# DWR Influence



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Would you support a group that was heavily influenced by the DWR. Even if the group or DWR were not forth coming about the involvement?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Would you support a group that was heavily influenced by the DWR. Even if the group or DWR were not forth coming about the involvement?


That would be everyone who buys a license, stamp, or permit from the DWR.!! And, yes, I would (and do) support them! Now, if the situation were reversed, (well, sort of) I would not (and do not) support the group (SFW)!!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Come on lets have one freaking discussion with out the SFW being the focus. That answer made me laugh. To believe that everyone buying a tag is part of group supporting the DWR cracks me up.?

But for real, lets hear what you think about another group?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Care to be a bit more specific?



Muley73 said:


> Would you support a group that was heavily influenced by the DWR.


Obviously, you aren't talking about the Wildlife board. They aren't influenced by the DWR one bit!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Catherder said:


> *Care to be a bit more specific?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DITTO that.

What kind of group are you talking about?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Come on lets have one freaking discussion with out the SFW being the focus. That answer made me laugh. To believe that everyone buying a tag is part of group supporting the DWR cracks me up.?
> 
> But for real, lets hear what you think about another group?


Sorry about the SFW remark/joke. Not sorry about the everyone buying a tag group remark/joke, 'cause the whole post was too vague and secretive to be able to form an opinion! It reminds me of the "I like you. Do you like me" love notes passed by friends in the 4th grade! What group? Influenced in what way? And by what method? And is the influence intentional? DWR, Wildlife Board, or just someone who works there? Is the relationship intentionally kept secret or is it just considered of no consequence? And how does that affect DWR policy?

Give me some details and I'll tell you what I think, as if it makes any difference.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Do tell more Muley----


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Would you support a group that was heavily influenced by the DWR. Even if the group or DWR were not forth coming about the involvement?


You mean like the United Steel workers of America or The Fraternal Brotherhood of Wildlife Workers for Peanuts?
No! I like to see people who are forthright and out of the closet and not supporting a hidden agenda.
Big


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Yes! But, only if it involves sound management and biological decisions.  

Is that what your looking for?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

horsesma said:


> Yes! But, only if it involves sound management and biological decisions.
> 
> Is that what your looking for?


How crazy can you be?


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

Im the guy that always gave the professionals the benifit of the doubt. Im the guy that always defended the trained , educated biologists and trusted thier expertise. Im the guy sporting Utah licence plates with the pic of the bull elk. Answer to the question, No.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Transparency, then yes.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Thanks for the responses. I was just kind of curious. I have read a lot of posts in the past months saying it should be left to the pros (DWR Biologists). I completely understand this thinking. As long as the pros are actually being transparent with their agendas. I have also read a lot of posts that the State should do what the majority want. It would seem to me that we would run into conflict at times if we tried to do both?

So I guess the question would be if the majority wanted something one way the DWR wanted it another. Which way would you support?

I am asking because many on this site seem amped up to start a new group. One that will listen to the majority and also support the science. Where is the line? Will support for the DWR wilt when they make a decision that is unpopular with the majority? Or will the majority be ignored for the "greater good" and opinions of the pros. Will the opinions of the pros support the "greater good" or try to please the masses? Will leadership of said group support what DWR proposes or what their membership supports? 

Like I said just something I have been thinking about. What if a group gained power and was being influenced by the DWR only? Would that group really have any value to the average hunter?

Just random thoughts.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

To me, the line is easy. When it comes to biology, let the pros make the decisions and support them. When the decision is social, listen to the majority. I don't see it as incomprehensible. 

An easy example is the recent change. When the biologists give the green light to something being a social decision (No net biological implications), they then would be handing the reigns over to the people that will be effected by the decision at hand. It is my belief that in these cases, the decision should be a direct reflection of the wants of those affected. The DWR are stewards of OUR property and are paid by the public to be such. They are trained and experienced in their fields and stand to have a better understanding of the biological end of the spectrum, to which their opinion should carry the most weight. On the flip side, they are but a handful of citizens of the state, so their recommendations in regards to social issues should only reflect the data they have gathered from other citizens. Since they are not sociologists, their opinions carry no more weight than any other.

Of course there should be a composite of interests represented, but the motives of any of these interests should be heavily considered and transparent. 

I understand that politics is about as 180 as the world gets from honesty and transparency, but a little openness and humanity in the leverage and manipulation based system that's been governing things for the past 20 or so years stands to be a positive thing.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
I understand. However I guess then the question is does the DWR always manage with biology? Or do they have agendas that must be addressed (in their eyes) before the biology at times? Are they always tranparent about those agendas?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I confide in the DNR for biological data 100%. They can manage a herd well and their data can direct us for benefits in population and buck to doe ratios. Biologically the biologists have a great agenda and the money that we spend to retrieve their data is a valid expense.. 

The expense is not valid however when it is thrown out the window. 

Our first priority is to allow to DNR to manage our herds for quantity. They can produce a buck to doe ratio with science to the extent that is necessary. What they don't manage for is trophy quality. After our populations and buck to doe ratios reach their necessary objective it is the hunters responsibility and skill that produces the trophies of quality. 

I am not a supporter of breeding and protecting bucks for the purpose of placing them on a dinner plate for the privileged. Backyard 200 inchers protected by a draw system should not exist. The only 200 inchers should be back country bucks that have evaded hunters by merit. Why should we praise professional guides that harvest 200 inchers at the expense of 13000 tags for their private slaughter?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

What about when the DWR throws their own biologists data out the window. Does this still make it a biologically based decision. Please do not tell me that this does not happen. It has happened in the past and I see no reason that it would change going foward. 

If the DWRs goal has been to manage deer for quantity as stated above, why have they failed to the tune of 400,000 lost deer. 

So back to my question, would the average hunter gain from membership in an organization that was being influenced by the DWR. Beyond oppurtunity to buy a tag every year, would there be benifit to supporting such a group?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Tree,
> I understand. However I guess then the question is does the DWR always manage with biology? Or do they have agendas that must be addressed (in their eyes) before the biology at times?


Tree's and Nam's posts are excellent explanations of the way it ought to be. Quantity=Opportunity & Trophies.

For the most part, those on this forum who are interested in forming the group you refer to are in line with the above formula and are willing to do what is necessary to increase the herds. And yes, they view the DWR biologists as the experts in the process for doing that.

Also I've seen no indication that they would or plan on being closed about their agenda or relationships with any organization or group. In fact, quite the opposite, so the secrecy thing isn't an issue.

The problem isn't with the proposed group and the DWR. It's with the DWR and the Wildlife Board. The "they" you refer to in your post are actually two different entities, which is something you don't seem to come to grips with. The DWR can only manage wildlife as directed by the WB. The DWR would prefer to manage wildlife with biology and population as the primary concerns and has said so at every RAC and WB meeting, but the WB apparently prefers to manage wildlife with social and trophy agendas as the primary concerns. And, unfortunately, in the current system, the WB's opinions prevail, even if they are detrimental to the best interests of hunters and/or wildlife. The proposed group wants to legally change that so that the DWR can do what they were hired to do.

As for the declining deer herds, there are too many factors beyond the control of the DWR to blame it all on them. Severe winters, human encroachment into deer habitat, invasive species (cheatgrass), the spread of disease, fire suppression by the Feds, drought and the lose of healthy sagebrush, fragmentation of habitat due to the sale of public land, etc. The DWR can only do so much and it takes time and money to keep up with the increasing challenges. And, unfortunately, the impatience of the general public, hunters, and the Wildlife Board just increases the challenge and adds to the perception that the DWR is failing to do their job. They've increased the turkey, pronghorn, elk, moose, bighorn, and bison populations (there may be others), but they're struggling with sage grouse and mule deer (there may be others), so we think they're screwing things up. And we haven't even talked about fish, small game, waterfowl, bats or chipmunks. C'mon, look at the big picture!

The benefits of supporting such a group would include continued traditional family deer camps, the recruitment of new/youth hunters, a healthy deer herd with more quality bucks, lengthy seasons, opportunities to hunt more areas and more primitive weapon hunters vs rifle hunters. Additionally you could include new friends, good advice and maybe even a party or two!

Oh! And yes, I would support such group.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Tree,
> I understand. However I guess then the question is does the DWR always manage with biology? Or do they have agendas that must be addressed (in their eyes) before the biology at times? Are they always tranparent about those agendas?


For example? I get that you think that the division has based decisions on finances and somewhere along the line has chosen such things over biology. Do you know of such scenarios that you are going to share with us? I've heard your dad talk about past neglect and infer such things as you are saying,. I'm not saying you are up in the night, I just haven't been shown any examples.

If this is happening, who is making the call? What is their motivation?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Just another thread with someone looking for a scapegoat... :roll:


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Just another thread with someone looking for a scapegoat... :roll:


Or just getting a feel for what someone's agenda is all about. Maybe he is having a change of heart and wants to jump on board? :shock:


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Muley73, The title of this post and your original question are very good topics. I went to the meeting that the DNR announced down in Price last night and I received a lot of valuable insight. At the college of Eastern Utah the DNR publicly announced that the decisions (in disregard to biological data) concerning hunting opportunity and regulation are decided by a separate entity called a Wildlife Board. 

I would argue that if the decisions were made by the biologists our numbers would be closer to objective. The Wildlife Board is a separate entity saturated by individuals with an emphasis focused on breeding a few individual deer that will put Utah on the map. These deer are protected until they reach maturity and then distributed to the elite. 

To answer your question directly on what you have to gain... You re-gain a voice to influence the Wildlife Board which controls regulation. Beyond opportunity to buy a tag every year you ensure that hunting does not become a privilege sport reserved for the elite. What do you have to lose? You have already lost 6 hunting days in the general season. You have already lost 13000 tags contrary to biological data. You have lost an opportunity to draw a tag with 10 points. 

In your next post will you consider what you could lose?

P.S. I am yet to be a member of an organization, but I feel a great need for there to be a voice with the stink of onion and garlic in the face of the Wildlife Board after the last 2 years.


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

The pretense of the question is false to begin with. The DWR is a government agency subject to a politically appointed board. It has zero possibility to wield influence on any subject matter. It is simply a whipping boy for every constituent group ever so slightly related to wildlife in our state.

If left to it's own devices it would be like any other government agency. Bent on self perpetuation. Which means maximizing revenue and limiting services.

Every piece of wildlife management is a social issue and can never be left to one group as their self interest would come to the fore. Biology is a nonsensical term when it comes to the concept of wildlife management. It is always framed under some preconception. Those being high buck to doe ratios for the trophy hunter crowd. High primitive weapons opportunity for the stickflippers and muzzleloader crowd. Zero hunting and natural predation for the nutter crowd.

In the end of the day the DWR simply sits in the middle between all the groups and gets pounded from every direction 24/7/365 in it's effort to follow the direction of the wildlife board who follows the direction of the SFW 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

c3 just nailed it to the wall!

Biology NEVER has been an influential part in Utah wildlife management, the chances of
that starting now are not very good.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Well done Pete!!! Spoken like a true conservationist!!! One of the greatest conservationists in Utah's history spoke at Utah State University upon his retirement. He mentioned that wildlife will always flourish under the circumstance that there is always conflict between Non-government organizations and the government. He spend his career moving from wildlife divisions to non-profit orgs for the overall benefit of conservation. It works very similar to the natural order of the boom and bust cycle. 

SFW is not necessarily the enemy. At the moment they are the super power that controls the wildlife board. They have done a lot to improve both quality and quantity and I hope that they exist and increase in direct proportion to their political strength. 

Right now it is time to get on the other side of the teeter totter and return some power to the rabbit cycle. Once our herd is over objective and the buck to doe ratio is up I just may consider joining SFW :shock:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Just another thread with someone looking for a scapegoat... :roll:


I firmly believe that we have enough scapegoats around anymore that the State should start selling tags to harvest them. I'm sure that the increase in revenue could help solve the majority of the world's problems....

....at least until those scapegoats became trophies. Then, we'd limit access to the scapegoat tags and only allow the rich to hunt them. Damnit.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

Very good post on this subject, i agree a little with just about everyone. I know of the group starting and right now i plan on supporting them. I see a need for what they stand for and like Nambaster said "right now it is time to get on the other side of the teeter totter". I feel we do need a group with more transparency that listens more to the Biological side and less to the trophy hunters with the deep pockets. A lot of people have brought up the SFW and i feel they have many great qualities and have done a lot of good for the wildlife. But right now i think they are going against what i think is right (Option 2) and what a large amount of hunters feel should be done.
I feel the WB should not exist and i think in the upcoming years they will have a ruff time justifying their existence. That being said if this new group starts going the way of most groups and starts listening to the money instead of needs and starts hiding the money they do get or starts paying themselves huge salaries, you will lose me and many others. Money does things to people and groups, i just hope this one can stay true, i have high hopes. 

P.S. I have contacted my Political representatives and they have been great to work with and very understanding of my concerns. I recommended you do the same for either side you are on.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Just some random thoughts from me Muley....

First I think a lot of folks confuse "biology" and "social" issues. Wanting to hunt BIGGER BUCKS is not a biologicial issue. Biological facts should really have little to do with that discussion. They seem to make their way into the discussion to support either sides views but that's simply a social issue.

The reason why folks say "leave it to the pro's" is this. Going back to the above paragraph you have folks with a social agenda....that's ok but rather than just say, "I want to hunt bigger bucks" they say, "deer numbers are plummeting" or "buck to does ratios are way down" or "with my half baked idea of the week we can dramatically increase deer herds". When you point out the numbers to folks that show that they are not exactly correct they respond with discrediting everything the division does (studies too) and says that either some sort of conspiracy theory exists within the division or they simply say the division is wrong and don't have a clue. They have no numbers to support their biological argument so they move to discredit the divisions...with no evidence mind you other than what they see on the back of a snowmobile or while driving a canyon. 

So in conclusion I say, "leave the biology to the pro's." As far as social issues go let's ALL be up front about our agenda's and work towards a system that caters to all types of hunters. I will say though we have general units and LE units so that mix is already in place.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> c3 just nailed it to the wall!
> 
> Biology NEVER has been an influential part in Utah wildlife management, the chances of
> that starting now are not very good.


Sorry bud but you're way off on this one. Biology has not ever played a major role in HUNTER management...that much is true. But hunter management and widlife management are two completely different things.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

This actually turned into a pretty good thread. :shock: A few random thoughts.

1.


c3hammer said:


> Biology is a nonsensical term when it comes to the concept of wildlife management.





goofy elk said:


> Biology NEVER has been an influential part in Utah wildlife management,


While you do have a legitimate point that that ALL wildlife legislation is entangled with social considerations, to say that the biologists/biology are a minimal to non factor is not quite right either IMO. Why hire and have agency biologists at all if they ultimately aren't doing anything productive? I would say at minimum that the agency biologists job is to provide data to contradict the unreasonable demands of the vocal minority when a policy decision is to be made. I suppose that I have a possibly naive belief that their work actually can result in improved fishing and hunting as well.

2.


wyoming2utah said:


> Just another thread with someone looking for a scapegoat... :roll:


I think that you and your bro are angling that the DWR is the scapegoat to which you refer. (and heaven knows that it is *THE* scapegoat to many) However, since it can be fairly said that the DWR is powerless to enact its own rules without the consent of the wildlife board, that the Wildlife board is also blamable for any wildlife related policy failures. AND since many feel that the WB is bought and paid for by SFW, then SFW can be blamable for anything too. PBH is right. There are plenty of scapegoats to go around, and surprisingly, there is a grain of truth in each designation.

3. This discussion (and several others we have recently had) seems to boil down to this. *How do you want the government to structure our wildlife management? * Most people presume that the DWR makes the laws themselves, based on internally derived information. Recent events show this not to be the case. Do we want a subservient DWR that is at the beck and call of (potentially corruptible) outside political appointees of the wildlife board? (like now) Or do we want an internally powerful DWR that makes its own rules with possibly looser legislative oversight (and risk of bureaucratic arrogance)? Or maybe a combination of the two where there is still an independent oversight from a wildlife board, but the DWR has an important voice in that board with checks and balances?

4.


Nambaster said:


> One of the greatest conservationists in Utah's history spoke at Utah State University upon his retirement.


Who was this? Just curious.


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> Sorry bud but you're way off on this one. Biology has not ever played a major role in HUNTER management...that much is true. But hunter management and widlife management are two completely different things.


I don't believe this is true as the only real tool the DWR has in wildlife management is who or what keeps the different species in check.

Carrying capacity for any species is determined nearly exclusively by winter range which is mostly private ground in this state. Thus the need for such extensive depredation, antlerless and landowner permits. All of these are effectively forms of hunter management as well.

Other tools at the DWR's disposal, like habitat improvement, highway fencing and predator control are all negligable relative to hunter management.

There's no such thing as wildlife management that is not almost exclusively the domain of controling the who and how many.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

c3hammer said:


> Other tools at the DWR's disposal, like habitat improvement, highway fencing and predator control are all negligable relative to hunter management.
> 
> There's no such thing as wildlife management that is not almost exclusively the domain of controling the who and how many.
> 
> ...


Hmmm.....I guess agree to disagree. If habitat improvement, fencing projects (that include wildlife passages), predator control, supplemental feedings, controlled burns, using wildlife friendly fencing, using other tools to alert drivers of wildlife presence, managing free ranging livestock, managing diseases like CWD aren't considered biologically based widlife management tools that are mutually exclusive from hunter management then I don't what they are. Are these tools considered forest management? Do they have little impact on herds numbers?

I think one could argue....quite successfully....that these tools do much more for deer herds than any hunter management plan and are mostly biologically based.

In fact I feel that hunting is the payoff to a good wildlife management plan, not the plan itself. The only reason for a good hunter management plan is to restrict over harvest depending on what type of animal you want to be able to readily harvest. But hunters actually hunting don't do much at all of actually benefiting deer herds, exception being if herds are over carrying capacity.

Sure some of the tools I mentioned are not under the domain of the DWR per se but they certainly give a biological prespective to what will and will not work.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I was about to reply, Cody, but I remember that you put me on your naughty list. -_O- -_O- -_O- -8/-


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

Sorry to get sidetracked here a bit Muley73, but I think it goes with the discussion at hand.

Bullsnot, this is an interesting discussion and one that requires some history to go into fully.

Originally fish and game departments and wildlife conservation in general were based on protecting game from complete decimation by professional hunting around the turn of the century. A great read on the history of game management in Idaho is Ryan Hatfields "Idaho's Greatest Elk" (http://www.idahobiggame.com/books/idahos-greatest-elk/) It has a great synopsis of how game management began up there and is one of the best reads if you are really into elk.

Historically game management isn't what made for increased wildlife, but what protects wildlife from us, the hunter. Originally wildlife divisions were set up to protect the game from the hunter. Nowadays game management is about the balance between the constituents who want to use the resource that was so well protected so many years ago and continues to this day.

Game management doesn't grow deer herds. I'll suspect that the percentage of the DWR's budget that goes directly toward improving game herds is less than 5%. The bulk of the budget and effort for game departments is based around hunter management to protect the game from us.

I'm not going to say dirt projects are not useful, but that they impact the herd orders of magnitude less than depredation, antlerless and quality/opportunity hunting does.

I guess that's agreeing to disagree, but wildlife management is much about us, the ultimate predator and very little about the game its self and always has been.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Pete,

Thanks for the link. I'll be sure to read it fully when I get a chance. Likewise you should check out Dennis Austin's book "Mule Deer: A handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners". He goes into great detail about Utah's humble beginnings.

I would certainly agree with you that game mangement started out simply as a way to prevent complete decimation. In fact in 1908 Utah closed mule deer hunting for 6 years. In 1913 the first Utah "buck only" law was passed. But in 1933 and 1934 something changed....The board of big game control was established and antlerless tags were issued in an attempt to balance deer herds with their available winter forage. Sure hunting was the only tool they used but game management was born. In 1937 the Mule Deer Resaerch Management area was purchased near USU and was used to study mule deer.

Over the decades since that time big game-livestock relaionships were studied. Summer and winter range requirements were studied. Systematic collection of range trend data and analysis was initiated. Grazing guidelines were developed. Methods for revegetating winter ranges were established and put into practice. The division published limiting range factors. The "Oak Creek Mule Deer Herd in Utah" written by Robinette et al was published and was considered a major information source for mule deer biology and population dynamics. Land aquisition for saving winter lands occured. Weather studies and UDOT studies intitiated. Declining range conditions recognized and addressed. Predators were poisoned. 

We don't really think Utah went from having hardly any mule deer when the settlers arrived to having 450,000+ without lots of human intervention do we? I just can't see that happening on its own. 

So I very much agree that in the beginning only hunter management was used. But since then there has been a ton of evolution in wildlife management. Now hunter management, IMHO, is only a tiny part of preverbial pie.

Hunting decisions have little do with biology. In fact I feel that many mischaracterize biological data to use to their advantage to further a purely social agenda, so we agree on that fact.


----------

