# What new Deer Unit will be your 1st choice?



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

You don't need to tell everyone your individual choice, but I thought it would be fun to see how a small sample size would look like.

I'm most likely going to be in Wasatch Mtns/Currant Cr/Avintaquin or Central Mts, Manti/San Rafael. For right now I'll say Central Mts, Manti/San Rafael.

Click here for the new unit boundaries: http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2011_proposed/unit_by_unit_option.php
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2011-05-04.pdf
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2011-05-03.pdf


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I will probably do Wasatch mountain west, but also Central mnt Nebo is another right behind my other choice. Even though every year i pick one place and pretty much stay there i still like the choice of begin able to move if it's to crowded or nothings moving. It will be interesting to say the least.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2011)

cache


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Cache. I have a cabin, might as well be comfortable.  
Hope they don't screw up the extended archery hunt though. Thats the best chance of actualy seeing a deer to shoot.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Ok i got some question about the boundary.Is that the final boundary for the hunts ? If so why don't they use roads so you can understand them better.If that is it im not going to be a happy camper.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

I didn't look at all the units, but it looks like they are following roads as boundaries.


----------



## Duckking88 (Dec 7, 2009)

My first choice will be west desert and my secong choice would be fillmore oak creek the two units split right where i used to hunt but that dosnt bother me at all.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Ok i got some question about the boundary.Is that the final boundary for the hunts ? If so why don't they use roads so you can understand them better.If that is it im not going to be a happy camper.


I'm not entirely sure that link with map is the final units. Maybe someone from UWC or someone who is on a RAC could chime in?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The link above is the "proposed" units prior to going through the RAC's and WB.

Here are the units that will exist next year after this springs RAC's and WB meeting. First link is the description, second is the map:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -05-04.pdf
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -05-03.pdf


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The west desert has been split into 2 units and why there is 30 instead of the 29 that were proposed.

West Desert, Tintic
Juab, Millard ,Tooele and Utah counties—Boundary begins at I-15 to SR-73 in Lehi; south on I-15 to Exit 207 and the Mills road; west on this road to the Sevier River; north along this river to SR-132; west on SR-132 to US-6; north on US-6 to SR-36; north on SR-36 to SR-73; east on SR-73 to I-15 in Lehi.

West Desert, West
Juab, Millard and Tooele counties—Boundary begins at the Utah-Nevada state line and I-80 in Wendover; east on I-80 to Exit 77 and SR-196; south on SR-196 to Government Creek Road; south on this road to the Pony Express Road: west on this road to 14-mile road (Dugway Valley road); south on this road to SR-174; east on SR-174 to US-6; south on US-6 to US-6/50; west on US-6/50 to the Utah Nevada state line; north on this state line to I-80 in Wendover.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

I like the map with the 29 units much more than the one with 30. The one with 30 has some messed up units. The map with 29 makes far more sence with you consider summer and winter range together.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Oh and Fillmore Oak Cr is now smaller with a large portion of it going into the West Desert Tintic unit.


----------



## bossloader (Sep 11, 2007)

parker mountains


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Geesh, when I edited the poll to add the other unit bullsnot mentioned it reset the poll. I guess you need to vote again if it lets you.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

don't like to hunt the southern regions because there's way to many tards! :lol:


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Wheres option- NONE OF THE ABOVE.....


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

Zion


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Wasatch/Currant Crk/Avintaquin
My area got a boundry line right down the middle. The general location is now split into 2 units. Now I either have to choose the west side or the east side of the road. That sucks! I guess I have to scout a little more than before.


----------



## OPENCOUNTRY (Jan 25, 2009)

Sorry i'm a bit behind on this topic. Help me out......
What's going to happen with LE? Will it still exist?


----------



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

OPENCOUNTRY said:


> Sorry i'm a bit behind on this topic. Help me out......
> What's going to happen with LE? Will it still exist?


This all looks like LE to me. However, there will still be the traditional LE units with the exception of the Thousand Lakes unit which is know a general/LE unit.


----------



## kailey29us (May 26, 2011)

That sucks I usually do the archery deer in both panguitch lake and zion units, but now I have to choose. probably panguitch lake first and zion second.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I always hunt in what will soon be the Wasatch Mountains West unit. I tend to get the feeling that it will soon be a lot harder for me to draw a tag.  I guess I should start looking for other places to hunt when I don't draw my first choice.

Does anyone know if they will publish the number of tags before the drawing?


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

Clarq said:


> Does anyone know if they will publish the number of tags before the drawing?


i sure hope so :|


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I have always found that to be a way of cheating the public in giving up app fees. if the number of tags was set before the app period we would have better insight on drawing odds. I think some folks would not apply based on drawing odds. The way it is now we are applying without knowing the odds.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Madhunter,
That may be true??? But I doubt it. Anybody can look at the past years numbers and get a pretty good feel for the number of tags that will be given and the number that apply. 

I have always been told that that UT does the application early before the DWR has there spring count numbers. After they get the numbers they set the tag numbers?? I may be off on that, but it made sense to me. The greed comes in on having the appliction period so early as the get application fees before hunters...namely non res, spend their money on other states?


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Madhunter,
> That may be true??? But I doubt it. Anybody can look at the past years numbers and get a pretty good feel for the number of tags that will be given and the number that apply.


Since this will be the first year of this goat rope, everyone is applying in the dark. I personally will be putting in for Plateu Boulder archery. Since there will be 90 different choices when you add in weapon types, I hope my odds are pretty good...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Wasatch/Currant Crk/Avintaquin
> My area got a boundry line right down the middle. The general location is now split into 2 units. Now I either have to choose the west side or the east side of the road. That sucks! I guess I have to scout a little more than before.


+1 one man.I told my hunting buddy I guess we need to find a new spot to hunt.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

> Madhunter,
> That may be true??? But I doubt it. Anybody can look at the past years numbers and get a pretty good feel for the number of tags that will be given and the number that apply.


How are we going to look back at last years draw ?When this is the first year this goes in to play.Next year yes we can do that and help are self out a little.People will bounce around the following year to better there odds.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> > Madhunter,
> > That may be true??? But I doubt it. Anybody can look at the past years numbers and get a pretty good feel for the number of tags that will be given and the number that apply.
> 
> 
> How are we going to look back at last years draw ?When this is the first year this goes in to play.Next year yes we can do that and help are self out a little.People will bounce around the following year to better there odds.


You got that right. This year will be a blind guess as to which units will be the most popular, but after a few years some units will be very difficult/take many points to draw. Based on this poll after 24 hours the Manti, both Wasatch, Boulder & Zion will be tough draws in a few years.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

yak4fish said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > > Madhunter,
> ...


I will go out on the branch here and say the wasatch front is going to be the hard one to draw.Because every one will want to hunt doring the week and with gas prices as high as they are and are going to go up even more they will want to stay close to home.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

My first choice will now be: All states other than Utah.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Because the hunting is sooo poor? Or because you didnt get your own way?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

My 2012 deer applications will look like this,,,,

Wyoming 102

Arizona 12a/west

Nevada 114/115

More than likely just buy points in Utah to use in a few years down the road.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Because the hunting is sooo poor? Or because you didnt get your own way?


Probably because 13000 of us are not going to draw a deer tag next year?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> The west desert has been split into 2 units and why there is 30 instead of the 29 that were proposed.
> 
> West Desert, Tintic
> Juab, Millard ,Tooele and Utah counties-Boundary begins at I-15 to SR-73 in Lehi; south on I-15 to Exit 207 and the Mills road; west on this road to the Sevier River; north along this river to SR-132; west on SR-132 to US-6; north on US-6 to SR-36; north on SR-36 to SR-73; east on SR-73 to I-15 in Lehi.
> ...


Not to hi-jack the thread but it looks as though UWC is promoting this idea now instead of fighting it? Maybe I was confused when I signed up...


----------



## silverlabs82 (Nov 16, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Madhunter,
> That may be true??? But I doubt it. Anybody can look at the past years numbers and get a pretty good feel for the number of tags that will be given and the number that apply.
> 
> I have always been told that that UT does the application early before the DWR has there spring count numbers. After they get the numbers they set the tag numbers?? I may be off on that, but it made sense to me. The greed comes in on having the appliction period so early as the get application fees before hunters...namely non res, spend their money on other states?


That's correct. The DWR doesn't get the harvest data back until late February/Early March, so tag numbers can't be formulated until then. It might be inconvenient, but it allows for better management. I would rather find out if I drew later in the spring rather than have too many tags issued and over harvest a unit.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I just think the drawings should be done later. The drawing should be done once the harvest data is collected, the field surveys are done and the permit numbers set. I just thin entering the drawing is something we should do with as much information on hand as possible and knowing full well what our odds of drawing are (roughly).


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Draws should also require the full application amount up front.


-DallanC


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

DallanC said:


> Draws should also require the full application amount up front.
> -DallanC


Is this because you would like to see less people apply? or Because many people draw and then can't pay and int creates a wave of next on the list calls and stuff? Just curious.


----------



## bearhntr (Oct 6, 2008)

I usually hunt the archery hunt and the first trip is over 5 hours from my house and is fairly kid friendly and with having 5 and 7 year old boys it is worth the trip so they can experience the hunt. Now with the proposed changes I will not have that same opportunity as before where my boys can tag along and it is more of a hiking trip with a bow and then later on in the season hunt a much tougher hunt with a buddy or by myself. I will most likely hunt closer to home as it will be more cost effective and conducive to my families schedule.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> I just think the drawings should be done later. The drawing should be done once the harvest data is collected, the field surveys are done and the permit numbers set. I just thin entering the drawing is something we should do with as much information on hand as possible and knowing full well what our odds of drawing are (roughly).


Actually, you'll likely get your wish. The drawings, all of them, (Buck/bull, OIL, and Antlerless) are currently scheduled to be done together in May and/or June and the tag counts, all of them, should be figured by then, so you'll have a better chance at guessing your odds. But you'll still have to guess because we'll have no idea how many hunters will apply for any specific unit or hunt.

And whether or not the UWC is still opposed to this 30 unit non-biologically based, social, tag and revenue reduction, trophy-driven nonsense, I am!!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

JHas said:


> Not to hi-jack the thread but it looks as though UWC is promoting this idea now instead of fighting it? Maybe I was confused when I signed up...


Based on what? I was just providing information. Nothing has changed from the UWC's perspective but at the same time we will do our best to educate and help hunters understand the regulations as they exist.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

as much as i hate to say it, i think option 2, atleast where i hunt, is going to benefit the deer greatly...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

shaun larsen said:


> as much as i hate to say it, i think option 2, atleast where i hunt, is going to benefit the deer greatly...


Why do I feel like I'm being baited? Oh well here goes...(sorry for the hijack but I just gotta respond)

It may help a few bucks...but it won't do squat for the deer herd. How is shooting a few less bucks going to help more fawns be born and survive? It's nothing more than a slow migration to TRUE statewide limited entry (i.e. statewide trophy units). This is an inches change, not a biological one.

I get that some people want more trophy deer or even bigger deer. In fact most people do. But when faced with being able to hunt less than they already can most people don't want the trade off IMO.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> shaun larsen said:
> 
> 
> > as much as i hate to say it, i think option 2, atleast where i hunt, is going to benefit the deer greatly...
> ...


because where i hunt the deer have no cover. no where to hide from rifle hunters. because there is no cover, its extremely hard to kill a deer with a bow or muzzy and the deer numbers are awesome through those hunts. but when the rifle hunt rolls around, every year the bucks get hammered. its almost cheating to play with a rifle. last saturday, i personally saw 9 bucks, 3 points or bigger, get killed. 9 bucks is a pretty large number to take out of a small area. i also heard probably close to 40 shots that day. i cant help but think some of those also connected on deer. if half of the number of bucks get to live for the next 5 years, this place and many others will be awesome hunting.

the fawn survival rate there is great. every doe i see has 2 fawns. half of those are going to be bucks. they just need to be able to grow up and live to a mature age...

i dont like the idea that i cant hunt as much with this new plan, but it can only help the deer in the areas i hunt, and im not an inches guy.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

shaun larsen said:


> because where i hunt the deer have no cover. no where to hide from rifle hunters. because there is no cover, its extremely hard to kill a deer with a bow or muzzy and the deer numbers are awesome through those hunts. but when the rifle hunt rolls around, every year the bucks get hammered. its almost cheating to play with a rifle. last saturday, i personally saw 9 bucks, 3 points or bigger, get killed. 9 bucks is a pretty large number to take out of a small area. i also heard probably close to 40 shots that day. i cant help but think some of those also connected on deer. if half of the number of bucks get to live for the next 5 years, this place and many others will be awesome hunting.


I can understand what you are saying but if deer numbers are great in your area and there are plenty around its clear the buck portion of the herd can withstand the harvest year after year.

To me I don't see an issue other than an archery not wanting to see his deer killed by rifle hunters. I'm not casting stones, I get it and often feel the same way.

As far as better hunting, maybe. But it won't be better if you're sitting at home on the couch or forced to hunt an unit you rarely hunt. Let's not kid ourselves, this will yield a few more bucks but this is not going to create a mule deer hunting Utopia.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

shaun larsen said:


> because where i hunt the deer have no cover. no where to hide from rifle hunters. because there is no cover, its extremely hard to kill a deer with a bow or muzzy and the deer numbers are awesome through those hunts. but when the rifle hunt rolls around, every year the bucks get hammered. its almost cheating to play with a rifle. last saturday, i personally saw 9 bucks, 3 points or bigger, get killed. 9 bucks is a pretty large number to take out of a small area. i also heard probably close to 40 shots that day. i cant help but think some of those also connected on deer. if half of the number of bucks get to live for the next 5 years, this place and many others will be awesome hunting.


Your first major flaw is thinking purely in terms of bucks. A healthy herd should have all age groups and makeup.



> the fawn survival rate there is great. every doe i see has 2 fawns. half of those are going to be bucks. they just need to be able to grow up and live to a mature age...


No, across the state the primary problem we are seeing is low fawn retention. They are dying off BEFORE they can grow up. This is happening to both bucks and DOES. You just said "every doe i see has 2 fawns". You should realize this means there are enough bucks around right now to get the job done. When you start seeing lots of mature does without fans, then you can blame a lack of bucks.

So with enough bucks to get the breeding job done, how does option 2 help the doe side of the equasion? How does it help fawn survival? It does not. THAT is what most of us have been continually discussing, we need to GROW the herds, but right now doe populations are shrinking as well. We DO need to do something to help our herds. Option 2 wont help the doe populations, and in some cases may even hurt it.

-DallanC


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

if less deer get killed every year, theres going to be more the following year.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

shaun larsen said:


> if less deer get killed every year, theres going to be more the following year.


In your "area" that will mean what? Two extra yearling bucks to hunt? That's if you can get a tag. You're also making a leap of faith that success rates won't go up....they usually do to some degree in these cases.

This is the exact line of thinking that will get us to statewide trophy units. It's a slippery slope your on.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

shaun larsen said:


> if less deer get killed every year, theres going to be more the following year.


Oh really? Some studies show more deer are killed by cars than hunters, and cars dont discriminate between buck or doe. How many are killed by predators? The facts are hunters really account for a small percentage of deer mortality, and that mortality is generally limited to bucks only (there are a few doe hunts, but most hunting is buck only).

Its admirable you are wanting to get involved, but there are whole sides to this issue you havent discovered yet. Basing your opinion on "option 2 is going to roxx0r cuz less bucks will get killed" is still fairly narrow-minded. Keep an open mind to what other people are saying, and propose some solutions to the bigger problem.

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

shaun larsen said:


> as much as i hate to say it, i think option 2, atleast where i hunt, is going to benefit the deer greatly...
> 
> because where i hunt the deer have no cover. no where to hide from rifle hunters. because there is no cover, its extremely hard to kill a deer with a bow or muzzy and the deer numbers are awesome through those hunts. but when the rifle hunt rolls around, every year the bucks get hammered. its almost cheating to play with a rifle. last saturday, i personally saw 9 bucks, 3 points or bigger, get killed. 9 bucks is a pretty large number to take out of a small area. i also heard probably close to 40 shots that day. i cant help but think some of those also connected on deer. if half of the number of bucks get to live for the next 5 years, this place and many others will be awesome hunting.


I'm not picking on you personally, but it's amusing to me to see the assumptions people make with these scheduled changes. In this case, there is no way of knowing whether or not there will be fewer (or more) hunters in the area you hunt and whether or not more bucks will be saved to grow up in the next 5 years. Just because there may be 13,000 fewer hunters statewide over a 3 weapon season schedule, it doesn't mean your little spot on Earth will be less crowded or less hammered! In fact, if what you say about how good it is is true, it may see an increase in hunters and buck harvest because those who receive tags in these smaller units will have fewer options and choices of good places to hunt. I hope, for your sake, that what you believe is true, but don't be too shocked if it doesn't happen.

As I've tried to point out in other threads, the many unintended consequences of Option #2 will raise their ugly heads in ways most of us cannot imagine. This is just one of them.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> As I've tried to point out in other threads, the many unintended consequences of Option #2 will raise their ugly heads in ways most of us cannot imagine. This is just one of them.


QFT!!!

Anyone remember the massive 600 square mile fire we had a few years ago down south? If micro units were in place then all of the deer and all of the hunters in that area would have been forced into a very tiny unburned area... it would have devestated that herd.

-DallanC


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> shaun larsen said:
> 
> 
> > if less deer get killed every year, theres going to be more the following year.
> ...


heres what i know. theres a whole bunch of does in this area. all of which have fawns, most have two. the road kill numbers are extremely low. not many deer are down that low. this place gets hammered on the gun hunts. killing a buck isnt hard. killing a decent isnt that hard either. i see a TON of deer get shot on that hill every year. i cant help but think if 1/3 of those bucks killed survive the hunts, deer numbers will grow. cats are a HUGE problem out there. dont tell me the cat numbers are down. its not true. ive found so many cat kills, its sick. how many cats do the average hunters see in their life out hunting? 1 MAYBE 2? ive seen over 20 just hiking around looking for deer in the past 5 years. kill ALL the cats, eliminate a few hunters and deer numbers will be ALOT higher than they are currently, which BTW, arent struggling all that bad. atleast in the areas i go, which is quite a bit of country if you add it all up.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

shaun larsen said:


> heres what i know. theres a whole bunch of does in this area. all of which have fawns, most have two. the road kill numbers are extremely low. not many deer are down that low. this place gets hammered on the gun hunts. killing a buck isnt hard. killing a decent isnt that hard either. i see a TON of deer get shot on that hill every year. i cant help but think if 1/3 of those bucks killed survive the hunts, deer numbers will grow. cats are a HUGE problem out there. dont tell me the cat numbers are down. its not true. ive found so many cat kills, its sick. how many cats do the average hunters see in their life out hunting? 1 MAYBE 2? ive seen over 20 just hiking around looking for deer in the past 5 years. kill ALL the cats, eliminate a few hunters and deer numbers will be ALOT higher than they are currently, which BTW, arent struggling all that bad. atleast in the areas i go, which is quite a bit of country if you add it all up.


We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose. I feel that there are different types of hunters that enjoy hunting in Utah. Many of them just want to get to out to hunt. I believe our deer hunting system should match hunter demand. There should be some trophy units for trophy hunters and general units for hunters that want to get out with family and friends. I don't think the system should cater to any one type of hunter.

By your own admission the deer numbers, including bucks, are good in your favorite area and yet you are still calling for change. You are asking that we kill all the cats. I completely disagree with you on all counts. Cats have their place in Utah, in balance, and there are cat hunters that enjoy hunting them.

I believe that if we don't have a large population of hunters out in the field then we won't have enough political pull to keep the sport alive for generations to come coupled with the fact that many deer hunters just want to get out to hunt. Why should we ignore those hunters because a few want to change it? So if we are staying within the target buck to doe ratios then change doesn't make sense. If we are JUST looking at the quality of hunting of course we can always make changes to make it better but we must consider the what the impacts of kicking out 13,000 hunters per year will have on local economies, and the general health of our sport politically for no other reason than to make the hunt a bit better for the hunters that get lucky enough to draw.

Today we are changing to 18:100 buck to doe ratios and when that honeymoon period ends and some hunters again want to make the hunting "better", especially when this doesn't really help deer herds grow, then we'll be looking at 25:100 buck to doe ratios and so on. Eventually we will all be waiting 10 years to hunt. We have a massive LE elk program yet many hunters still aren't happy and calling for more restrictions and one can easily argue that the program has completely failed at its intended goals. Some trophy elk hunters are calling for the end of any bull units. It never ends and I for one believe we've got to draw a line in the sand on this type of mentality. You can call me an alarmist but we have been doing this now for 20 years in Utah and some hunters still aren't happy. I for one want to preserve the sport for generations to come, not make it a once or twice in a lifetime event or reserved only for the elite.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> It never ends and I for one believe we've got to draw a line in the sand on this type of mentality. You can call me an alarmist but we have been doing this now for 20 years in Utah and some hunters still aren't happy. I for one want to preserve the sport for generations to come, not make it a once or twice in a lifetime event or reserved only for the elite.


Great post!


----------



## CUT-EM (Dec 19, 2007)

20 cats in 5 years.....absolute BS. Sorry man just cant buy it for a second.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

CUT-EM said:


> 20 cats in 5 years.....absolute BS. Sorry man just cant buy it for a second.


Gawd I guess....

20 cats in 5 years without dogs,,,,,,Don't try to tell that one to a hounds-men,
You'll get laughed off the mountain with the low cat numbers we have these days..

15 years ago a guy could see lions from time to time,,,,BUT NOT ANY MORE.


----------



## Tracker (Oct 27, 2011)

]


goofy elk said:


> [quote="CUT-EM":1nfnge4f]20 cats in 5 years.....absolute BS. Sorry man just cant buy it for a second.


Gawd I guess....

20 cats in 5 years without dogs,,,,,,Don't try to tell that one to a hounds-men,
You'll get laughed off the mountain with the low cat numbers we have these days..

15 years ago a guy could see lions from time to time,,,,BUT NOT ANY MORE.[/quote:1nfnge4f]

I have 500 acres of winter range on the Francis bench ,bring ur dogs there is at least 5 or 6 cats. I go up almost every day(winter) when i can , coyotes every where what a blast but its sad the winter kill on the this range. This spring i bet i counted 30 to 40 winter kill thats just what i seen. Dwr don't give a crap, but don't shed hunt without ur permit.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

We also have been trying to manage deer herds in Utah for the last 20 years and nothing we have tried before has worked, so let's try something different.

This new management plan is going to happen wether we like it or not, so why not make the most of it, hope for the best and see what happens.

Btw, isn't what they are doing, what you described? Have trophy areas and gs areas? Im pretty sure units in the northern part of the state wont sell out. So if all you want to do is hunt, then there's your opportunity


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

CUT-EM said:


> 20 cats in 5 years.....absolute BS. Sorry man just cant buy it for a second.


believe what you want. most were in the winter range, but i saw them. i have witnesses for most of them too


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

shaun larsen said:


> We also have been trying to manage deer herds in Utah for the last 20 years and nothing we have tried before has worked, so let's try something different.


I don't disagree with you on this but I do disagree that we need to keep focusing on hutner management. We need to focus on figuring and attacking what the real problems are. I don't believe for a second that hunters are the problem. Issue like loss of winter range, roads cutting off migration paths and escapement routes, an aging forest (lack of fire) and roadkill just to name a few. Those are the real issues. They are being addressed but increasing deer numbers lies in those areas IMHO.



shaun larsen said:


> This new management plan is going to happen wether we like it or not, so why not make the most of it, hope for the best and see what happens.


Well I am making the best of it what we have but I am also thinking 20 years down the road as well. I'm an advocate for the long term as well as the short term.



shaun larsen said:


> Btw, isn't what they are doing, what you described? Have trophy areas and gs areas? Im pretty sure units in the northern part of the state wont sell out. So if all you want to do is hunt, then there's your opportunity


Yes but the gs areas are slowly changing to trophy units. That's my point. They used to be 12:100, then 15:100, now 18:100 and tomorrow 20:100 and so on. If you really want to hunt big deer and lots of bucks there are units like the Henries, Pauns, Books, Vernon and so on. I know, I know, they take forever to draw and you want to hunt while you wait. Again just adds to my point as to why we need to leave the gs units alone from a hunter management perspective and start working on the biological issues these herds face.

I don't want to preach but at some point we have to start looking deep within oursleves and ask why it is we hunt and what we want for our children. Being so consumed by inches seems to have us forgetting what it's really about. I know it's different things for different people but when we go back and read the North American Wildlife Conservation Model it isn't about inches. It's about the state being entrusted to manage our wildlife in a way that preserves our hunting and fishing traditions so that we may hunt and fish forever. Somewhere in each of us is a love and passion for hunting that has nothing to do with inches and trophies. Sure that adds another layer of challenge and something we all love but I think its about more than that. It's a way for us to remember our ancestors and get a small feeling of what it's like to live off the land and what they went through to some small degree. Its a way for us to connect with nature in a way that isn't possible if we aren't on the hunt. There is something about making our senses so keen while looking for game that we see, smell, and hear things we wouldn't normally sense. Sure if there are no animals there it loses something but we aren't to that point by a long ways. The hunt is about sitting by the campfire and having the satisfaction of knowing we put in a hard day hiking, sitting and hunting game with all we had. It livens the sole in a way that commuting to work and punching a time clock never could. It's in almost all of us and it's not something I believe we can get by shopping for a buck on a hillside full of deer and simply picking one out. There is some fun in that, but's only fun after many miles of work, many tears of pain, missed opportunities. I gues what I'm saying is the real value in the hunt is that fact that it's hard. A 190 inch buck means much more after years of hard work than it does after checking a few trail cam pics, driving up to a spot, walking a few hundred yards and putting a bullet in one. Sure that's fun but it only means something after all the work has been put into it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

shaun larsen said:


> We also have been trying to manage deer herds in Utah for the last 20 years and nothing we have tried before has worked, so let's try something different.
> 
> This new management plan is going to happen wether we like it or not, so why not make the most of it, hope for the best and see what happens.
> 
> Btw, isn't what they are doing, what you described? Have trophy areas and gs areas? Im pretty sure units in the northern part of the state wont sell out. So if all you want to do is hunt, then there's your opportunity


In 2004, the Mule Deer Working Group of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, (consisting of 64 of the top wildlife managers and wildlife biologist in the western United States and Canada and Mexico, including 5 from the Utah DWR and 3 from Utah State University) met together and came up with an extensive biologically sound North American Mule Deer Conservation Plan (NAMDCP) designed to save and increase the mule deer populations which were on the decline everywhere in the west In 2008 after the then current deer management plan expired, the Utah DWR mule deer committee presented to the Wildlife Board a 5 year deer management plan that was almost an exact duplicate of the NAMDCP. The WB approved the plan. However, in 2010, only 2 years into the 5 year plan, the Wildlife Board scrapped several of the biological tenants of the new deer plan, resulting in the passing Option #2. So, in other words, our WB didn't trust the new plan and decided they knew better and decided to follow the road our neighboring states were/are following. And how is that working?

Well, Utah has 30 scheduled units with 331 scheduled tags per 1000 mule deer, while Oregon has 65 deer units with 305 deer tags* per 1000 mule deer, New Mexico-69 units-126 tags*/1000, Arizona-80 units-236 tags*/1000, Idaho-99 units-? tags*/1000, Nevada-110 units-157 tags/1000, Wyoming-142units-201 tags*/1000, Montana-162 units-84 tags*/1000, Colorado-185 units-213 tags*/1000. 
*-The tag numbers in these states are not all specific to mule deer, but include blacktails, whitetails and/or coues deer, so the mule deer tag numbers are actually lower.

And how are these procedures working? NOT!!! It's true that the buck to doe ratios are generally higher in these states than Utah's, but the populations aren't increasing, and in most states are still dropping and thus there are no actual increases in buck numbers. In fact, last year the Nevada equivalent to Utah's Wildlife Board, the Nevada Wildlife Commission, threatened to fire the Nevada Department of Wildlife biologists if they didn't bring the deer herds back to the 1980 levels of 200,000. (There are 109,000 now). But to help them do that, the NWC kept the high buck to doe ratios and dropped the 2011 tag count by 22% (to a whopping 11,536 buck tags), thus losing about $600,000 in revenue. In other words, the NWC insists the biologists stick to a plan that they know isn't biologically sound to get the results the plan cannot produce. Sound familiar?

And as to the idea that there is now nothing we can do about the new regulations, they changed the 2008 5 year plan in midstream and there are now 2 new members of the WB. And there are still numerous people opposed to these changes! It's just a matter of vocal numbers. We'll see.

And as to your question, "Isn't this what we are doing?". No! All of the units are essentually now LE with smaller units with limited tags, reduced numbers of tags and the increased buck to doe ratios. And per our surrounding states, I'm afraid we've just started.

"*Hope *for the best and see what happens."? So, instead of looking at the biology, we're now managing deer based on hoping and seeing what happens when all we have to do is look around Utah? As my dear departed mother used to tell me, "Son, learn from the mistakes of others 'cause you don't live long enough to make 'em all yourself."


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

elkfromabove- I should buy you dinner for that eloquent, informative post. Well said! Anyone who can not comprehend your post should head on back to elementary school.

Funny how there were claims of "no bucks" at last years RACs and Board meeting, YET this year I have seen more fawns per doe than I have ever seen! EVER! I have kept track and the ratio is just OVER 1 to 1. I have hunted 4 different units within my region (because I want to relive my hunts from the past) and EVERY unit has the same-- fawns, fawns and MORE fawns...... Must have been some bucks out there to breed those doe. I have seen bucks on every trip (public land and one trip on private) and I have seen mature 4 points on every unit.


----------



## silverlabs82 (Nov 16, 2010)

> I have 500 acres of winter range on the Francis bench ,bring ur dogs there is at least 5 or 6 cats. I go up almost every day(winter) when i can , coyotes every where what a blast but its sad the winter kill on the this range. This spring i bet i counted 30 to 40 winter kill thats just what i seen. Dwr don't give a crap, but don't shed hunt without ur permit.


LOL...why do you think the DWR is making people get a permit? It's so people will learn ETHICS and not DISTURB deer on WINTER RANGE, thus REDUCING WINTER KILL. Is that the DWR not caring, or am I missing something?


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

There is something you "pro" option 2 guys are missing. With the increase of deer ( i dont believe There will be) as you guys believe. You think all the deer will be around for the select few to hunt? "IF" there are more deer the road, winter and predator kills will only increase as well. If there are more animals in the winter, a higher percentage will die. They will be competing for less food as well. Some fool suggested that road kill is not an issue cause the deer are not that low. One mountain can only hold so many animals after that they have to move to a new area. By the roads? Maybe. The point being is there is "NOT" going to be anymore deer for the hunter but we will be the ones staying home. Then when you finally get to hunt, you will see the same number of deer.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

To be honest, most "pro" option 2 guys I know ARE aware overall herd size
probably wont increase...

Most tend to believe many units are at there carrying capacity for deer...

BUT, what will happen is an increase in bucks and decrease orange....


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

> To be honest, most "pro" option 2 guys I know ARE aware overall herd size
> probably wont increase...
> 
> Most tend to believe many units are at there carrying capacity for deer...
> ...


The above quote must be one of the all time most uninformed posts of all time because didn't we all hear how Option 2 would INCREASE doe, fawns and bucks? If they think the unit is at carrying capacity AND they think this management style will increase bucks then WHERE WILL THE DISPLACED DOE POPULATION GO? Going off Goof's statement we will see more bucks, but LESS doe and LESS fawns. That is just what we need, more bucks to breed LESS doe......... Genius!


----------



## wilky (Jun 19, 2011)

im picking the south slope yellowstone its a little further away to escape the idiots and looks to be a nice area although i have never been out that way cant be worse than this years hunt LOL
this may be a stupid question but if anyone knows that area can you tell me if theres any good deer and elk in that area if you can PM that would be great (any general areas in that area would also be a plus )
wilky

sorry to disturb your conversation i didnt realise sorry


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Packout said:


> > To be honest, most "pro" option 2 guys I know ARE aware overall herd size
> > probably wont increase...
> >
> > Most tend to believe many units are at there carrying capacity for deer...
> ...


So Pack,,,Whats so "uninformed" about that post?

Is it not true that we will see more bucks and less orange under unit management
with a higher buck to doe ratio?

Is it not true some believe we have units at carrying capacity?


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

In the last few decades, the DWR has taken so much of the fun out of big game hunting in Utah that all my hunting will be out of state,


----------



## silversurfer (Oct 30, 2011)

I will hunt out of state now. It's get harder and harder to hunt here. :evil:


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

silversurfer said:


> I will hunt out of state now. It's get harder and harder to hunt here. :evil:


Hopefully everyone will feel the same way. Then I wouldn't have to wait years to draw the Wasatch Mountains West tag.


----------



## C.elaphus<--- (Oct 19, 2011)

My favorite thing to read on this forum Is people saying they won't hunt Utah anymore. All I can think is, sweet! My desired unit is obtainable!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Goof- Yes, you might see more bucks on some units (because many units are already meeting the 18 per 100 objective). You might see less hunters (if the whiners show up in force claiming there are no bucks left, as they did last year- yet look at the success of hunters this year).

Here is where your post and train-of-thought is OFF. Option 2 was sold as "saving mule deer". It was pushed because those in that camp argued that it would GROW the deer herd, giving us more doe and more fawns, which would result in more fawns.

Now you get on here to tell us that Option 2 guys "believe many units are at there carrying capacity for deer" and they "ARE aware overall herd size probably wont increase", but they think "what will happen is an increase in bucks". Add those things together, it shouldn't be too hard. They believe that we can't have more deer, but they are electing to carry more bucks. If they carry more bucks then there will be LESS doe and thus less fawns. That is a wonderful improvement to the deer herd..... (sarcasm intended)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's what I BELIEVE will happen,

Some units will be found to NOT be at capacity, and overall herd size will increase.

AND other units (WITHIN THE SAME REGION) will be found to BE AT carrying capacity..

At that point, issues that apply to those individual units can be properly addressed.
That is why I have supported opt.2....


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout, why don't you just name drop those who have said this new plan will grow the herds. Maybe it was a couple of the wildlife board members or someone from SFW? Is it possible that the statement was taken out of context and run with? Like Goofy has said, many believe that this new plan will increase more bucks in some areas and while reducing hunting pressure in others. I believe a lot of people are looking forward to this new plan. I am happy to see that the struggling units will finally see some much needed relief from hunting pressure. I see that all units are going back to the 9 day season next year, which leads me to believe that most of the tag cuts will be coming from the 3 struggling units.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- Name drop who said it will grow more deer? I guess I don't get what you want. All a guy has to do is read these sites, the RAC and Board meeting minutes to know who said what. All I know is most of the comments claimed that this management style would grow our herds (which means more doe and fawns and bucks). I found Goof's post contrary to their desired outcome. It appears he has now clarified his stance in his last post.

There was already a micro-trigger in the Mule Deer Plan, which would have addressed the struggling units. The Board chose not to follow the Plan they had and implemented a broad based plan. 

More importantly, how was the fawn crop on the units you hunted this Fall? We hunted the Wasatch West, the Tintic, the Nebo and the South Slope. I have never seen so many fawns. Looks like a positive future for next year, if winter goes along with the plan.....


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

You guys keep saying.. they, them and their. Who are these people? Are you talking about the thousands of people that support the new plan or are you talking about a select few that you don't like personally. I know Goofy supports the new plan but I don't think you or I should look at him as a representative of the plan. Like I said before, many people like the plan for many different reasons. As for the current Mule Deer plan, yes it did have a mico-management plan to address the struggling units but all this nonsense with the delayed start hunts and 3 day hunts only kept delaying what really needs to happen and thats to reduce hunting pressure. The Oquirrh/ Stansburys got pounded this year and it looks like there was a very high success rate. So with the success of last years three day hunt and big storm, the results were wiped out with good weather and a couple extra days to hunt this year. If only hunter numbers could have been controlled. You have all these people saying that they are not going to hunt Utah anymore and hunt another state. Why would they go to another state that already has mico-management? If Utahs current plan is so great, why are the other states around use not changing to our way of thinking? I personally like the the currant management plan and with the new tools to control hunting pressure on each sub-unit, the future looks that much brighter. IMHO


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- I don't know why you took my posts so harshly, I only brought it up because I find it interesting the Goof and the "people he talks with" said it would help the herd and then in his post he essentially said it wouldn't. I'd think you have read enough and been involved enough in this topic to know who was sitting on which side of that fence. Why do feel a need to "name names" on the internet? There are many on record for both sides, because it is a divisive issue. No need to hash it out individually. 

You also miss the part of the Mule Deer Plan to close/limit struggling units, not just reduce days. The "double" opener wasn't specified in that Plan. So yes, the South Slope, Oquirrhs, Monroe should have had hunters limited under the old Plan. Anyway, water under the bridge.

I have no honest answer why those hunters will leave Utah to hunt another state, unless they are like me and enjoy hunting mule deer. Maybe they will go to WY which hunts their deer on a regional/statewide basis (with some ltd entry). Or maybe they will hunt Idaho with its unlimited permit units, or maybe they will wait a while to hunt NV, or they might get a lesser CO unit which will be a worse hunt than most of Utah's Gen units. Maybe they are frustrated to see Utah following failed paths of other states, all the while dividing hunters. I have no perfect answer for you there....

I am not fighting against what the Board passed as Option 2, I was just ribbing Goofy. What is done is done and I don't think there is the appetite for another battle over the issue..... I'll make do with it, but I do worry how the lobbying will effect the future permit numbers and the opportunity for my kids to hunt. 

So again, how was the fawn crop out your way this year????


----------



## wilky (Jun 19, 2011)

i have been reading this discussion for the last few days 
to be honest i dont know if this new plan will or will not work but personally from what i have seen this deer season with huge numbers of hunters all focusing in one area and blasting whatever moves while up this year i thought world war 3 broke out for around 3-4 mins i heard atleast 15 differant guns shooting all together and consistantly for the entire time if that is the pressure some areas get then i think it is a good idea to divide up into smaller units which willdivide numbers away from congregateing in certain areas there was easily 100 hunters where i hunted ths year most being idiots 
i am for this new structure so my idea as for deer populations we need more fawns and breeding does my idea would be to lower the tags on does to allow for greater oppitunity i would also consider makeing hunter ed to be taken every 4 years as this will help to keep people informed and how they can assist in the battle to raise deer herd populations i would love to help out but dont know how to go about it 
also if people who hunt public units for the sole purpuse of big trophy buck this is wrong as you want the big buck to pass on its genes to the future generations which aloows for the continuation of big healthy bucks take the runts out to prevent a bad gene pool yes we all deep down want a prize buck but i have never taken one although i have had the oppitunity many times 

as hunters we have the responsability to keep the populations and gene pool in check a responsability few seem to acknowledge they would rather blame others than themselves

just my personal opinion 
wilky
i understand i may have ruffeled some feathers and apoligise


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> You guys keep saying.. they, them and their. Who are these people? Are you talking about the thousands of people that support the new plan or are you talking about a select few that you don't like personally. I know Goofy supports the new plan but I don't think you or I should look at him as a representative of the plan. Like I said before, many people like the plan for many different reasons. As for the current Mule Deer plan, yes it did have a mico-management plan to address the struggling units but all this nonsense with the delayed start hunts and 3 day hunts only kept delaying what really needs to happen and thats to reduce hunting pressure. The Oquirrh/ Stansburys got pounded this year and it looks like there was a very high success rate. So with the success of last years three day hunt and big storm, the results were wiped out with good weather and a couple extra days to hunt this year. If only hunter numbers could have been controlled. You have all these people saying that they are not going to hunt Utah anymore and hunt another state. Why would they go to another state that already has mico-management? If Utahs current plan is so great, why are the other states around use not changing to our way of thinking? I personally like the the currant management plan and with the new tools to control hunting pressure on each sub-unit, the future looks that much brighter. IMHO


Well put Ridge. I have watched one spot this year start with a 32:100 doe ratio just get completely demolished by 32 NorthEastern tag holders. They left a 1 1x2 left to do the breeding. I too see a much brighter future.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout, I have not seen very many fawns at all this year out here in the desert. We have seen a lot of coyotes and I had a lion take out a deer just a few hundred yards from me last month. It was about an hour before light and I qiuckly moved about a mile away to give him his space. Sorry to come across "harshly" but I just don't want these debates to get too one sided.  

BTW, thanks for all the hard work you've done so far with the mule deer plan.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'll have to admit that this year is the worst that I have seen for buck deer. I usually am chasing them off and throwing rocks at the smaller ones but this year I only saw one 2 point in 7 days of hunting. Also I saw around 100 does so it look like a very bad ratio since that one buck got himself shot 2 days after I saw him. The does that I saw with fawns did look quite healthy and some of the fawns looked huge with a couple looking like they just lost their spots. Also in those 7 days I only heard 4 or 5 shots. 

As for where I am going next year it is a toss up. I am hoping to draw my Book Cliff ML tag but it that doesn't happen I'll head back down to the Southwest Desert.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I see on average 2 bucks and as many as 5 on my nightly drive home from work in SLC. It varies which ones I see, I estimate there are around 13 different bucks in the area with more showing up nightly. 3 are really nice 4pts, wide tall and heavy. I need to start packing my camera with me. The deer all seem really low right now, right down in towns. Tons of does, usually see at least 20-30 along my route.

Their patterns were really different than years past... but it was a strange year, everyone forgets how everything was thrown off by a full month or more due to the wierd spring and late snows.


-DallanC


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> Packout, I have not seen very many fawns at all this year out here in the desert.


thats funny, cuz i experienced the exact opposite and i covered ALOT of ground in the desert........ does and fawns everywhere. but im sure the lions will make short work of that :roll: the deer were wierd this year. they werent in their normal areas and bunched up like they usually are until around the first of october.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

To me this particular subject has more muddy water than any I've seen in a LONG time.

I have no problem admitting that the new plan will improve the hunt some as Goofy said. A few more bucks and few less hunters. 

There are two sides fighting this battle and those representing both sides that are really in the "know" about the impacts of this plan are in the minority. Both sides need the approval, to some degree, of the public at large. The public has spoken about what they want in the way of surveys (the results have been about the same since the 70's so saying a 2008 survey is outdated is not a fair assessment) so if we are listening to the public, really listening then this plan doesn't make sense. The problem is this was sold to the public as a plan "to improve mule deer numbers" and "the herd needs this to recover" so that they could swallow the changes. Those statements are not true. This is a plan to improve the hunt. It does nothing for mule deer recovery and that has been proven time and time again.

I have no problem if the majority (there will never be a 100% agreement) says they want to cut tags to improve the hunt but it's my belief they don't want that given the sacrifices that must be made to implement the plan i.e. less tags, damage to local economies, less DWR money for wildlife programs, and all at the same time it won't help mule deer recovery. So this WAS sold as a way to help mule deer recovery. I watched a story on Fox a few weeks ago where a DWR rep said something along the lines of we are cutting tags in response to dwindling mule deer numbers. That's not true, we have had roughly the same amount of deer since 1994 with some peaks and valleys. What;s changing is hunter precption and what is being "sold" to hunters in the way of dooms day theories.

In short I think the discusion and merits of the new plan should be discussed at face value. In other words is improving the hunt worth the sacrifices? Some say yes and honestly I respect that opinion. I think there are much better ways to give everyone a little of what they want rather than shoving a statewide change down peoples throats under some false pretences.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The whole thing isnt about increasing more bucks. Its the social aspect of going out and beating yourself up and only seeing orange on every hill. lets face it road hunting in Utah sucks! If you were to get away from the roads you will see game. You don't hear too many bow hunters complying about the deer, you don't hear too many muzzy hunters complying about the deer but you do hear the rifle hunts moaning all the time. So cut the rifle tags down to about 20,000 tags state wide and let them have an enjoyable hunt with out all the competition from all the rest of the rifle hunters. 

Then increase the archery hunt to 20,000 archery tags state wide and increase the muzzy tags to 20,000 state wide. The rifle hunt would drastically improve and the overcrowding problems would be a thing of the past. It would also shorten the range of the weapons and at the same time restricting the amount of shots your going to get off at the bucks thus saving a few more bucks. It is pretty hard to hear boom booom boommm booooom with a muzzy or a bow with those weapons you usually only get one shot. 

There is no way you can continue to allow butt loads of rifle hunters and still have quality bucks. This is a fact! this is why you can only give out small amounts of tags on cwmu units and the reason you can only give out small amounts of tags on Le units. until the rifle guys in this state come to this realization we will never have more opportunity or more chances at big bucks.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Its amazing so many people are bitching about the number of the orange army, 93000? When we used to have +260,000 hunters. Hunter pressure currently is a FRACTION of what it used to be.



> There is no way you can continue to allow butt loads of rifle hunters and still have quality bucks. This is a fact!


I guess all the recent posts with all those nice deer taken on public land really came out of CO or WY right? Fact? NOT.

-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

SW- Like was said, there were over 200,000 rifle hunters in Utah. Now there are around 70,000. I hunted a bit on this year's rifle hunt and never felt crowded. Central Region, public lands within the Wasatch West, Nebo, Tintic and West Desert units. Most guys I ever saw in a day who were within rifle range of me was 1. I saw mature bucks almost every time out and never hunted a morn/eve without seeing numerous deer. And there were plenty "quality" bucks killed this year, yet there were more rifle hunters last year than this year. 

Ridge- sorry to hear that you were not seeing fawns in the areas you hunt. We saw more fawns on the Tintics and other desert ranges than I have ever seen. 

Bullsnot made an excellent post. This new management strategy was sold just as he stated. Too many (on both sides) speak with their emotions and without facts. When presented with facts, too many (on both sides) turn a blind eye.


----------



## deerlove (Oct 20, 2010)

Dallan when we had 260k hunters there werent cwmu's every few miles. Now we have all the 90k hunting mostly public wheres in can get crowded.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Maybe we should start selling "road-hunting only" tags. Most of the complaints I've heard from people about the pumpkin patch or last years lack of deer have come from those who stay within 200 yards of the road.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

DallanC said:


> I guess all the recent posts with all those nice deer taken on public land really came out of CO or WY right? Fact? NOT.
> 
> -DallanC


no im sure they all came out of utah. but from what i saw and heard, the deer got worked over pretty hard on this years rifle hunt through out the state.

almost everyone i talked to said they were seeing alot more deer this year, and alot more mature bucks. i wonder why that is? think it might have something to do with the low success rate of the rifle hunt last year due to bad weather? i think so....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree. Problem is, I heard very few attribute the poor rifle hunt last year to weather. It was all about the lack of deer.


----------



## OPENCOUNTRY (Jan 25, 2009)

Ok so here's a quesiton! How many people on here have lifetime licenses?.... I do! And i'm 18! So what happens when it becomes "statewide" limited entry? Do i really get to choose out of every where? henry mtns. ect?
If that doesn't make any sense at all it because i'm confused with the whole ordeal!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

The new management plan is sending us up a slippery slope. When we have a bad weather year, buck to doe ratios will be bad. Cutting tags will be necessary, but do we need to keep raising buck to doe ratios to have a healthier deer herd in those units. I say NO! Raising buck to doe ratios does not make for a healthier deer herd. Bucks do not have fawns. Contrary to belief. Not once have tags been cut, and then given back once things have recovered. Something to ponder. :idea: 

What happens when this comes up again? When more tags need to be cut due to raised buck to doe ratios? Do we need higher buck to doe ratios? At the expense of what? More trophies/less opportunity? You can ask any hunter if he wants to shoot a trophy buck and he will more than likely tell you yes. But if you ask that same hunter, " Would you like to hunt every year?" He will more than likely tell you yes. So I guess the big question is what would you rather do? Hunt every year, or wait to hunt for a chance at a trophy? Higher buck to doe ratios does not guaranty you a trophy by any means. Nor does it guaranty you will see more mature bucks.  

I think when most of your regular died in the wool hunters who have no idea how the system works and how the decisions are made, they will be astounded at the tag cuts and the lost opportunity. 

Only time will tell, but I hope hunting does not go the way of bigger/trophy bucks, at the expense of traditional family hunting. I for one want to hunt! Not wait for my chance to hunt! I also want the ability to hunt in a different area when one is over crowded or not holding deer. (That is done!) You will have to make your choice before they hand out tags or know how many tags they may give out for your chosen area. -)O(-


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

OPENCOUNTRY said:


> Ok so here's a quesiton! How many people on here have lifetime licenses?.... I do! And i'm 18! So what happens when it becomes "statewide" limited entry? Do i really get to choose out of every where? henry mtns. ect?
> If that doesn't make any sense at all it because i'm confused with the whole ordeal!


Remember there are still 2 (actually 3 to be technical) types of units in Utah, don't get caught up in semantics. The term "limited entry" in Utah = unit managed for 25:100 buck to doe ratios or higher. It does NOT mean there are a limited amount of tags. All types of hunts have limited amounts of tags. General units are just managed for lower buck to doe ratios. You also have "premium limited entry" units that are managed at 40:100 buck to doe ratios.

For now lifetime holders will still only be able to pick general units. If they combine the point systems though there will be all kinds of issues like how to handle lifetime license holders, enforcing waiting periods, etc.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

deerlove said:


> Dallan when we had 260k hunters there werent cwmu's every few miles. Now we have all the 90k hunting mostly public wheres in can get crowded.


I think most of the CWMU lands were still private _back then_... mostly..


----------



## deerlove (Oct 20, 2010)

Yea but they had a lot more hunters than they do now.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Bullsnot,
has there been any suggestions about having a cap on lifetime holders per unit, like 20%. The ones that don't get their first choice could get a prefrence point for the following year, to help them get their first choice and then there would be some tags left over for the general public.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

There is a movement afoot to limit Lifetime License holders to 15-20% of a unit's permits. A UDWR Rep said during the Wildlife Board meeting that their data showed the most used units by Lifetime Licensees only had around 15% of the total (600 or so LLs) Life-timers. Limiting Lifetimers to 15-20% of permits should be a no-brainer and was overlooked during the last meetings. At the Central RAC the UDWR Rep said if the LLs took too many permits then they could address that down the road. I think they should address it before there is a problem..... Anyone want to help get this through?


----------



## OPENCOUNTRY (Jan 25, 2009)

I don't see how they can limit the lifetime holders to a certain percent! We paid for out license, giving us tags every year! i don't see how they can go back on their part of the deal! But like i've said, i don't know much about this whole topic!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Critter said:


> I'll have to admit that this year is the worst that I have seen for buck deer. I usually am chasing them off and throwing rocks at the smaller ones but this year I only saw one 2 point in 7 days of hunting.


Ditto, it was terrible and I only saw one deer taken, not much shooting going on at all.


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

This year and last year I have seen quite a few more deer where I hunt including bucks. It has been a nice change of pace, the area is doing great!!!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

muleydeermaniac said:


> This year and last year I have seen quite a few more deer where I hunt including bucks. It has been a nice change of pace, the area is doing great!!!


Must be the new plan they will implement working its magic already.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

So less killing the previous year made for a better and happier general public this year. So maybe we need to take every other year off. Or just reduce tags one year raise the number next based on what hunters and biologist see and count. Just thinking. 

In our area there where more people counted than deer. Especially on the muzzelloader hunt. It possibly been the best hunting in the state for big 4 points or better for the past 2 years though. It is not easy to get to either way to many people are walking more than they used to. I wish they would road hunt again in this area.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

OPENCOUNTRY said:


> I don't see how they can limit the lifetime holders to a certain percent! We paid for out license, giving us tags every year! i don't see how they can go back on their part of the deal! But like i've said, i don't know much about this whole topic!


OpenC: I agree with your last sentence. When you signed up were you guaranteed to hunt wherever you wanted in Utah?

Packout, one place to start is to somehow get the lifetime holders on the Board and RACs restricted from voting on the subject because you know which way they sway. major conflict of interest there, I'm surprised the dwr attorney didn't bring that up. I've seen some "dirty rotten" cwmu people step down from voting on issues relating directly to themselves, but I didn't see the "entitled" lifetime guys step down. You're being to nice by using the word "Overlooked"! I'm glad some are not letting this major issue go, keep up the good work.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

flinger said:


> OpenC: I agree with your last sentence. When you signed up were you guaranteed to hunt wherever you wanted in Utah?


The Lifetime license holder was not guaranteed to be able to hunt where ever he wanted to hunt but he was guaranteed a deer tag every year.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Bullsnot,
> has there been any suggestions about having a cap on lifetime holders per unit, like 20%. The ones that don't get their first choice could get a prefrence point for the following year, to help them get their first choice and then there would be some tags left over for the general public.


Packout gave a good update on this but I can tell you I got the packet today for the upcoming meetings and this item is not on the agenda. (The packet is available online)

I would suggest that anyone that feels this should be addressed email the RAC's and WB about the matter. I do believe it will have to be addressed at some point.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

The DWR really does not want to change the way lifetime tags are handled. Ive been following rac and board meetings closely over the last year. Every time the subject is brought up they clearly state they dont believe its an Issue. Most lifetimers are middle aged or older . The DWR(Karpowitz) believe most will choose the units they have always hunted. I agree. Myself and the 10 or so lifetimers I know will just hunt our same old spots . Im sure the DWR has the numbers . I just doubt flooding percieved future trophy units will ever happen. Most of us older guys are just set in our ways. Its more about our favorite places than chasing heads. Oh and there are less of us every year. Were down to about 3800 active hunters. One thing that should be adressed is lifetime tags that are issued and not used on any given year. There ought to be a way to surrender a tag and reissue it to an alternate from the drawing.Things come up and there are times when permits would be available. Theres been years when I would be happy to sign mine over to a kid.


----------



## OPENCOUNTRY (Jan 25, 2009)

Critter said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is true. BUT! not once has my family not got the tag that we wanted! We ALWAYS get our first choice! which is also,,, our only choice!

I got my license when i was less than one year old! What a deal!!! I've got a lot of deer guaranteed deer tags coming in my lifetime!


----------

