games of chance. They tout the attendance of the banquets as validation of the concept. But as Utah's only legalized form of gambling, it likely plays a larger role.

By now, members of these organizations reading this are screaming that they need this money for their good work. But if the money comes from giving up public resources, there is no altruism involved. Every state has a well trained and modestly paid staff, beholden to oversight and public opinion. Why should we carve out a portion of agency funding through conservation tags to subsidize middle-man, armchair biologists who have overpaid consultants and lobbyists? Lobbyists whose only purpose is to flatter state legislators for more tags. A true hunting conservation organization doesn't loot from precious resources."


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

The problem with your view is that that "thousands" (even though it's hundreds) of tags "taken" from the public, has turned into thousands of more game to hunt all over the state. That's because of the funding generated to transplant herds to new areas, improve habitat to sustain larger herds so they can issue MORE tags, and as in recent cases, FEED the herds to keep them alive so that so we can hunt them in the future.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Are you even able to think for yourself? Or do you just cut and paste EVERYTHING in your life? :roll: 

When folks use words like "altruism" and "philosophy", one can bet the author is an educated person in 'books', but most likely UNEDUCATED in the real world and what it takes to manage wildlife in todays world!


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

yaaaaaawwwwwnnnn... :roll: The same weak arguments with NO substantial facts to back it. Yet these great organizations can show project after project where the money is hitting the ground. BTW,


> thousands of hunters must give up their hunts


??? What hunt did I give up this year??? :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Shane, don't you remember, you "gave up" that bighorn tag that you had. :mrgreen: 

If/when wyo2ut ever using his own thinking on this I'll ask him how much he has donated to help transplant the hundreds of sheep, turkeys, goats, bison. Or how much he has donated in $$$ for guzzlers, feeding programs for deer/elk/turkeys, reseeding projects, land easements. _(O)_ Just wondering. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> The same weak arguments with NO substantial facts to back it.
> 
> 
> > thousands of hunters must give up their hunts
> ...


Oh come on...you aren't really this naive are you? Look at it this way...if Utah didn't have Limited Entry elk hunting, do you really think the guy would have ponied up 150,000 bones? Do you think he is going to shoot his elk off an open unit? So...how many tags did we give up? Well, how many tags were given out on general season units? How many less tags were given on LE units? Isn't the answer around 20,000? Seems to me that we lost about 20,000 elk tags so this one guy can shoot a trophy. Yeah...we lost a lot!

Now, let's do the math...if we would have given out just 10,000 more elk tags at $50 a pop, we would have gained $500,000 that could have gone towards conservation (which is more valuable? That one conservation tag or 10,000 general season tags?). But, we like to make "parasitic" groups like SFW feel like they are doing something and throw them a bone....

...that's not even including all the lost money we lose from people who stop hunting because tags aren't available to them. How sad it is to see us slowly evolve our hunting practices towards a more European style of management where only the rich and priveleged have the opportunity!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Or how much he has donated feeding programs for deer/elk


$0.00...because it is a stupid money-wasting endeavor fish and game agencies undertake in order to make the masses feel good. It has very little--if any--positive effect in helping deer or elk make it through the winter...as study after study and state after state has already learned.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

??? Are you serious???



> Oh come on...you aren't really this naive are you?


I think I am the one who should be asking you this question. Did you pick up your math skills in WY? You may need to use your other hand because your answers are not adding up...One tag, one deer, does not add up to 20,000 lost tags. Even if we weren't selling off a few tags to raise good money to help our hunting habits I would still be in favor of LE hunting. Your logic doesn't add up, and it is pure speculation. Again, facts!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Or how much he has donated feeding programs for deer/elk
> ...


Does the song, "Stuck In The 80's" always play in the background in your classroom? Modern technology has improved feed available to wildlife that DOES indeed benefit the animals consuming it. The 'fears' of animals congregating is nonsensical as well, since the animals are/were already congregated BEFORE the feeding started.

How many deer tags were 'giving up' for that 187,000 statewide deer tag wyo2ut? :roll: You pull a number (20,000 elk tags) out of thin air and make it sound factual, but you chose to ignore many facts in the process. Facts like the great return from a small investment. The return being better/more habitat, more wildlife. The investment is a *FEW * tags. Fact is, there are many MORE elk around to hunt today because of the conservation tag program, which leads to MORE opportunity. Today we have MORE elk, MORE bighorn sheep, MORE desert sheep, MORE goats, MORE turkeys, than anytime in the last 100+ years. And, deer numbers have been steadily climbing, and thanks to those not willing to "just let nature take it course" and getting out and FEEDING wildlife, there will be MORE deer than by doing NOTHING.

I think the conservation tag program is a great example of what can/should be done throughout the west. Utah is ahead of the curve, and other states are now catching on and trying to catch up. No other state comes anywhere near Utah for acres of habitat improved in the last 5 years, NONE!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Or how much he has donated feeding programs for deer/elk
> ...


Is this why Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and other western states are currently feeding deer/elk? Is this why the DWR is willing to sit down and come up with a new 'modern' plan for feeding deer/elk/turkeys with the different conservation groups? :roll: _(O)_


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> ??? Are you serious???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see what he is saying. In order to grow bigger bucks, we need to reduce tags significantly in that area, thus losing tags due to trophy management. But 20,000??? That's silly.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Down in Monroe they use a different kind of math. I would never want my kids going to that school.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I see what he is saying. In order to grow bigger bucks, we need to reduce tags significantly in that area, thus losing tags due to trophy management. But 20,000??? That's silly.


His 'logic' is flawed as well by an apparent lack of understanding as to where this hunter will be hunting. He WON'T be hunt a general season area, that is for **** sure. He will be hunting the Henries, which had a tag go for $90,000 Saturday as well, or the Book Cliffs, Paunsagaunt *LIMITED ENTRY* units. Limited entry units are in place because MANY 'average' hunters WANTED them, not just the rich!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> His 'logic' is flawed as well by an apparent lack of understanding as to where this hunter will be hunting. He WON'T be hunt a general season area, that is for **** sure. He will be hunting the Henries, which had a tag go for $90,000 Saturday as well, or the Book Cliffs, Paunsagaunt *LIMITED ENTRY* units. Limited entry units are in place because MANY 'average' hunters WANTED them, not just the rich!


My logic isn't flawed...why won't he be hunting a general season unit? It is because those units don't have the "trophy" bucks he wants. In order to grow those "trophy" bucks, what must happen? Tags must be reduced...so, the public loses thousands of tags that they would otherwise have for one guy to shoot a "trophy". How many more thousands of tags could the DWR issue if we didnt' have LE units? We are sacrificing literally thousands of tags so a very limited few can hunt trophies. Do you really think these people would be paying these exoribitant prices of tags if they weren't doing it on LE land? So, the question is how much are we sacrificing? Thousands of tags!

Here is the truth...if we didn't sacrifice those thousands of tags for "trophies" we would selling thousands of general season tags in their place...those tags would easily bring in more dollars than those conservation tags do.

Look at the LE elk units again as an example: how many tags are sold on general season units? Over 20,000...how many tags are sold on LE units...around 2,000. Where is the conservation tag hunter going to hunt? On an LE unit...how did we get him this opportunity? By sacrificing around 20,000 tags....you can't tell me that these guys would spend that kind of money if it were done on general season units. You also can't tell me that if we added 18,000 more tags to the general season number we wouldn't be bringing in a heck of a lot more money...

If you look at things from just a one unit basis...we are still losing hundreds and sometimes thousands of tags. Look at the Henry's deer hunt for example...how many more people hunted the unit before it was LE? Now that is LE, how many get to hunt it? 5-10? You can't tell me that the general public didn't sacrifice hundreds of deer tags on the Henry's so that this guy could hunt it....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut missed the forest for the trees AGAIN! :roll: The LE units were NOT created just for the 'rich' to 'buy' a trophy. This was due to hunter demand! It is the DUTY of the DWR to manage the herds for the quality/quantity the hunting public ask for. Just because *you* don't like it, doesn't mean the DWR should change it. The public has spoken over and over again about the desire for LE units and higher quality animals. To say otherwise is simply false.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Modern technology has improved feed available to wildlife that DOES indeed benefit the animals consuming it. The 'fears' of animals congregating is nonsensical as well, since the animals are/were already congregated BEFORE the feeding started.


Huh...modern technology has improved the percentage of animals surviving about 5%-10% according to the one Colorado study. And, that percentage only includes the few animals being fed. Unit wide, the number is much lower...

The "fears" of animals congregating are real...by feeding deer/elk, more animals come to the site than what there were originally. But, I wouldn't expect you to understand that because you haven't read any one of the 5 million studies that show this....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyo2ut missed the forest for the trees AGAIN! :roll: The LE units were NOT created just for the 'rich' to 'buy' a trophy. This was due to hunter demand! It is the DUTY of the DWR to manage the herds for the quality/quantity the hunting public ask for. Just because *you* don't like it, doesn't mean the DWR should change it. The public has spoken over and over again about the desire for LE units and higher quality animals. To say otherwise is simply false.


HUH? ARe you F'in kidding me? The public didn't ask for these things...special interest groups--specifically SFW--asked for this. Public opinion polls in every state surrounding Utah and throughout the country have repeatedly said that less than 20% of the hunting public consider themselves trophy hunters and nearly 75% have repeatedly said that they would gladly sacrifice quality for the opportunity to hunt...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huh...modern technology has improved the percentage of animals surviving about 5%-10% according to the one Colorado study. And, that percentage only includes the few animals being fed. Unit wide, the number is much lower...
> 
> The "fears" of animals congregating are real...by feeding deer/elk, more animals come to the site than what there were originally. But, I wouldn't expect you to understand that because you haven't read any one of the 5 million studies that show this....


I'll take 5-10% increase in deer population numbers every day of the week! Sounds like a worthwhile investment to me.

What I understand is what is being seen in real life, that the deer are/were *already* bunched up, they tend to do that when the snow gets over their heads. Maybe if you but those studies down and got out and saw first hand what is happening, you might 'understand' reality instead of studies conducted by pinheads with agendas, whether they are hero's of yours or not.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> HUH? ARe you F'in kidding me?


Atta boy!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> HUH? ARe you F'in kidding me?


Don't be a potty mouth or I will have your brother Richard wash your mouth out with soap :lol: :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I'll take 5-10% increase in deer population numbers every day of the week! Sounds like a worthwhile investment to me.
> 
> What I understand is what is being seen in real life, that the deer are/were *already* bunched up, they tend to do that when the snow gets over their heads. Maybe if you but those studies down and got out and saw first hand what is happening, you might 'understand' reality instead of studies conducted by pinheads with agendas, whether they are hero's of yours or not.


1) That 5-10% number is only of the few deer being fed...so, if we are feeding one hundred deer at a site how many do we save? And, we are spending millions to save them...really cost effective. The deer do congregate on witner ranges...and it gets much worse once you start throwing out food.

2) Typical response from you Pro...when you can't back up or support your posts with evidence or proof, you resort to conspiracy theories and the "numbers are wrong" BS. Those "pinheads with agendas" are the professionals (who do you receive your medical care from? The local plumber who has seen a bunch of maladies...)...they are the ones who know and understand...your disrespect shows your ignorance and lack of education. Where do you think these "studies" are done? The "reality" is that these efforts are really expensive feel-good efforts that amount to virtually nothing.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Just out of curiousity...what would a game and fish agency's agenda be for showing that feeding deer is not wise?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Interesting you make up more math numbers...What was the percentage of hunters that would rather do without the LE hunt??? I didn't catch it, maybe you could pass that number along again. Why don't you take a poll on here and see how many would rather see the LE hunts go away entirely. It makes sense, most on here are not high $$ hunters. Lets see who want them eliminated, not change but completely eliminated! Again, where are the facts???


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Down in Monroe they use a different kind of math. I would never want my kids going to that school.


 -BaHa!-


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Love it when you guys duke it out!! Lets just take all this money the dwr brings in on these high rollin tags, and buy up some winter range.Say east of foothill blvd. I'll bet u could purchase a house and a half. That way the dept of wildlife revenue. can say we did are part...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 2) Typical response from you Pro...when you can't back up or support your posts with evidence or proof, you resort to conspiracy theories and the "numbers are wrong" BS. Those "pinheads with agendas" are the professionals (who do you receive your medical care from? The local plumber who has seen a bunch of maladies...)...they are the ones who know and understand...your disrespect shows your ignorance and lack of education. Where do you think these "studies" are done? The "reality" is that these efforts are really expensive feel-good efforts that amount to virtually nothing.wyoming2utah


I have talked to several biologist and many think that feeding them is a better solution than other alternatives. Wyo2ut I think you are against everything that can be good for wildlife. Biology is also based a lot on Common Sense. Deer can eat special pellets and survive because they get enough nutrients. If you start the feed early when more of the natural feed is avaliable then deer have a way better chance adjusting to the feed without causing digestive problems.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

> 1) That 5-10% number is only of the few deer being fed...so, if we are feeding one hundred deer at a site how many do we save? And, we are spending millions to save them...really cost effective.


Even if it is 5-10% (which I personally think is higher) I'll bet that most on here think that is money well spent, and cost effective. If you save 10 does out of 100, then that is how many off-spring for the next ten years? Especially if they have two fawns some years. I'll definately let those rich boys foot the bill for that percentage.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

suave300 said:


> > 1) That 5-10% number is only of the few deer being fed...so, if we are feeding one hundred deer at a site how many do we save? And, we are spending millions to save them...really cost effective.
> 
> 
> Even if it is 5-10% (which I personally think is higher) I'll bet that most on here think that is money well spent, and cost effective. If you save 10 does out of 100, then that is how many off-spring for the next ten years? Especially if they have two fawns some years. I'll definately let those rich boys foot the bill for that percentage.


Amen brother!

wyo2ut, keep spinning this any way you wish, bottom line is: Those who raise the money feel this is money well spent. For *you *to complain or suggest where this money should be spent is akin to a homeless man giving financial advice!


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Did someone ask for financial advice, because I could give it if you want, it is up to you if you want to follow it.

I think these things:

I think that everyone thinks that the big dollar bids on these hunts is only because these guys want to kill and show off big bucks. These other factors also are somewhere in there thought process. (if you ever attend these auctions there is a lather built up on the energy in the room) It is always expressed that this is good for everyone, and they factor that in their decision. They get some tax advantages, they have plenty of money that a tag for them at 150,000.00 is about the same as me spending 35.00 for a tag. Except for right now, 35.00 is more for me than 150,000.00 for them. So I am making a much bigger sacrifice buying my over the counter tag. There is a bit of an ego for winning the bid. 

I do feel some of the same thoughts as wyo on the limited entery hunts. I don't put in for them, I feel that my opportunity to hunt the wasatch extended is a better opportunity than if I drew the Henery tag, but I do feel that the Premium LE that the Henery tag offers is way off base and I feel that this unit could be much better utilized and many more tags, including management tags could be offered in the Books and the Heneries. 

I do feel the SFW does a ton of good, but I do also feel that they are a good ol boy group with many different agendas, and I don't agree with all of them.

I think that if Pro and Wyo got together and got their facts together, they are more alike than they are different. I know pro and like him, and feel that his heart is in the right place, I don't know wyo and like him and sense that his heart is in the right place.


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

I think that these conservation groups, public or private do more for wildlife than you would think. I think that the only way to make an educated, unbiased judgement on these groups is to get out there and attend or volunteer with them. I might have concerns and differences of opinion about certain practices these conservation groups follow, but all in all I think that we are more alike than different. I think believing everything that conservation groups do is correct and noble is naive. I also agree just as strongly that believing everything that they do is wrong and self-serving is ignorant.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Is it levy or levy, either way, good post.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EPEK said:


> Is it *levy* or *levy*, either way, good post.


Put the pipe down!


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

That's a lot of money and I hope it is all used for habitat and not something else. I have just one question. 

Where is it written that 100% of the money raised from the 200 tags that were taken out if the Utah general draw will be used for habitat in Utah and where can we see an itemized list of where this money is being spent?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I just recieved this email. It made me laugh to think that this subject and the story that you are about to read seem somewhat the same. If it hurts your feelings then sorry and if it makes you laugh then your welcome.  It's a bit long but worth the read


A lesson in economics 



TAX CUTS EXPLAINED



Because it's the election season, let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. 



Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:



The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.



So, that's what they decided to do.



The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw them a curved ball (or is that a curved beer!). "Because you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."



Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.



The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'



They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.



So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts Each should pay. And so:



The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).



Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.



"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"



"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"



"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back When I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"



"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get Anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"



The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered Something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!



And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our Tax System works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking Overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



David R Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

University of Georgia



For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

>"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society!" --Theodore Roosevelt



"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under." --Ronald Reagan


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

10000fts two bits,

First, I am a far right conservative who thinks we need a flat tax in this nation and the rich and the "producers" in our society should be able to keep as much of there money as the rest of us. Second I plan and hope to be filthy rich someday.  . I have no problem with rich guys buying tags. There up for sale so they buy them.

I think these conservation groups have increased *A FEW *types of hunting opportunity: sheep, turkeys, goats, bison..... A pat on the back there. Most of those are OIL time hunts so I don't even think to much about those.

Utahs deer and elk......That is a diffrent story, particularly with elk. Wyo2ut hit the nail right on the head at the begining of this thread. Conservation and special interest groups ARE pushing to LIMIT EVEN MORE GERERAL SEASON OPPORTUNITY to creat more LE type hunting. Utahs LE elk v.s. Utahs general season any bull elk is already way out of wake. I can't remember who said "take a poll who wants to get rid of LE"...that is stupid, I don't thinks anyone on this forum has in all seriousnes advocated that just some more balance would be nice.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Utahs deer and elk......That is a diffrent story, particularly with elk. Wyo2ut hit the nail right on the head at the begining of this thread. Conservation and special interest groups ARE pushing to LIMIT EVEN MORE GERERAL SEASON OPPORTUNITY to creat more LE type hunting. Utahs LE elk v.s. Utahs general season any bull elk is already way out of wake. I can't remember who said "take a poll who wants to get rid of LE"...that is stupid, I don't thinks anyone on this forum has in all seriousnes advocated that just some more balance would be nice.


We have discussed this before :roll: :roll:

The LE units that we have right now will NEVER become General Season units again. What need to do is increase the opportunity to hunt LE bull elk which is why I400 was born.

The DWR tried to make one of the worse LE elk units (Oak Creek) a general season unit and it was shot down in a very big way. Many phone calls were made to Rac and wildlife board members, a petition was signed and handed to Rac and wildlife board members because these people DID NOT want that unit turned into General Season.

We have over 30,000 General season tags issued and only over 2,000 LE tags issued. We need to double the LE tags for starters.

10,000ft if you made like the Wasatch general season the elk herd would be history. Landowners/CWMU who receive ELK tags would be upset and many would either run the elk on their lands or sell their land to the highest developer and we would lose a lot of precious habitat. We don't want this to happen. We need to keep the landowners happy who are feeding our elk and deer and we are paying them back with tags that can be sold for a very good price. We need tags to be sold for thousands of dollars because it benefits our deer and elk herds in Utah.

I thinks its awesome these tags sold as high as they did  Maybe we will great MORE records next year and I hope we do.


----------



## COOPERD (Sep 16, 2007)

I havent searched real hard, but does anyone have any info. if the school trust lands in Tabiona ended up being bought last year with the money last years expo made? Also where is the link to see where last years money was spent. I was unable to go this year thanks to mother nature and all of her snow.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

One of the best posts I have read in a long time Elk22, Thanks!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> One of the best posts I have read in a long time Elk22, Thanks!


You actually read that!?

Wow, I had better things to do, like rearange my sock drawer.

SFW, LE hunts, Good, Bad, Evil, Benevolent.......

A lot has been said here about the PROs and CONs but one fact remains the same in the midst of all this bickering. What specical intrest groups have done to this state, god or bad, has created more animals yet less opportunity. We've never had this many and bigger elk in our states history. But each year less and less of it is enjoyed by "Jonny Punchclock"
Utah is *WAY* to stingy and greedy with their elk tags and harvest numbers. Each year there are dozens of 380+ inch bulls dying of old age. Those are lost opportunities, a resource wasted. Why?

Keep going like we are, and keep the common man, the man the *FUELS* the hunting economy out of the picture, and hunting is *doomed!*


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

But, do they still get free beer?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Tex, now you are talking two different things. One is conservation groups raising money, selling tags, and donating for the betterment of our sport. The other is touching on the management of herds and tags. With the very little knowledge I have on the subject I have to agree that more tags could be allocated in most units. It would be nice to give more hunters oppurtunities expecially if it is true that old age bulls are passing on by natural causes, lets hunt those big boys!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Next month is the RAC meeting that will discuss tag allotments. I CHALLENGE all to get out and "vote" for issuing more tags on the LE units. If we have a lot of people at the meetings asking for it, then the wildlife board will accomodate the request, and allow the DWR to issue more tags. Everyone knows it needs to be done. Get out and "ROCK THE VOTE".


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

EPEK said:


> But, do they still get free beer?


You know I love obscure humor, but hy head's a rock in the river on this one... :?:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good post suave300. I expect all those saying they don't issue enough tags to be at the RAC's voicing their concerns. _(O)_


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Coyote


> We have over 30,000 General season tags issued and only over 2,000 LE tags issued.


Yeah 15 times as many tags are given to general season (that is counting spike only) but well over half of utahs huntable MATURE bulls and huntable terrain can only be hunted by thoes 2,000 LE tag holders. The way I understand the draw system and yes, I know we all want to add more tags, but even at that, max points continue to climb year after year (and will, even if we raise tag numbers) why doesn't the DWR and all of us quit fooling ourselves and just change the name from LE to OIL? That is sad, I don't know exact figures but what, 50-80% of Utahs any bull elk are OIL! :|


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

10000', I do not care what you call it..............All I know is that one day, I am going to have a tag of a lifetime! Something that would have cost me a small fortune to buy but if I am patient, is going to be given to me for a mere chicken scratch.

You also make it sound like I have nothing to do as I wait for that OIL tag that we call LE. I get to hunt every year on the same hunt that you want more of.

You sound like the kid that wants access to ALL of his bank account and he has parents that are helping him save some money because one day he will need it or want it and he will be thankful then. You are a money guy. You should understand about frivilous spending will get you no where. All we are doing is putting aside some of our animals in a savings account. They are bringing in a high rate of return. One day I will cash in on it. The coolest part is that I wont spend it all then either. I will save some for my kids and grandkids college fund. There inheritance is going to be awesome!

Sorry to quote myself but this is the best part of the tax analogy that I posted.



elk22hunter said:


> For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
> 
> For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible


I feel as though I am beating my head against the wall. OVER and OVER again. O|* O|* O|*


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> You sound like the kid that wants access to ALL of his bank account and he has parents that are helping him save some money


That might be part of the problem, I did have access to ALL (one) my bank accounts and from the time I was 12 to when I left on my mission I had bought my own car, gas and insurance, paid for a semester of college and had about $5,000 in a mutual fund. I was never forced to save but was taught the benefits of saving and was expected to pay for certain things on my own.

Don't get me wrong I'm not against all LE hunting, I put in each year like everyone else and atleast enjoy my Northern general season deer and elk tags each year. The day I can't do that is when I will become real pasionate about standing up against LE hunting. Elk22, PRO, Yote...I respect and like all you guys but will (for now) just have to agree to disagree with you. As hunters numbers continue to decline and YEARLY opportunites continue to be reduced I'm sure you'll come around to seeing the value of general season hunts. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > You sound like the kid that wants access to ALL of his bank account and he has parents that are helping him save some money
> 
> 
> That might be part of the problem, I did have access to ALL (one) my bank accounts and from the time I was 12 to when I left on my mission I had bought my own car, gas and insurance, paid for a semester of college and had about $5,000 in a mutual fund. I was never forced to save but was taught the benefits of saving and was expected to pay for certain things on my own.
> ...


I expect comments like this from others, but not you. Every year LE tags INCREASE and otc tags haven't decreased in years, except when needed for herd health.

I'll be hunting deer on a general season archery tag in 2008, but that won't change my view on the positives of the LE program. I have been fighting for tag increases in greater numbers than the current trend for a while now, and I will continue to do so. I also believe most of the conservation groups are in favor of tag increases as well.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Yearly opportunities (General season) may have not decreased in very recent years PRO but I'm looking at the bigger picture. Let me clarify something, I have no beef with SFW, I don't know much about the organization other than they raise a lot of money and do a lot of good things for habitat and Utahs wildlife. However (correct me if I'm wrong) aren't they and other conservation groups lobbying for making some of Utahs current general season deer hunts into more LE type hunts? Lets shoot straight here PRO and if I'm wrong in my statement I will eat crow. 

You also have to understand that I don't consider taking 5,000 general season hunters off a mountain and putting them on a mountain that already had 5,000 hunters making it now a total of 10,000 hunters on one mountain instead of two, "maintaining opportunity".


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Yearly opportunities (General season) may have not decreased in very recent years PRO but I'm looking at the bigger picture. Let me clarify something, I have no beef with SFW, I don't know much about the organization other than they raise a lot of money and do a lot of good things for habitat and Utahs wildlife. However (correct me if I'm wrong) aren't they and other conservation groups lobbying for making some of Utahs current general season deer hunts into more LE type hunts? Lets shoot straight here PRO and if I'm wrong in my statement I will eat crow.
> 
> You also have to understand that I don't consider taking 5,000 general season hunters off a mountain and putting them on a mountain that already had 5,000 hunters making it now a total of 10,000 hunters on one mountain instead of two, "maintaining opportunity".


I am unaware of any 'lobbying' for more LE type deer hunts by SFW. What has happened is MEMBERS of SFW have asked SFW to look at how many people would favor such a program, that is different than 'lobbying', it is looking at issues brought up by the members. It would be bad policy for SFW to ignore the wishes of their members w/o looking into their concerns/desires.

Give me an example where we have taken 5000 hunters off of one mountain and put them on another that already had 5000 hunters, making 10,000 hunters on one mountain. I honestly can't thing of any such situation.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Lobbying or not PRO the movement to expand LE units by reducing general season opportunity is alive and well. Did you or Elk22 or anyone else ever think the day will come when you can't hunt deer or elk (not even with a bow) in a certain year. I know some of you have "filled your cantine" and are fine with just hunting with your kids but do you think the day will come when you have been trying to get your kids to get excited about bow hunting and you get your draw results back and nobody in yor whole family even drew a stupid Northern general season bow tag that year. 

The example with 5,000 hunters was not using actual figures or numbers but more making a point. You asked for an example, I may be a bit out of touch on I-400 as I know you are continualy modifying and addressing concerns but at one point there was talk of taking all the GS spike tags and putting them in with other spike units to not reduce the total number of GS tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

If the demand for "Expanding LE units" is there, shouldn't there be a "movement" for it? Should we manage for 'your' type of hunting only, or should we manage for multiple hunting types?

I know you know better than that on I400. You are smarter than that. :?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

You abandoned the other post about the millions from Huntsman from last year's expo and never answered Gallick - was that his name? You going to go answer that or just exist in the "right?"

Elk- Snopes is a great site to check up on garbage email like you posted earlier.

http://snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

I'm not really against using tags to highest bidders to a degree. Not in the hundreds, maybe in the tens. The statewide buck rarely comes from a limited entry anyway. And the fact that SFW or others are holding the auctions doesn't dictate that the same thing wouldn't happen without them. Even if they have been instrumental, a valued service doesn't need government subsidies- cut the apron strings and use your influence, membership, personal resources, and mission statements to get things done. Not those that belong to others. The div has no right to play business. Opening limiteds would be fantastic. Quality in all of them would go down while quality EVERYWHERE else would rise. Gauranteed. Only in degrees, of course, but it takes us back to actual hunting. It is simple consequences from supply and demand. Let's move towards hunting animals, not tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You make no sense, no surprise. I could continue to answer the same BS over and over, but if you didn't get it the first 20 times, I doubt you'll get it now. It takes MONEY to manage wildlife in todays world, like it or not!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

You know I will be the first to admit that I am somewhat naive when it comes to wildlife management but I find it funny when those involved with conservation groups....ect. insist that today is so much diffrent and that manageing wildlife takes *millions more *dollars to manage now than it did 10-20-30 years ago.

Yes, habitat is being developed but shouldn't the loss of habitat just bring our herd numbers down?

Nobody wants herd numbers to go down but hasn't the number of hunters also declined?

You really believe hunting would cease to be if we did it exactly how we did 20 years ago? It kind of reminds me of government programs that we used to not have but now "we can not live out".


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, here is where you bailed from the other post 
http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3688&start=60


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Elk- Snopes is a great site to check up on garbage email like you posted earlier.


Steepndeep whether that was the original author or not the analogy is a great tax rebate analogy. I just find like most analogies it is not something you can just overlay on a completley diffrent and complex issue.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Now you don't need to always play nice. People should be held accountable for spamming their friends and especially fellow sportsmen with stuff that "Professor X" has endorsed.  . And the Snopes reference is also just a public service kind of thing for those who have thought about sending money to the deposed royalty of Nigeria. Do they have SFW there? :mrgreen: 

Anyway, these guys like their facts. That's why I am bothering Pro about the 2 Mill Gov Huntsman wrote the check for for the Sitla land. I didn't know this stuff, but Pro started me down that path and I am still looking for clarity. Galleck made this fantastic post that seemed- with others and the articles etc. to sum it up and then whiff- Pro disappeared. As he said- I just don't get it- and still need help.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Elk- Snopes is a great site to check up on garbage email like you posted earlier.
> 
> http://snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp


Someone sent me something funny. I thought that some on here might think it funny also. Are you saying that every time that I recieve an email, I should check out it's author? I guess Steve Martin said it best..............................WELL...........EXUUUUUUUUUUSSSEEEE ME!!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Shame on you 22.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Shame on you 22.


   :mrgreen: :rotfl: -BaHa!- -()/- 
(I can't decide which one fits the best.)


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

10,000 you bring up a lot of good points, but things will never be the way they use to be. Things have changed a lot since the past. Do you ever think for one minute that Pro, Elk22, and I would be in favor of any idea that would decrease opportunity for hunters. OF COURSE NOT!!! Maybe you dont know us that well but like Pro and ELK22 have said they want the future of hunting to be great for their kids therefore they arent in favor of anything that decreases hunting opportunities.

10,000 yes the time is coming that you wont get a tag every year because we dont have enough tags for the amount of people that apply for them. You would probably say well lets just make everything be general season units, but that is your style of hunting and not everyone wants your style of hunting. There is a lot of hunters that love to put in and draw limited entry units and they are willing to wait to get that chance of a lifetime. The problem that we should be talking about is how do we increase the amount of LE tags? We know we have more than enough bulls and many need to be taken out of the herd.

What would happen if we increased habitat on 50% of the LE units for our mule deer? We would have more mule deer. We could give out a lot more tags so that many more hunters could have a hunt of a lifetime and even draw more often.

Conservation groups are awesome because they are doing on the dirty work to make things better for us, but we shouldn't sit back and nothing and watch them do all the work. HUNTERS NEED TO GET INVOLVED!!! OUR FUTURE HUNTERS DEPEND ON US TO LEAVE THEM A LEGACY THAT WE ARE ENJOYING RIGHT NOW!!


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Down in Monroe they use a different kind of math. I would never want my kids going to that school.


Whoaaaaaaaaa there CS.......PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not lump all of us in Monroe into the same catagory!!!!!!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Not all of us are THIS CRAZY!    :roll: :roll:

There are some good people in Monroe too.............. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Elk, that thing has been around since 2002, which without the two 00's, it would be 22.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Whoaaaaaaaaa there CS.......PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not lump all of us in Monroe into the same catagory!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Not all of us are THIS CRAZY!
> 
> There are some good people in Monroe too..............


Sorry Fishlakehunter, your one of the smart ones.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Was gonna type a response.... screw it.... carry on 10000, steepndeep, feel free to pile back in wyo2 packout.

I find it hysterical that all of the good CONSERVATIVE BOY'S on this board are more than happy to accept a SUBSIDY.


----------



## TRDHUNTER (Sep 11, 2007)

So 150,000 for elk, 187,00 for deer, 85,00 twice for bighorn sheep. How much of this will go to the dwr? Or does it all go to the group that auctioned it to use for their own projects? Just curious. If all of this money goes toward wildlife then it is a great thing. If the money is going towards certain groups to buy private property and keep it private for certain members to enjoy then the money is being wasted.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> I find it hysterical that all of the good CONSERVATIVE BOY'S on this board are more than happy to accept a SUBSIDY.


I find it hysterical that you are a member of every club in the nation including the MDF that sold the tag that we are talking about.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Wapati wrote I find it hysterical that all of the good CONSERVATIVE BOY'S on this board are more than happy to accept a SUBSIDY.
> 
> I find it hysterical that you are a member of every club in the nation including the MDF that sold the tag that we are talking about.


Now that is funny to talk smack about a group that you support. You either support them or you don't. Thats the bottomline.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> You would probably say well lets just make everything be *general season units*, but that is *your style of hunting *and not everyone wants your style of hunting. There is *a lot of hunters that love to put in and draw limited entry units* and they are *willing to wait *to get that chance of a lifetime. The problem that we should be talking about is how do we increase the amount of LE tags?


The problem is this, these hunters are willing to wait because they can hunt the general season for 15 years while waiting. Infact they are willing to expand LE units and reduce general season opportunity to cut down on their wait even if it means only being able to hunt the general season every other year.

Tell me who's style is being disregarded? My *style* is I want to hunt *every year*. If some peoples "style" is to hunt areas that limit hunters to produce an over abundance of trophy animals then they truley need to be *"willing to wait"* and sit out of the general season while aquireing points.

Hunters shouldn't have to choose one or the other but at least years they are applying for LE they should not be able to get a GS tag. Imagine how this would inprove the wait on LE and improve the GS hunts.

Does anyone have a little icon of a smily beating a cat?


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I agree 10000. If you choose to hunt LE, you should have to wait not get both.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> 10,000 yes the time is coming that you wont get a tag every year because *we dont have enough tags for the amount of people that apply* for them.


Why? We have fewer hunters. What has changed? *Total tag #s over the years have been reduced for LE hunting.*

Lets really analize this statement, are hunters ready to not get a GS tag every year. Is everyone OK with every other year?

So what is the reason with with hunters declineing, elk herds growing and deer herds always going up and down?

Sorry I keep going off on this and I know you guys "want to preserve hunting for your kids" but I don't think you see the damage you are doing by not ENSURING your kids will be able to by AT LEAST a GS tag every year. I know I would not have stayed interested in hunting when I started if I was only carrying a tag ever other year or 1 every three years.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

O|*


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

I promised myself not to waste time on an internet forum today. So I only browsed the first few post. However, I will weigh in. Many times Wyo2Ut and I are on opposite sides of a debate. I just want to applaud him on his first few posts in this thread. The long term consequences and short term effects have never been so clearly defined. Any of you who can't understand supply and demand need to review economics 101. Now I agree that as Americans we have a right and opportunity to earn and spend to the best of our wants, needs and abilities. Kudo's to those who have put them self in position to do such. However, the dividing line here is what belongs to the public and what is private. Let us look at a public resource other than wildlife. Where would we be if Teddy Roosevelt had not defined land conservation. What if all lands were allowed to be sold to the highest bidder, how many of you would be hunting?
No one pays $$$$$ five figures or more for an opportunity, they pay for a score. How do we create a supply for the score - we decrease opportunity so a lot of animals survive to maturity and their maximum potential. Limit Supply (tags) Increase Demand ($$$$$) Yes Utah hunters lose thousands of tags every year in order to insure new $$$$$ records and it is the beginning to the end or the start of the Kings Deer. Anyone that has spent time/hunted in Europe will attest to the similarities. Of course the European system does have a lot of room for servants/ guides/trackers/pluckers etc. just don't plan on pulling the trigger. 
Pro, I respect you. However this is where you decide which side of the fence you are on, no one can balance forever. High Dollar tags, Extreme Limited Opportunity, Out of Whack Ratios all lead to lost opportunity/tags. Very seldom do we ever regain lost ground or opportunity so do we take a stand as Teddy Roosevelt did and reverse the selling of a 
public resource to the highest bidder. Or do we insure that your kids grandkids only hunt if they have taken advantage of the American Dream. I400 does not last unless we reverse the trend, because soon those wanting more will pay for it. The question is will you be able to pay also.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

OK, I will try and be more understanding. (I hope that you can do the same)

I started a thread about a deer tag that was sold for major amounts of money. I am impressed that Utah has deer worthy of that figure and am impressed that people have enough money to spend that much on a tag. Enough said about that.

I personally get tired of signing on to the forum to see that the last post was by Wyo2ut, or 10000 feet. I KNOW before I read them that they are going to be either derogotory or for opportunity vs. trophy. Can't you guys have any fun? We are not going to change the world on this stupid forum. It is mostly for entertainment in my oppinion. I call it stupid because I am stupid enough to bite off on this and comment when I should keep my mouth shut. 

Nobody is trying to take away your opportunity. There may come a day when we can't produce enough deer for the demand and it goes to every other year or draw only. Some states are in that boat already and survive. Hunting and opportunity is NOT about DEER only. I am already in a every few years type mode. I do get to archery hunt every year as a dedicated hunter and have the "opportunity" to kill big bucks. I would just as soon sit at home and watch reruns of Leave it to Beaver (that comment is for Idiot with a bow) than go on a deer hunt that was for only two points and spikes. If there is not a chance at something big then that is not hunting to me. I on the other hand will go Coyote hunting, rabbit hunting, or mouse hunting rather than go tromp all over the mountain to see 100 deer and 1 or 2 were legal bucks (spike or two point). If I didn't draw on a certain year then I would rather just go to the field with my camera and video or still shot big animals, the ones that are TRUE represntatives of the species. I am sorry but I see your lips moving and all I hear is Waah, Waah, Waah. 

Times change and we need to adjust. You are not the only hunters out there. It's not all about you and you getting to hunt deer every year. I hope that you can hunt every year but to keep crying about the LE guys get all the breaks is a bit tyring. There is a bunch of LE units. There is also a bunch of GS area. It IS balanced. Just keep your arms and legs inside at all times and ENJOY THE RIDE!


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> do we take a stand as Teddy Roosevelt did and reverse the selling of a
> public resource to the highest bidder. Or do we insure that your kids grandkids only hunt if they have taken advantage of the American Dream.


This is where the tree is getting in the way of seeing the forest.

We arent selling our resource. If we were doing that then we would be selling every tag for high dollars and the DWR would be rolling in the money. We on the other hand would have nothing to hunt unless we were rich. WE DON'T DO THAT!

We sell one tag for a lot of money. That tag turns into more habitat and programs that in turn create more animals that means more tags for the pesants. (ME)

Step back a few steps and see if you can see the entire forest. It's right in front of you.

By the way I noticed that the first page of this thread was very good and friendly. It was about the topic. Someone turned it sour and it's been a slug fest (like all of the others) with all of the same guys who continually turn it into one. I am done with this thread unless it is about how amazing it is that someone would or could spend that kind of money on a tag!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Shame on you 22.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)




----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

I don't want to sound arrogant. However, I can't understand the mentality of staying home because I believe I will not meet my expectations. Otherwise you have planned to fail. Everyday I go hunting I go with the anticiaption of the hunt, not to get a specific class of deer or elk or duck. I go because I want to take in all the hunt has to offer, many of my best hunts never involve a kill. I realize I am in a blessed situation I hunt any where from 80 - 100 days a year in many different states. Although I have shot dozens of big game animals it is still the hunt (opportunity) that motivates me not the kill. I feel sorry for those of you that are motivated by the score of a kill as you are missing out the best mother nature has to offer. I view once I decide to pull the trigger I have one the game, but playing the game is where the satisfaction comes from and losing more often than not has made me a better person. 
Why as parents do we get more pleasure out of watching a little league game over a pro game? Yet there seems to be a push to turn hunting into a proffesional sport.
Some of you have said that hunters are decreasing/increasing and hunter numbers are supply. This could not be further from the truth. The supply is the commodity, the commodity is the wildlife, As supply increases prices fall and participation increases, bought fuel lately? I know I have curtailed unneccesary trips as I can't justify $3.30 per gallon for entertainment. So goes it with borderline hunters as supply falls and price increase they curtail hunting activity, many never introducing the next generation. 
It is not by chance that Utah has the highest resident prices, fewest hunters, and most restrictive seasons in the western United States. I am pretty convinced why, as it was not always that way. What changed or happened in the last 10 - 15 years. As far as sheep hunts, 400 class bulls, etc. they have never been intended as a hunt for the populus, yes a few carrots are thrown each year to justify the end. However, the end is to increase hunting opportunity for the affluent, How many of you will ever take adavantage of these situations. Maybe once in a lifetime. My best friend sometimes laughs as I have waited in line for a Utah LE elk permit, when I could step to the front of the line and buy one. Some of you have referred to deer feeding as domesticating wildlfie, I would counterpoint is that not what auctioning them off has become. No would pay $$$$$ in a bid without some surety that they were not buying blue sky.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Mulepacker, It's funny how you think that "we" are so different than you.



mulepacker said:


> Everyday I go hunting I go with the anticiaption of the hunt, not to get a specific class of deer or elk or duck. I go because I want to take in all the hunt has to offer, many of my best hunts never involve a kill. I realize I am in a blessed situation I hunt any where from 80 - 100 days a year in many different states. Although I have shot dozens of big game animals it is still the hunt (opportunity) that motivates me not the kill. I feel sorry for those of you that are motivated by the score of a kill as you are missing out the best mother nature has to offer. I view once I decide to pull the trigger I have one the game, but playing the game is where the satisfaction comes from and losing more often than not has made me a better person.


I have the same sentiments. But, I don't kill just because its a trophy. I have'nt shot a deer in a few years as well, because I just love everything that the hunt has to offer as well. It's not about the kill for us either. But, if we are going to kill something, it might as well be an older class buck that is big as well. Shooting small two points is not that fun. I have many times let things go because, like you, the hunt is now over and it's depressing. I feel that being in the woods hunting, is kind of spiritual for me. It is being there that is really humbling and makes you really feel that there is a God. There is no other place better to be, than in the woods, especially when you can have loved ones experience it with you.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Tell me who's style is being disregarded? My style is I want to hunt every year. If some peoples "style" is to hunt areas that limit hunters to produce an over abundance of trophy animals then they truley need to be "willing to wait" and sit out of the general season while aquireing points.


The day is coming that you WONT be able to hunt deer every year because we can't issue out enough tags for all the hunters. Elk 22 said you can also hunt coyotes, fox, upland game, maybe WOLVES etc. The sooner you come to reality and realize this the better off you might be. Its hard to shallow, but its true and with the heavy snowfall. I bet the annuals counts will be lower than last year. Hence less tags.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Mulepacker excelent posts!



> I would just as soon sit at home and watch reruns of Leave it to Beaver (that comment is for Idiot with a bow) than go on a deer hunt that was for only two points and spikes. If there is not a chance at something big then that is not hunting to me.


Elk22 you are at a very diffrent stage of life than myself both in age and experience. Even though current hunting trends don't effect how you enjoy to hunt I hope you can appreciate that there are thousands out there who see the places they hunt and how often they hunt being threatened.

I don't mean to come across as "derogotory" and I hope I'm not looked at as the "UWN thread pooper". I wish I was as witty and funny as so many on here then I could post on th "poop" thread and other light hearted topics but I'm not. I enjoy talk radio, politics, debateing, discussing issues......I hope I always do that in the appropriate threads on this forum but even at that I will try to lighten up a bit.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

Suave,

I think you got the wrong message. I was replying to the point of staying home because there are only 2 points. Each year I pass a number of sub 170 deer. 2007 I passed 3 bucks in one day that would easily score 170+, hindsight I should have taken one of them. I have shot very few deer since 1995, however 3 have qualified for all time record books but. I believe I understand the want and need to shoot trophies, so you are right I am like you. However, as a twelve year old I was not like I am now through my late teens and early twenties I again was in a differrent phase. Both which focused on my kills, I do not beleive I was much different than most young hunters. Hunting occasionally or seldom killing does not satisfy the need during these years. I may be happy with one 350 bull or 185 buck every ten years. However few young hunters will continue to participate under those conditions. Have you ever wondered why most poaching events are committed by individuals less than 21 years old?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

22 I apologize for being so negative. It is not like me to be that way and very few things set me off like this subject does. 

As far as my affiliations with certain groups only one is currently marketing tags at this time
and believe me they hear my opinion on these tags every chance I get to give it to them.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

So far this thread has been just like all the other ones that have been hashed out. It is funny, I think elk22 mentioned it, this thread was talking about something completly different than what it is now. I do agree with one thing that has been said. I do think that if you put in for a LE hunt you should have to wait out that year if you didn't draw. It makes since to me. I am not saying we need to do away with LE hunts. If I could afford it, and it was more of a priority to me I would put in for those hunts every year. I couldn't really afford it though if I drew out. I like the experience of going to general season spots, I dont kill 2 points. I basically am looking for trophies, just in a different unit.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Elk22 you are at a very diffrent stage of life than myself both in age and experience.


Exactly.......................Our curent system gives BOTH of us the things that we want. Lets just try and not be stingy to think that we need to take something away from the other and by the way Can you believe that someone paid 187 thousand dollars for a deer tag? (that makes me a non-liar)


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Seriously, what would you suspect a guy to make a year that could spend money like that on a deer tag? How many Karl Malones are out there?!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

That is a lot of sweet money going to habitat.  They must make a ton of money a year to spend that kind of money. One great deer hunt and how many deer will benefit from a guy harvesting a $187,000 dollar deer? How many hunters will benefit from that guy's single donation?


----------



## 4x4 Bronco (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Seriously, what would you suspect a guy to make a year that could spend money like that on a deer tag? How many Karl Malones are out there?!


There must be a lot of them out there from my observations of all the million dollar homes sitting right on the mountains. It amazes me that there is that much money out there. I just wish I could get my hands on a small portion of it :wink: .


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

4x4 Bronco said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, what would you suspect a guy to make a year that could spend money like that on a deer tag? How many Karl Malones are out there?!
> ...


You can, just learn what they know and there you go. _(O)_ The Founding Fathers set up the blue print for wealth, all you need to do is learn what these *"true capitalists"* knew and taught, and you to can 'afford' these houses/tags.


----------



## 4x4 Bronco (Sep 7, 2007)

.[/quote]You can, just learn what they know and there you go. _(O)_ The Founding Fathers set up the blue print for wealth, all you need to do is learn what these *"true capitalists"* knew and taught, and you to can 'afford' these houses/tags.[/quote]

I don't care much for the homes, but I wouldn't complain too much about having the tags  .


----------

