# Point creap math



## havnfun (Dec 3, 2007)

I have heard a lot of people talk about "doing the math" on point creaping. How are you guys "doing the math"? Is there a proven equation or just everyones own ideas and stats? I have my own therios but math has not always been my strong suit!:-?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

There's no real formula except that 50 percent of the available tags go to max point holders and 50 percent go into a general draw where those with mmore preference / bonus points have a higher probability of drawing than someone with zero points.

Check out biggamedrawodds.com if you're looking at UT or I'D hunts. They break it down pretty good there. You'll see the "guaranteed" max point tags and then the "draw tags" and how they broke out.


----------



## jshuag (Jan 16, 2014)

I have a HEAVY math background. Engineer with a masters (own 3 or 4 calculators, have access to 5 computers, work spreadsheets everyday at work). Suffice it to say I performed more math than what most people would even consider when putting in for the draw this year. Nonetheless I have never heard of point creeping. But I am also new to this game so perhaps I won't even draw.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Listen, I went to High School for 6 years.

It's "creep", not "creap" for crying out loud.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The idea of point creep is this:

The point system started 20 years ago (give or take a year.)
So the max points right now is 20. 
Say there are 50 guys with max points that put in for Unit Big Bull.
Unit Big Bull has 20 tags. 10 of those will go to people with 20 points.
That means that next year, there will be at least 40 guys with 21 points, and another 100 guys with 20 points, as they didn't draw this year. 
So two years from now, of the 40 max point guys, 10 more get tags, meaning that the following year, there will be 30 max point guys with 22 points. And so on. So it will take 5 years for the first 50 guys with max points this year, to all draw tags for Unit Big Bull.
In the mean time, the guys that are one point shy of max points, those that have 19 points, it will be five more years before they are max point guys.
And at that point, max points will be 24.
It will take 10 more years for those 100 guys to all get a tag.
At that point, the max point guys are those with 34 points. And there will be 200 of those guys. And so on. 

The end result, is that as of right now, if you do not have AT LEAST 16-17 points for whatever LE or OIL tag you are putting in for, you have NO chance to ever be ASSURED you'll draw the tag you are hoping for. It is all pure dumb luck if you do. 

Not saying that is good, bad, or sideways. It is what it is.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Creap... Creep... Crepe??

Now I am hungry. Crepe anyone?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The idea of point creep is this:
> 
> The point system started 20 years ago (give or take a year.)
> So the max points right now is 20.
> ...


Nice spelling *Gary*. I'm thinking a semi-colon would work good in paragraph two though. 

Point creep in Wyoming is killing me for Trophy Game like sheep. If you roughly project the point creep every year for 20 more years our Preference Point System won't be any better than the computer draw. Just too many hunters putting in for fewer tags (with the exception of elk, our elk herd is growing).


----------



## havnfun (Dec 3, 2007)

Ok, so I need a spellchecker also ! Thanks for all of the info. I have been on multiple sites with odds reports and I'm trying to decide what to do with 12 deer points.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

havnfun said:


> Ok, so I need a spellchecker also ! Thanks for all of the info. I have been on multiple sites with odds reports and I'm trying to decide what to do with 12 deer points.


Put in, and then wait for the antlerless proc to come out. ;-)


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

A lot of my non-resident friends put in for the same Wyoming antelope areas year after year. 

When they started the Preference Point system the chances of drawing a non-res any-antelope tag were 1 in 1.2. 
The next year the chances were 1 in 1.4
Next year 1 in 1.7
Then 1 in 2.0
Now, over 15 years later, its 1 in 6.5

So it took my brother 6 Preference Points to get a non-res tag in 2013. With creep, it will probably take him 9 points to get the next tag.

You could take all the preference point and application data and put it in a spread sheet and easily come up with a theoretical formula to project creep based on the historical data. 

The Non-Resident Preference Point System in Wyoming could implode upon itself. As hunting populations in neighboring states like Utah and Colorado increase the more those people put in for Wyoming Big Game and Trophy Game tags, rapidly increasing the point creep. Wyoming recognizes the problem and sets back a certain percentage of the available tags to to the computer draw for those, because of creep, won't live long enough to get a tag or they are youngsters and don't want sit and build up points for 5 to 7 years so they'll gamble on the draw. And the way things are going the draw odds may be better. 

Point creep makes young hunter recruitment tough. The way it's going now if a youngster puts in for an any-antelope tag every year starting when he's 12 in 2014 he may not hit a tag until he's 19 or 20 depending on the area.

What's really troubling is that state game departments are under pressure to stay within their budgets with the same, or less, money coming in. And creep is causing a backlog of disgruntled sportsmen, including me. So they are reluctant to reduce tag numbers even though the herd sizes are getting smaller. That's not good.

The antelope herds in southwest Wyoming are getting a little smaller every year. Sooner or later they will be forced to reduce tag numbers. That will accelerate creep, swing the odds' curve upward even move.

For years the antelope success ratio in Wyoming was over 100% (everyone had more than one tag). Soon you can kiss those days good bye, and that's fine; why should someone get to harvest 2 animals and another sportsman has to sit out?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Even now, it is taking 3-4 points to draw an antlerless tag. Seriously? Back in the day, a deer tag was either sex, and if you used your tag on a doe, then you were just a bad hunter, and it wasn't something you even talked about. Now days, a guy gets excited about it.


----------



## havnfun (Dec 3, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Put in, and then wait for the antlerless proc to come out. ;-)


?? Sorry but I'm not following. What info would that give me?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

havnfun said:


> ?? Sorry but I'm not following. What info would that give me?


a tag


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

havnfun said:


> ?? Sorry but I'm not following. What info would that give me?


My point is, put in for whatever hunt you want with your 12 points. And while you are waiting for the "UNSUCCESSFUL" letter you'll get from DWR, wait for the antlerless proc and plan for the doe hunt you'll draw. If you have 2 or more antlerless points. 

If you want data-information, then go to 
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2013/13_le_deer.pdf
and look at the numbers. Here are a few from that that might be helpful:

There are 217 residents with more points that you have, that just applied for more points last year.
There are 1310 residents with more points than you that applied for LE permits last year. 
There are 52 residents with more points than you that applied for the Henry Mountains last year.

In the case of the Henry Mountain (Hunt 1000) Archery tag, 4 tags were set aside for the max point holders. Assuming the pool stays with the same guys that applied last year, it will take you another 13 years before you will be a max point holder for the Henry Mountains and assured a tag. In the other Henry Mountain hunt (Hunt 1003 - Any weapon), it is even worse. 687 people are ahead of you for those 12 max point tags. Meaning it will take 57 more years before you are in the max points pool.

However, if the same people apply for the Paunsaugunt that applied last year, you will be a max point holder and will be assured a tag on that unit. Last year's max point holders for the Paunsaugunt (Hunt 1001 - archery) had 12 points. AND - there are 23 total tags for that unit, meaning 12 will go to max point holders. For Paunsaugunt Rifle (Hunt 1004), there are only 112 guys ahead of you for the 35 max point tags.

The Antelope Island unit has only one tag - so no set aside for max points, so if you want to apply for that one, points are meaningless.

So that covers the top deer units. On pretty much any other unit, your 12 points will get you a tag. Were it me, I'd go for the Paunsaugunt unless the stars are not lining up for your dream hunt this year. But that's just me. But I'd not hold out for a Henry's tag unless you have 20+ more years to wait.


----------



## havnfun (Dec 3, 2007)

Thanks GaryFish! That's what I figured I was going to run into with the creep. I know that there are a lot of great hunts out there! I'm just trying to decide where / when to cash in.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> In the case of the Henry Mountain (Hunt 1000) Archery tag, 4 tags were set aside for the max point holders. Assuming the pool stays with the same guys that applied last year, it will take you another 13 years before you will be a max point holder for the Henry Mountains and assured a tag.


One thing to consider on your numbers Gary... there is also the number of applicants within the same point group as him to compete with AND you have to look at the data considering he had one less point last year when applying. 
So for a Henry's archery tag you should really add in the guys that had 11 points (cause that's the group he was in when he applied). So the total number of guys with the same or more points is 96, which increases the wait time to 23 years instead of 13 years.
Now this assumes that he would be the absolute last guy in that bonus pool to pull a guaranteed tag... which I find highly pessimistic. Either way for a Henry's archery tag expect somewhere between 13 and 23 more years of applying.

If you're just looking at point creep... I'll use the same unit (Henry's archery) as an example. Going back to 2006 a minimum of one bonus tag was issued to the following point groups:
2006 - 10 pts
2007 - 11 pts
2008 - 9 pts
2009 - 11 pts
2010 - 12 pts
2011 - 13 pts
2012 - 14 pts
2013 - 15 pts
Aside from what seems to be an anomaly in 2009, the cut off point where guaranteed tags are issued increases annually for this unit.


----------



## chukarflusher (Jan 20, 2014)

What if all tags were guaranteed to the people with the most points would that slow down point creep or is there not enough tags given out to fix it


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

chukarflusher said:


> What if all tags were guaranteed to the people with the most points would that slow down point creep or is there not enough tags given out to fix it


Nothing besides the majority of hunters quiting putting in for the draws is going to help it. Colorado has preference points for deer, elk, and antelope and the tags only go to those with the most points and they even have point creep.

In all reality (I can't believe that I am saying this) is to do away with all the point systems and go with no points in any draws, first drawn first tag issued. I have done the math in Utah and there are tags that I will quite possibly never draw with the way that the system is today.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It just depends on the hunt you are looking for. On the Henrys no way. But that is the premier mule deer unit in the entire country right now. It is clearly the exception. 

On the Pausaugunt, it would slow it. On most other units, it really isn't as bad as it could be. On many hunts, 5 points is max, and on many others, there were enough "max point tags" that that it spread across several point totals, meaning anyone with 4, 5, or 6 points - all got tags. 

For example, I'm sitting on 9 elk points. That certainly will not get me on the top 5-6 units, but it will get me on most of the others. 

In havnfun's case, his 12 points won't do much for the Henry Mountain hunt, but he is in very good shape for the Paunsaugunt this year or next. And anywhere else, even the Book Cliffs, he should pull a tag. 

So if you are holding out for one of the 2-3 absolute top units, and don't already have 15 points, you are pretty much out of luck. Otherwise, I'm not so sure the system isn't working, much as I hate to admit that.


----------



## chukarflusher (Jan 20, 2014)

I'm sitting on 9 points for elk so I'm far behind in the race but not that bad just wandering one day my son will be old enough to hunt and it would suck if he never for the opportunity to hunt le hunts because if the math is corrects he has 1973 years to wait


----------



## hatch000 (Aug 4, 2011)

Point creep is a true statement. But there are some other factors that tweek those numbers if you were to actually "do the math" factors that you can't figure out. Eamples would be:
1-people forgetting to purchase a bonus point for a couple years and lose all their points( sure there probably isn't alot of people that it happens to but there has got to be some)
2-People die right? From the sounds of this "point creep" some of you people have to be getting old! LOL 
For all those of you who are just beginning this point game, you have to look at the bright side of things.:grin:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Good example Hatch. I started getting points when the whole system started. So if I had put in every year, I'd be assured the elk tag I've been chasing. But instead, I moved out of state for five years, and missed out on those. Then I got so wrapped up in life for a couple more, I just spaced it. So here I am with nine elk points. And I am moving to Arizona later this year, so this is my last year to apply as a resident in Utah. So if I don't draw, I'm pretty much done applying in Utah.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> Creap... Creep... Crepe??
> 
> Now I am hungry. Crepe anyone?


Crepe - pronounced "krep" (it's supposed to have a funny little "^" symbol over the first e). So - "Crepe" doesn't count but now I'm hungry too!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

hatch000 said:


> Point creep is a true statement. But there are some other factors that tweek those numbers if you were to actually "do the math" factors that you can't figure out. Eamples would be:
> 1-people forgetting to purchase a bonus point for a couple years and lose all their points( sure there probably isn't alot of people that it happens to but there has got to be some)
> 2-People die right? From the sounds of this "point creep" some of you people have to be getting old! LOL
> For all those of you who are just beginning this point game, you have to look at the bright side of things.:grin:


So if "creep" is "creap", is "tweek" "tweak"?

.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Good example Hatch. I started getting points when the whole system started. So if I had put in every year, I'd be assured the elk tag I've been chasing. But instead, I moved out of state for five years, and missed out on those. Then I got so wrapped up in life for a couple more, I just spaced it. So here I am with nine elk points. And I am moving to Arizona later this year, so this is my last year to apply as a resident in Utah. So if I don't draw, I'm pretty much done applying in Utah.


Out of curiosity, how much does a non-resident limited entry elk tag cost?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Out of curiosity, how much does a non-resident limited entry elk tag cost?


$800 for a LE tag or $1505 for a premium elk tag


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

I catch he!! every time I bring this up but there is a very simple solution.

Raise prices!

A $10 application fee is ridicules. I would bet that at least half the applicants (and point creep) is from people putting in everyone they know for a tag whether or not they even hunt. Raise the application fee to $100 and see what happens. 

A $40 deer tag is immoral. We are selling a limited public resource for less than a tank of gas?

And I am sick to death of hearing people say they cannot afford to hunt if prices go up. Next time you are in the mountains, look around. The mountains are overcrowded with $50,000 trucks, ATVs, house trailers etc.

I know that right now this is a very unpopular idea but when you get the UNSUCCESFULL letter from the UDWR and have to sit out yet another year, think about it.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

^ the easiest way to stop it would be to require the money up front for the full amount.


----------



## chukarflusher (Jan 20, 2014)

cklspencer said:


> ^ the easiest way to stop it would be to require the money up front for the full amount.


I agree all money up front for the tag and when unsuccessful refund everything but the app fee like Wyoming does I wander if the state could make extra revenue from interest by sitting on everybody's tag fees for a few months


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

chukarflusher said:


> I agree all money up front for the tag and when unsuccessful refund everything but the app fee like Wyoming does I wander if the state could make extra revenue from interest by sitting on everybody's tag fees for a few months


 Yeah buddy, we make a lot of money off the interest.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I'd be all for paying the full price up front... if the DWR would do one of two things: issue my refund with interest to cover what my credit card will charge as those amounts sit on the card for two months (since the DWR itself recommends that I use a credit card & not my debit card) OR reduce the turn around time from application to drawing so that the charge doesn't sit there accruing interest for a long period of time.

"Point creep" is an unfortunate byproduct of the current system in which a limited resource is divided among the masses. This is where the education and expectations of each applicant come in to play. For all those guys out there think that they must chase the beast of all beasts in one of a select few units using a rifle (and in the rut in the case of LE elk), more power to those fine outdoorsmen. They will fight the full battle of point creep and should be prepared for that long journey. For those with lesser expectations and willing to hunt lesser units with lesser weapons the battle with point creep can be much less (on some units virtually non-existent).

Now the big question seems to be, "How long are you willing to wait."


----------



## chukarflusher (Jan 20, 2014)

Well if you pay upfront then the debit card is fine because they take the money then. they ask for a credit card now because people Apply with a debit card and then when they draw no money is in the checking account to cover the tag fees problem solved no interest is gained on your credit card by going to that system. And I think 10-20 years down the road when my son is old enough to hunt and make the decision on we're he wants to hunt point creep will be bad in even the lesser units


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

chukarflusher said:


> ... I think 10-20 years down the road when my son is old enough to hunt and make the decision on we're he wants to hunt point creep will be bad in even the lesser units


There will always be something to worry about, that's the price of playing the game.

There's always the OTC general tags & just go have fun with your son. Although I'm sure we can expect changes to that as well.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

hatch000 said:


> Point creep is a true statement. But there are some other factors that tweek those numbers if you were to actually "do the math" factors that you can't figure out. Eamples would be:
> 1-people forgetting to purchase a bonus point for a couple years and lose all their points( sure there probably isn't alot of people that it happens to but there has got to be some)
> 2-People die right? From the sounds of this "point creep" some of you people have to be getting old! LOL
> For all those of you who are just beginning this point game, you have to look at the bright side of things.:grin:


Actually, no one loses points for inactivity. That rule was only applicable for 2 years (2009 and 2010) and since it called for 3 years of inactivity, EVERYBODY KEPT (AND KEEPS) THEIR POINTS, which makes doing the math even more impossible because we're not sure how many people have held the same number of points (or have added a couple) since then since we only count the people who actually apply for hunts or points each year.

And the new mentoring program will probably pull some of those people out of the woodwork as well as adding additional fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers into the mix.

Add to that the switching from one hunt to another, the changes in tag numbers, the moves from resident to non-resident or visa versa, and the few point holders who purchase CWMU or Conservation tags or who draw EXPO tags and, of course the deaths and the point creep math becomes a calculated guess at best.

What's the solution to point creep? I'm not sure there is one, but there are some things we can do to slow it down and some of you have pointed them out. We need to explore those options and others if we intend to keep this sport alive.


----------



## steve.henstrom (Dec 4, 2013)

So and correct me if im wrong wouldn't the next logical step be for the DWR to give 75 percent of the tags to people with points


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

steve.henstrom said:


> So and correct me if im wrong wouldn't the next logical step be for the DWR to give 75 percent of the tags to people with points


I don't know what the next logical step is... if you've followed anything the Wildlife Board has done recently logic has nothing to do with it. 
In my mind the best way to fix the system would be to wipe the slate clean and go to a straight lottery every year. But I don't know how you'd say to a guy sitting on a pile of points with a couple decades invested and tell him that means nothing now. There is most definitely no easy solution.

For what it's worth I don't mind how Utah allocates it's tags, a 50:50 split is about as equitable as any other system out there. Those with the top points get their guaranteed tags as a reward for their patience/persistence and those with lower points still have a glimmer of hope that Lady Luck will smile on them and draw one of the lottery tags.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MWScott72 said:


> Crepe - pronounced "krep" (it's supposed to have a funny little "^" symbol over the first e). So - "Crepe" doesn't count but now I'm hungry too!


I was forced to take a year of French in elementary and we cooked em a lot. So I knew the pronounciation, but figured wth it has a c and r and p and some e's 

Old timer I would be for the price up front on LE because that is something pretty special. However, your post about a tank of gas shows just how expensive general season actually is. Tag, gas, supplies, butcher for most... You could buy half a steer for that much! I love hunting, but a lot of guys would quit general season at tag prices over $100. This may be what you want, but I do believe in winterkill and controlling populations, and think this would get outta hand. And areas with low success, that basically collect these fees and no deer are killed, would no longer collect the fees. Look at success rates and figure how much they actually make per deer taken. These are general season deer: Archery seems to avg 10-15% so 7 to 10 tag fees per deer, $280-$400 a deer, muzz about 25%, so about $160 per deer. Any weapon, 50% so about $80 a deer. Not bad seeing as we trade elk for turkeys!

I am a little suprised at success rates. I saw over 40 bucks in 5 days. Its interesting to see archery v. Muzzy v. Any weapon. Now I know why everyone likes rifle, success all but doubles.

Regardless, i dont think an increase would be the solution, but thats just me. I do enjoy putting in for a bonus on a year I may not be able to hunt, but I agree $10 is pretty cheap. Also, people hate the app fee so much that elk, archery and muzz deer sell quite a few over the counter and that fee never is applied. Maybe raise the OTC price $10, but then those people would start putting in for the draw and we don't want that.

Such a vicious cycle. Too bad our polls on here aren't the final say... We sure are a bunch of smart a... Well you get it!


----------



## CROC (Sep 12, 2007)

Maybe I just don't see it but WHY would the NO POINT system be better? Ya with point creep my odds suck now but my 1 in 20 chance will go to 1 in 800 with no points. At least the point system gives me better odds rather than the same odds every year and that one lucky joker in the group who will draw 3 times on the no point system before I drew once. If you are tired of not drawing do some homework on a different area, I mean ANY LE unit has to be 10 times better than the general season for deer or elk. The point system has its issues but so does every other system. I say leave it alone and stop volunteering a $$$$ crazy entry fee so no one but the 1% can afford to hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

IMO,

1) Forcing hunters to "put money up front"
2) Increasing application fee's " to $100?"
3) Changing Utahs tag split of 50/50

These Would make Utahs draw odds 'better' easyer ti draw, WHY ?????
BECAUSE IT WOULD FORCE SOOOOOO MANY OUT OF HUNTING !!!!!!

BAD ideas---- all three.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Utah's system works for hunts that take 30 years or less to draw. 
Utah's system is broken for hunts that take a lifetime to draw-- giving 50% of the permits to the highest point holders means most will never be afforded the same opportunity. Even with today's system, some lucky hunters are drawing multiple times while others can't draw the same permits once. 

My "imperfect" world would look something like this-- One point system 
-A unit which takes 5-10 years or less to draw is given through preference. (Top point holders)
-A unit which takes 10-30 years or so to draw is given through bonus. (50/50)
-A unit which takes 30+ years to draw is given randomly. (OIL)
Just average the odds for 3 years to see where a unit falls on the scale. 

What about this also-- One point system for Deer, elk, antelope and one point system for OIL. 2 draws. You can have 5 choices in the draw, but you only earn a point with an unsuccessful 1st choice draw. You could apply for elk 1st choice and then deer 2nd or Antelope 1st and elk 2nd and deer 3-5th. The hunter could choose if he wanted to hunt elk or deer and the quality of the unit. A hunter might only get his LTD elk and not "general" deer that year. With OIL the hunter could switch species-- my 14 year old put in for Bighorns, when he is 45 maybe he'd he rather try for moose. Just some thoughts.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Last year, 40,424 people applied for some kind of the 2,552 limited entry bull elk tags. That means that overall, 1 in 15.8 people drew a limited entry tag. 
Some intersting things looking at different hunts however. For example, 
-Hunt 3004 - the North Cache Archery Limited Entry Bull - 18 people applied for 16 tags. Meaning, EVERY hunter with at least 1 point, drew a tag, and 7 hunters with NO points drew. For rifle hunters, this one took 11 points for an assured tag, though half the 10 point guys also got one (hunt 3034).
-Hunt 3005 - South Cache Archery Limited Entry Bull - 28 out of 100 people drew. 6 points guaranteed a tag, but 4 of the 6 people with 5 points also got tags. Rifle hunters needed 14 points for this unit (3035).
- Hunt 3008 - Fillmore, Pahvant Archery Limited Entry Bull - This one took 13 points to get a guaranteed tag. This same unit for the early rifle hunt (3041) took 19 points to get one of the 6 guaranteed tags. 
-Hunt 3022 - Wasatch Mountains Archery Limited Entry Bull - Everyone with 6 points or better, drew a tag. 
-The Central Mountains Manti, Early rifle hunt (3037), took 15 points to be sure, but 50 guys with 14 points also got guaranteed tags. 
-The San Juan Early rifle hunt (3063) took 19 points to be assured a tag.
However, more than half of the LE bull elk rifle hunts can be had for 12 points. And 1/4 can be had for 6 points. The super duper mega bonus magnum premium units - sure, they require 18-19 points. For archery, most LE units can be had for as few as 3 points. And then there are all the OTC tags for the rest of the state if you really want to hunt elk. My thought is that point creep is certainly a thing for the premium units. But not an excuse not to hunt.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

CROC said:


> Maybe I just don't see it but WHY would the NO POINT system be better?


The discussion is about point creep... you get rid of the points you eliminate the creep. It's not a "better" system, just an alternative to what we already have. I think the current system is just fine. Does it have it's flaws... yes, but what system doesn't.

Funny how guys sit back & think they see a better system that would immediately benefit them and their own prospects of drawing a tag... so that's the new system that they start championing (broad generalization, I know). Think about it... the guy with $$$ wants to Increase tag prices, make you pay up front, increase application fee, etc. just to reduce the applicant pool. Guys with piles of points want 100% of the tags to go to the guys with the highest points (preference point system) so that he gets moved through quicker and he figures "I waited 20 years for this tag, everyone else should, too." Guy with few points want a straight lottery system so that he feels equal to the guy that's been in the game for 20 years.

If someone could provide some insight as to what the sportsmen's reaction was to the implementation of the current system I would be interested to know (those like me who weren't as involved back then or are a little bit younger might find it enlightening). I would bet that reaction was mostly favorable as guys saw the system for what it is... one in which my chances of drawing increase annually & I would EVENTUALLY be guaranteed a tag.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> Last year, 40,424 people applied for some kind of the 2,552 limited entry bull elk tags. That means that overall, 1 in 15.8 people drew a limited entry tag.
> Some intersting things looking at different hunts however. For example,
> -Hunt 3004 - the North Cache Archery Limited Entry Bull - 18 people applied for 16 tags. Meaning, EVERY hunter with at least 1 point, drew a tag, and 7 hunters with NO points drew. For rifle hunters, this one took 11 points for an assured tag, though half the 10 point guys also got one (hunt 3034).
> -Hunt 3005 - South Cache Archery Limited Entry Bull - 28 out of 100 people drew. 6 points guaranteed a tag, but 4 of the 6 people with 5 points also got tags. Rifle hunters needed 14 points for this unit (3035).
> ...


It's all about expectations... you do not need to hunt one of the premium units to have a great experience, but I know many that feel that they do. You can hunt LE elk once every ten years if you really wanted to & based on the historical draw results and my calculations for "point creep" I don't see that changing too much. Personally, I'd rather hunt once every 10 years and have a shot a a good bull 5 or 6 times in my lifetime.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I oppose any raise to the tag price. I don't know why some people are so hell-bent on forcing people out of hunting. Oh wait, yes I do. Selfishness! These are public resources, owned by the public, paid for by the public, and sustained by the public. Making them accessible to only those that can afford is not only a bad idea, it is immoral. This isn't an economics, capitalist, or conservative vs liberal issue. This is about the attack that certain segments of the hunting population insist on pursuing against everyone else. I've heard it said many times that hunters worst enemy is hunters. I have started to understand that over that last few years. There are plenty of opportunities for those with money to have great hunts and experiences by utilizing the money they have. Normal, public draws should not become a part of that system. Period. 

I don't mind having to pay for the tag up front, and having all but the application fee reimbursed if you don't draw. That would be okay with me. But I don't see it changing much, if anything at all in the scheme of things. 

As for scrapping the bonus points and going to a non-point system. Good luck. That's a class-action law suit waiting to happen. Here are some numbers for you on that amount of people in each pool with 15 or more points: 

Bison- 112
Moose- 268
Desert Bighorn- 55
Elk- 537
Deer- 48
Pronghorn- 1
RM Bighorn- 16
Mtn Goat- 30

That's over 1,000 people. (I realize there may be some crossover between the LE and OIL, but that certainly isn't everyone.) 

You drop the analysis to 10 points or more and that number goes up exponentially. Wiping out the points would be disastrous, and put in place a system that makes it so you may simply never draw. And how is that better??? I like the bonus point system. Yes, there is point creep happening. Yes, it will take longer and longer to draw tags as we continue to lose resources. But that beats the alternative any day.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

TS30 said:


> As for scrapping the bonus points and going to a non-point system. Good luck. That's a class-action law suit waiting to happen. Here are some numbers for you on that amount of people in each pool with 15 or more points:
> 
> Bison- 112
> Moose- 268
> ...


TS30, I am not sure of your numbers but if they are correct there are a couple of things that the DOW could do. The first is to go to a straight preference point system. In 2 years the bison numbers would be no hunter with over 15 points (the one that I am familiar with) and a lot of the max points for the other animals would drop also.

The problem with point creep is hunters. When you have only 10 tags with 20 hunters wanting those 10 tags the points are going to creep up no matter what you do. The only way to reduce point creep is to either issue more tags or have less hunters and neither is going to happen. Requiring the payment up front will stop 25% of those putting in as a just in case I draw scenario (just guessing here) and those that can't afford it in the first place.

It is also great that Utah allows those with 0 points to possibly draw a tag, how about requiring a minimum of 3 preference points and then offer bonus points after that on the OIL tags. That way the applicant would wait a minimum of 3 years before he went into the draw pool. Colorado does this with their moose, goat, and sheep tags. Something also needs to be done with the system when a hunter can put in for a LE elk tag (lets say rifle) and draws the tag, he then waits 5 years and draws the same tag again before others that have been waiting 10 years to draw. I have seen it happen twice. There is something just wrong with that.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

No matter what changes happen somebody will not be happy. The first thing that should happen is getting draw results earlier. People don't need 6-1/2 weeks to put in for a tag and the division doesn't as much time as they take to provide results.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Digging into the issue of point creep more and more, I've come to the conclusion that for elk, a guy can hunt EVERY SINGLE year if he wants to. An archery hunter can hunt an LE at least every 5 years, and rifle hunter can hunt an LE unit about every 10 years. But in those other years, he can hunt general units. That isn't a bad system. 

I grew up in Idaho before any kind of points. A guy could get a general season elk tag every year. The draw units, or controlled hunts, were open lottery - no preference. But if you drew, you had to sit out two years before you could put in for another controlled hunt. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't bad. Sure, some guys seemed to get the luck of the draw and get a tag each time they were eligible, and others not so much. But it wasn't a bad thing.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Digging into the issue of point creep more and more, I've come to the conclusion that for elk, a guy can hunt EVERY SINGLE year if he wants to. An archery hunter can hunt an LE at least every 5 years, and rifle hunter can hunt an LE unit about every 10 years. But in those other years, he can hunt general units. That isn't a bad system.
> .


Yep, 
I've been doing this for YEARs.......


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

This is a quote... from myself back in sept.



> I actually like Utah's point system. Not too crazy about some of the season dates.... but that is a different topic.
> It benefits people who have spent time trying to get a specific tag, but still anyone can draw. Anyone can still go buy an OTC tag and have a hunt every fall, on public land.
> I like the waiting period. Again it allows for more opportunity for the people who really want that tag. After I draw an elk tag, I'll probably apply for deer for a few years.
> If you want to shoot a "trophy class" animal and still have opportunity to hunt every year, I don't see a better option. I think they should get rid of the expo tags and just put them into the normal draw. Let the expo make its money on something we aren't all taxed for...


Point creep isn't the enemy. It is just a product of this draw system. I would 1000 times rather have the max point pool increase and still have some people be able to get a tag in the random draw. Without points, it would make it impossible to plan your hunts. However, I still think everyone still needs the chance to draw. Otherwise we are just privatizing hunting and turning it EVEN MORE into a rich man's club. I think Utah's tag allotment system is the best compared to all the other western states I have applied in... and I have applied in almost all of them.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Are you people that want to raise prices the same ones that complain when the rich guy pays $305k for a Governor's tag?

Talk about turning us back into England. If you don't have land and you don't have a million bucks to throw away, you don't get to hunt?

One of the best things about America is that the rich and poor can compete alike. That is to say the poorest among us can become the richest among us if they use their talents and they work hard.

One man shouldn't have more opportunity to draw for the same tag as another man because he has 10,000 Benjamins stuffed in his pockets.

I don't want hunting to become only for elites even if I could still continue to put in for every hunt I currently put in for. Stepping on other people's opportunity is not what America is about.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

TS30 said:


> I oppose any raise to the tag price. I don't know why some people are so hell-bent on forcing people out of hunting. Oh wait, yes I do. Selfishness! These are public resources, owned by the public, paid for by the public, and sustained by the public. Making them accessible to only those that can afford is not only a bad idea, it is immoral. This isn't an economics, capitalist, or conservative vs liberal issue. This is about the attack that certain segments of the hunting population insist on pursuing against everyone else. I've heard it said many times that hunters worst enemy is hunters. I have started to understand that over that last few years. There are plenty of opportunities for those with money to have great hunts and experiences by utilizing the money they have. Normal, public draws should not become a part of that system. Period.
> 
> I don't mind having to pay for the tag up front, and having all but the application fee reimbursed if you don't draw. That would be okay with me. But I don't see it changing much, if anything at all in the scheme of things.
> 
> ...


Am I reading this the wrong way? Last year the henry rifle deer had 135 applicants with 15 points or more? There are lots of people with 15+ points. That hunts 14 point pool had 114 applicants, all unsuccessful, that now have 15 points.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Am I reading this the wrong way? Last year the henry rifle deer had 135 applicants with 15 points or more? There are lots of people with 15+ points. That hunts 14 point pool had 114 applicants, all unsuccessful, that now have 15 points.


Yep Again!

Did the math for a Hernry rifle guy thhis morning with 15 points ..
Could still take him 10 more years to draw that permit ...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

After the 2013 draw, regarding the Henry Mountains Rifle deer hunt:
There were 15 people with 17 points that did not get a permit.
There were 51 people with 16 points that did not get a permit.
There were 57 people with 15 points that did not get a permit.

This is just people that put in for the Henrys. So if all that stays the same, there are 123 people with 16 points or more putting in for the 12 tags assured to the highest point group. So if you have 15 points right now, it will be another 10 years before you are assured of a tag. At least.


----------



## steve.henstrom (Dec 4, 2013)

I agree with goofy there is no simple solution, one can only be grateful for the hunts one is given and take the draw with a grain of salt


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> IMO,
> 
> 1) Forcing hunters to "put money up front"
> 2) Increasing application fee's " to $100?"
> ...


I'm not so much against the "money up front" idea. I mean, you are going to have to pay if you draw the tag, so might as well make sure you have it at the outset. This would force people (myself included) to chose more precisely where our money it be invested instead of shotgunning applications here, there, and everywhere. It's not perfect, but I don't see it as being wrong to pay up front.

Numbers 2 and 3 is disagree with wholeheartedly. If you pay up front, there is no need to increase draw fees. That's like tacking an "assessment to the assessment fee" I used to see on my college tuition bills - Ridiculous!!

The 50/50 split is about as equitable as it comes. Those with skin in the game get their moment in the sun while allowing the other 50 percent a chance to draw as well. I guess you could make those with less than max points a total random draw with no bonus/preference points allowed in the bottom 50 percent pool of tags. Basically a straight random draw if you're not a max points individual. Not sure how I feel about that though.


----------



## hatch000 (Aug 4, 2011)

Although I agree with you 100% elkfromabove...the point I was trying to make is just what you had said. It is all just a guess at best. There is no way to "do the math" to figure it all out. I agree that point creep is an issue and not just in Utah. It's a problem elswhere also. When the number of critters decreases and the demand goes up (the number of hunters) then we will continue to have this problem. Raising prices is def an option. Not a popular one either, considering the numbers and quality of the critters but it probably needs to be done.


----------



## hatch000 (Aug 4, 2011)

I have read this entire thread and I think it's great that there are guys on here offering suggestions and ideas and stating their opinion. I'm liking what I'm reading. It's always nice to read these threads without seeing guys on here having a pissing match. 
I think no system is perfect and I think how the system is now, is not too bad. One thing I've learned in my life is that I've never been too lucky when it comes to lotterys:sad:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Am I reading this the wrong way? Last year the henry rifle deer had 135 applicants with 15 points or more? There are lots of people with 15+ points. That hunts 14 point pool had 114 applicants, all unsuccessful, that now have 15 points.


No, you are not reading that wrong. I made a typo on the deer numbers and not being at a spot where I can look that up again right now I don't know where the mistake I made was. There were a lot more people with 15 or more deer points than 48. My guess is I left a 3rd digit out of the number somewhere. I'll look later and correct the information. Sorry for that!


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

I do not believe that "pay up front" will have a big enough impact because, other than some possible interest charges, ultimately you get the money back.

We need to raise the nonrefundable application fee high enough to eliminate all of the people who really could care less about hunting. Be honest, how many people do you know who put in family and friends in order to sandbag points? I suspect that at least half the applicants are for people "playing the system".

How much would you be willing to pay in order to cut the time required to draw a tag in half or double your chances of drawing a tag?

As I said in an earlier post; I know the idea of raising prices is very unpopular but while you are sitting home this fall with another UNSUCESSFULL letter from the UDWR and you run the numbers and realize it could be another 10, 20, ... 100 years or more before you get a tag, give it some thought.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

I don't mind the pay up front idea. I would like to see the tags split up at 33% per weapon. I know the gun guys will cry if they see the archers "get another perk". but hey, that's the trade off for taking a tag for a lesser weapon. There would be an incentive for guys to switch weapons and it would ease up the clog on draws. 
Remember, no one is forcing you to hunt with a bow or muzzleloader. This is still a free country (at least for the time being) and YOU HAVE A CHOICE!!!! Pick the hunt that suits your style the best.


----------



## chukarflusher (Jan 20, 2014)

I like how Wyoming does there's yes they have point creep but they charge more for points keep it 50 50 split keep the app fee the same that's money that utah doesn't collect anyways ( I think correct me if I'm wrong just guessing ) raise the cost for a bonus point wyoming does it 30 for antelope 40 for deer and it gets more for the oil species and then take the money up front and refund it is it perfect no is point creep still their yea not as bad in my opinion that will weasel out some of the people that just " sandbag points " do I have anything to gain from this way not really I have 9 points for my draw species do I have a lot of money to apply for hunts every year no I missed wyoming last year because I couldn't afford it I don't think it would make it a rich mans game that way you just have to pay to play the only increase would be bonus points and you don't have to buy those if you don't any to


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I don't know the numbers but I would bet that Utah has almost as many applicants as Wyoming has residents. I am sure that is a vast exaggeration but the applicant/available permit has to be far different


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Oldtimer, you make me smirk. I don't believe there are as many sandbaggers as you think. Some, but I would guess less than half of applicants are. What if that sandbagger draws? Lots of money for someone who isnt into hunting. Trip, expenses, etc... I just don't think the theory holds merit. I don't know a single person who enters someone that doesn't hunt.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

I agree with Critter. 

Points do a couple negative things. 

1. They build a sense of entitlement. As a 
Member of the public, and following the rules
Of the NAWCM no person should have more
Or less access to a public resource. It shouldn't
Matter a **** if I've been applying for a permit
For. 20 years or a 13 year old kid applying for
His first tag. The kid is just as entitled as I am. Under
A point system you are weighting the system in favor
Of one at the detriment of another. 

2. It prevents some aspects of biological management
From taking place. We currently stockpile bull elk
At the expense of mule deer and other elk. 
If permits are increased then hunters complain
About hunter competition and perceived quality
Of LE game. How many times do we hear there are
No more big bucks or bulls on a unit, while at the 
Same time having HUGE allotments of antler less permits??
Hunters don't want to wait 15 - 20 years to draw, see other
Hunters during "their hunt" and piss and moan about
Settling for a 350 bull or 170 inch buck. 

It's a pyramid scheme plain and simple. 

Do away with points, nobody has an advantage over another
And biologists can manage herds instead of inches
Of antler or max point holders.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

GBell said:


> I agree with Critter.
> 
> Points do a couple negative things.
> 
> ...


????????? I don't know if I could disagree any more with you. What is an entitlement? You pay into something and then you wait, say for 20 years, you are entitled to a great tag after waiting twenty freaking years.....this isn't your newly redefined entitlement term like those on welfare feeling entitled; these are people paying a minimum of $40 now and waiting and waiting and waiting. 
I think you are also way off on management. Do you not like how the Henry's have been managed to be the arguably best Mule deer unit in the world? The best elk state in the world, arguably? Which LE or OIL unit is not managed well? NOne, correct? You are referring to general units that have absolutely nothing to do with the LE system. Nothing personal, I just completely disagree with your opinion.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

oldTimer said:


> I do not believe that "pay up front" will have a big enough impact because, other than some possible interest charges, ultimately you get the money back.
> 
> We need to raise the nonrefundable application fee high enough to eliminate all of the people who really could care less about hunting. Be honest, how many people do you know who put in family and friends in order to sandbag points? I suspect that at least half the applicants are for people "playing the system"


Not a chance. Not even close to half. In fact, I guarantee you that comparative to the total amount of applicants the number is very few.



oldTimer said:


> How much would you be willing to pay in order to cut the time required to draw a tag in half or double your chances of drawing a tag?


Very little.



oldTimer said:


> As I said in an earlier post; I know the idea of raising prices is very unpopular but while you are sitting home this fall with another UNSUCESSFULL letter from the UDWR and you run the numbers and realize it could be another 10, 20, ... 100 years or more before you get a tag, give it some thought.


This view point is so troubling to me. This takes us back to England and hunting the king's deer. The desire of people to sustain public wildlife on public lands with public money, and then attempt to shut the public out is, as I said earlier, in my opinion...immoral. Potentially even illegal. Certainly no offense intended. I just simply couldn't disagree with this more.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Huge, please do disagree. You and I pay taxes for
20 years in the same town. Same night both of our houses
Catch fire. Well since I bought girls scout cookies from the fire
Chiefs kid they'll be saving my house and when they are
Done they'll head your way. I'm more entitled cause I spent that
Extra $20..

Huge, what has the population on the Henry's done over the last
10 years?? With such limited tags there should be deer behind
Every rock right?? It's easy to grow big animals. Restrict access. Works
Every time. However restricting access is far from management.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Huge, please do disagree. You and I pay taxes for
> 20 years in the same town. Same night both of our houses
> Catch fire. Well since I bought girls scout cookies from the fire
> Chiefs kid they'll be saving my house and when they are
> ...


Doesn't your town have two fire engines? Not a good comparison because one is the opportunity to hunt a resource, the other is your house on fire... Little different. Because you own a home and have payed up to 30 years would you be mad if no one showed up to put out the fire? Are you entitled to firemen?

It isn't easy to grow big animals. Gene's are key. Thus, welcome to the management tag. The genes, habitat, and management all need to align. Can't do that everywhere, no sir. There is more to it, but it should explain itself really.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random it's the same thing. It is an unfair access to a public 
Resource. Spin it how you wish but it's exactly the same concept. 

Random age plays more of an effect than genetics.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

GBell said:


> Random age plays more of an effect than genetics.


try telling that to an elderly midget.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Random it's the same thing. It is an unfair access to a public
> Resource. Spin it how you wish but it's exactly the same concept.
> 
> Random age plays more of an effect than genetics.


NO IT DOESN'T! Age allows the antlers to grow to their full potential. You can let bad genes grow for 10 years and you will not get a 200" deer. Point. Period. The last time I checked, the average age harvested on the Henry's was 6 years old. That may not be the case now, but seems accurate. This age does play a very important role, but it is not alone. Have you ever seen a 20+ inch 2 point? I have seen many. How old do you think these deer are? They can get older, but they aren't going to grow more points because of age! If you allow these to continuously breed in an area, you damper down quality. Big 3 points are awesome, but don't produce 200" deer. Management tags eliminate the small deer from the population. There are still small deer that get old there, but by having the majority of the stud's being big and old they are the ones that get the doe's. Diet is also very important. This goes with environment factor. Both are things the Henry's provides wonderfully.

Even with your age factor, how do you allow deer to be old? By not restricting access? Makes a lot of sense. I am in the process of posting something about age/quality on elk... You will see it shortly.

Look guys, everyone complains about these systems. Yeah, it sucks that you may never get to hunt the Henry Mountains. In our hobby, it is the goldmine. Pandora's box. Whatever you want to call it. Why is it that way? Because we hand out hundreds of tags? I personally enjoy being able to go somewhere that isn't a statepark, and see animals you can't even see in Yellowstone. I love that we have the majestic mountain in our home state, I wouldn't want it anywhere else. We in Utah have so many WMA's, public ground, national forest... Our general season opportunities are some of the greatest in the nation in my opinion(givin our population). These limited entry areas are just a bonus. You can chase that dream, scratch that scratch off, buy that lotto ticket; and maybe, just maybe, one day you can yell BINGO!!! Fact is, if everyone won bingo they could give you each a sticker. Since they limit the prizes, you can win a brand new car!! Everyone wants it, but it is only logic that not everyone gets it. To rebute my own statement, realistically other than the San Juan, Henry's, and maybe a FEW other units, you can hunt one, and really multiple LE units in your life. Restricted access has created the resource, and all these people are complaining about that. You wouldn't want to go to the Henry's 5 years from now if we quit restricting access and managing it.

Edit: now it is early.. Earlier then I should be writing posts to explain this stuff. But never to early to get the Top o the Page!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> try telling that to an elderly midget.


Might be the best/funniest post I have read on here.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ha ha that's pretty funny skinner. I prefer
"Small people" 

Seriously though, you put your mortgage behind
10 random deer growing big through good genetics,
I'll bet my mortgage on 10 more random deer growing
Bigger because they reach 5 years of age and 
I'll take the pot 8 out of 10 times.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random are we going to start genetic testing of our herds
And putting ear tags in breeder bucks??


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

you take 10 random deer that grow to the age of 5 versus 10 deer that have the genetics to grow bigger antlers to the age of five, in the same environment.....the age group with the bigger antler genetics will win.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

GBell said:


> Random are we going to start genetic testing of our herds
> And putting ear tags in breeder bucks??


you don't have to draw blood and see an ear tag to to test genetics for something that you can already see. Genetics testing has been actively conducted for years and years.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> you don't have to draw blood and see an ear tag to test genetics for something that you can already see. Genetics testing has been actively conducted for years and years.


I hear Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, and SCI have been doing this for years. But I dare say we've all done our own genetics testing the first time we stepped into the boys locker room in junior high!


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

hatch000 said:


> Although...the point I was trying to make is just what you had said. It is all just a guess at best. There is no way to "do the math" to figure it all out.


With several years of statistical data provided by the DWR (I have it going back to 2006) the trends become quite clear. You can plug in the numbers for the point groups that recieved a bonus tag and perform a FORECAST or PROJECT function on the data and it is very close... within a half a point on average. 
There is no way to project the data perfectly because the application is so fluid (guys switching units, switching weapons, applying for a point only one year but a tag the next) there are just too many variables. But if you look at the data the right way you can VERY close.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

We're not talking deer in a pen here men. 
Let's pick a LE unit and the GS unto closest. 

Why does the Crawford hunt produce bigger
Bucks than Monte Cristo?? Restricted access. 

You can have the best genetics is the world
On a GS unit but if we kill these bucks or bulls
At two years old what have we accomplished??

Conversely, take a LE unit managed for a certain
Percentage of bucks that must be 5.5 years
Old and the older genetically inferior buck
Will be bigger than his 2 year old genetically superior
Buck every time. 

Remember also that genetics require a doe to produce
Offspring, what if a doe's genetic shortcomings 
Offset the bucks genetic advantage??


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> We're not talking deer in a pen here men.
> Let's pick a LE unit and the GS unto closest.
> 
> Why does the Crawford hunt produce bigger
> ...


You are confusing me now. By trying to win the genetic superiority argument, you are in turn losing your case against restricted access.

Let me get straight to the point. Do you like that you have the opportunity to hunt big bucks/elk or not? You argue against restricted access, then say any area can be good if the bucks get old. Then you mention killing a two year old genetically superior buck in an unmanaged unit vs a 5.5 genetically inferior. Fact is, without management NO buck gets to grow. They picked the area best fit. If you had been at this for awhile, you would know that 10 years ago it wasn't all about the Henry's, it was the Pans.

You also lose the argument about genetics when comparing 2 restricted areas. If genetics don't matter, what makes the Henry's produce bigger deer than any other limited entry area? Arguably the biggest in the world....

Earlier you mentioned someone putting in 20 years vs a 13 year old. Didn't the money and conservation efforts of most that have been in it a long time pave the way for that 13 year old?

I know people that kill a ton of big animals. "Dang how has he already done that by 30???" Because it is his life. He puts more in then he takes. His life is in the hills, he will be at all the meetings, he will follow conservation and new proposals. I feel he is more entitled then the guy who just kills and whines, and more than most 13 year olds. As much as people complain about cwmu prices, and even the antelope tag(i have but only because of herd management issues) these guys give money to places and keep the resource going. They make it matter to people who may not have cared; sure their heart isn't in the same place as ours, but it saves the resources. The fact that Durst made profit may have bugged many, but now it is going to be sold and turned into a neighborhood. I preferred it being managed and restricted to it being houses and public.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

GBell said:


> Random age plays more of an effect than genetics.


This is a false statement. It doesn't matter how old I get, I will never be 6'6". Deer aren't any different in that realm. The vast majority of deer will never get 220 inches regardless of how old they get.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

chukarflusher said:


> I agree all money up front for the tag and when unsuccessful refund everything but the app fee like Wyoming does I wander if the state could make extra revenue from interest by sitting on everybody's tag fees for a few months


Interest rates are so low they don't make money.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

After reading all the negatives about the point system we can conclude a few things.....

It turned out to be unfair. As an unintended consequence I am sure. With a random draw everyone has an equal chance at drawing. Points not so much.

We turned tags into a ponzi scheme. Our kids applying is literally throwing money away. A 14 year old kid now will never hunt the Henrie's no matter how lucky he gets.

I could go on but I won't because I know I'll get crucified by just about everyone.

So comes the big question.....Does anyone (other than people with high number of points) still believe that we should continue to use this whole (not half) a$$ system as a viable way to issue tags?

To me it makes more sense to save the application money and buy landowner tags.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

"Let me get straight to the point. Do you like that you have the opportunity to hunt big bucks/elk or not?"

Now we are getting to the point. 
Your above quote is actually two questions,
And works with my point exactly. 

Broken down. Do you want the opportunity
To hunt ? Or do you want the opportunity to hunt
Big bucks and bulls. 

I will favor "just hunt" EVERY time. 
70% of Utah hunters share my view. 

Further along with my point. It is absolutely
IMPOSSIBLE to manage genetics. You can't control
This variable like you can age classification or buck to
Doe ratio. Still with me??

You can't take a unit with migratory widespread breeding
Animals and say we want to keep this area targeted
For this one group of DNA. Can't happen without a zoo like enclosure. 

You can manage by saying we are going to cut
Opportunity on a certain unit until a certain
Percentage of bucks reach a certain age. Or cut opportunity
Until the buck to doe ratio is a certain amount.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> We turned tags into a ponzi scheme. Our kids applying is literally throwing money away. A 14 year old kid now will never hunt the Henrie's no matter how lucky he gets.


The odds are low, but never say never. 8 of the 24 Utah residents that drew the any weapon tag on the Henry Mtns hunt last year had 10 points or less. 3 of those had 5 points or less. I get what you are saying. But again, never say never!



MadHunter said:


> So comes the big question.....Does anyone (other than people with high number of points) still believe that we should continue to use this whole (not half) a$$ system as a viable way to issue tags?


I have high elk points, but nothing else. In fact, I just started putting in for bison 3 years ago and that is the only other points I have. I will be cashing out my elk points in the next couple years and then I will virtually have no points in any species. I support the continuation of this program the way it is. I think it is best way to do it. I greatly prefer it over a non-bonus point system. But that is just me.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

TS you may never be 6'6" but that doesn't mean
That you can't have a child that is 6'6". 
Seriously this may sound silly but I mean it
Honestly. What if you fall in love and marry a chick that
Happens to be 6'10"?? Did the chance improve
That your child may inherit the chance to become tall??

My point you can't manage breeding.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yes, my child could be 6'6". But that will be 100% because of genetics, not because we allow them to grow older. No, you can't manage breeding. You are correct with that. I never said you could. I simply disputed your claim that age has more to do with big deer than genetics, which is a false statement.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

One other point random and TS. If genetics
Work as you claim, where are the other spider
Bulls?? It's been 5 years??

This has been a rather respectful enjoyable debate,
Props to you fine men.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Gbell you never responded to the best question, why is the henry mountain unit producing the biggest mule deer in the world? It isn't the only managed unit in the world. 

You tell my neighbor and his wife that are under 4' 10" each that their son will be 6'6". I am done responding to you because, and no disrespect, but you clearly lack knowledge on the issue. 

Mad, yes I have low points and believe that right now, this system is our best option. I also know that frequent system changes doesn't work either. I have yet to hear a solution that would drastically change anything. Limited resource-limited tags-more applicants. No real solution. You still have a chance at any hunt and every year it gets better. The only contribution I even considered was I once saw one saying a 3 point minimum to draw. But this would end up resulting in larger pools in my opinion!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> One other point random and TS. If genetics
> Work as you claim, where are the other spider
> Bulls?? It's been 5 years??
> 
> ...


Behind a fence.

Please see:
"Mossback controversy"
"Spider bull controversy"
"Spider bull theory"


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Just because genes are passed on does not mean that they will all be alike. There are so many other factors on year-to-year antler growth than simply an animal's genetics. Take the Cemetery Buck for example. Look at how different his rack was the year he had a double main beam, the next year he didn't. 

I'm 6'2". My older brother is 5'11". My oldest brother is 5'9". We all come from the exact same stock. Same genetics doesn't mean identical attributes. 

Of course it is clear that a 5 year old deer will almost always be bigger than a 2 year old deer with a similar genetic makeup. Age matters. But it is not more of a factor in growing big deer than genetics. Either a deer can get big, or it can't. 

As for the Crawfords vs Monte Cristo....those big deer people shoot on the Crawfords aren't from the same gene pool. In fact, that is winter range for those Crawfords deer. Isn't the only LE aspect of the Crawfords that late ML hunt?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

GBell said:


> TS you may never be 6'6" but that doesn't mean
> That you can't have a child that is 6'6".
> Seriously this may sound silly but I mean it
> Honestly. What if you fall in love and marry a chick that
> ...


You are invalidating your own argument. By throwing in the maternal genetic factor. It doesn't matter how you spin the argument or the data. The bottom line is that without the genetic background for large antlers, paternal or maternal, a buck will and can only grow as much as his genes dictate.

Your argument could be equated to an Asian couple giving birth to a black baby. It's impossible as the genetic makeup is not there. Unless the wife was on the creep.

The reason the Henrie's has huge deer is because both the buck and the does in that geographical area a genetically predisposed to pass on the huge antler gene. It has nothing to do with deer age. It's all genes it always has been the genes and it always will be.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

"Gbell you never responded to the best question, why is the henry mountain unit producing the biggest mule deer in the world? It isn't the only managed unit in the world."

Because the tags are tightly limited. This 
Unit has no better genetics than any other
Unit. Deer are OLD. Not killed as yearlings or
Two points. 

The confusion you are experiencing is due
To applying the amount of variables that are
Inherent in WILD vs CAPTIVE animals. We aren't
Talking breeding black labs here. We can't contain
Wild animals to ensure the good genetic strain
Doesn't co mingle with inferior genetics. Understand that
The first time it does your genetic theory
Is irrelevant. 

You are trying to get a qtr horse in the wild by allowing 
A qtr horse mare to breed with a Shetland stud.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ask a biologist about the effect in genetics,
They'll tell you while it could happen the determining
Factor is age and habitat / nutrition.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

GBell said:


> Because the tags are tightly limited. *This
> Unit has no better genetics than any other
> Unit.* Deer are OLD. Not killed as yearlings or
> Two points.


Again, another 100% false statement. There are lots of units that are restricted that don't grow the deer that the Henry Mtns unit grows. In fact, we have multiple units in our very own state that very few, if any yearlings and 2 points are being shot. Yes, a deer needs time to grow up. You won't ever see a 2 year old deer that goes 225+ inches. However, without the genetics he will never get that big regardless of how old he is. That is a scientific fact and can't even be argued. Yet you are trying to make that argument...


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

TS brother I agree with what you are saying
In principle. No argument. However it does
Not apply to hunting in our state. 

Say you had a Henry's tag in your pocket
And you had a way to judge genetics and age
Accurately. 

Would you shoot the 2 year old genetic
King or the MATURE 5 year old 220 buck. 

Antelope Island must have genetics


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Man, talk about a thread hijack... here I was having a great time throwing around statistics & numbers talking about point creep. Now we're talking age vs. genetics???


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

GBell said:


> TS brother I agree with what you are saying
> In principle. No argument. However it does
> Not apply to hunting in our state.
> 
> ...


YES it does! and to your 2 year gene king vs 5 year mature buck; in a genetically rich unit I would not shoot a 2yr old buck because the 5 year old in that unit will be huge.

The reason you are tall, short, fat, thin, blonde, redhead, brown, white or black is all genetic. Did you conveniently ignore my last post directed at you because you have no argument against it?

Genetics accounts for the largest portion of a deer's antler growth. After that come nutrition and then environment. To think otherwise is to ignore science fact. Can you point to any research or study that puts genetics as the last factor in biological characteristics? NO! ... you won't find one.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

derekp1999 said:


> Man, talk about a thread hijack... here I was having a great time throwing around statistics & numbers talking about point creep. Now we're talking age vs. genetics???


And I keep feeding the fire. Sorry Derek.... things just happen.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Mad I'm not ignoring you. 

I'll say it once and for all here. 

This argument deals with your insistence
That the Henry unit has some sort of super
Genetic structure that grows big bucks. 

My point all along has been that it is an irrelevant
Argument. 

Let's use your human genetic trait examples. 
Say you and your wife are both 7 feet tall. Your
Kid has the genetics to be. 7 feet tall. The
Freaking kid isn't going to be born at 7 feet tall. 
If the kid dies at 3 years old will he be expected
To be 7 feet tall at that age?? Under this scenario,
Just like with Utah's deer herd specifically GS units
It don't make a squirt of piss difference because
The kid or the buck never grew to an AGE of
MATURITY to realize his genetic potential. 

Now take that same family, the kid still ain't born at 7 feet tall. 
We're going to lock him in a closet and feed him
Nothing but bread and water. Is the kid going to be
A 7 footer?? Why not?! He's got the genetics??
Habitat and nutrition. 

Same family, kid ain't born at 7 feet he basically
Eats like an Olympic athlete. He trains like 
An Olympic athlete and you have the Henry's Mtn 
Monster buck of a kid. Why?? Because he didn't get killed
Before he realized his genetic potential ( like every two point
On a GS unit does ) he had proper nutrition and he worked. 

Look fellas I sat on the last statewide mule deer committee. The
Henry management plan encompassed a full nights discussion. 
Between the SFW Rep pushing for a biologically unobtainable
Age class and Division biologists telling him he was full of it, the plan went
From a 5.5 year old buck to a % of bucks must
Be 5.5 years old. 

My point, and you'll either understand or you won't is that
We never let enough bucks hit a mature enough age to determine
Wether big antlers are caused by age or some super gene.

Now I've answered, or at least tried to answer your questions. 
Please answer my previous question. 

Where are all the other little Spider Bulls??
Where is the other Frito's bucks in Dugway??
Where are the other General Bucks at Camp Williams??
If genetics are controlled and undiluted no matter the length of time
There should be animals like this in these areas every year. 

Thanks fellas 
Peace.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Just a quick link on trophy management, (antler growth, etc.) appologies for the continued hijack. You are on the right track Gordy...

Its an interesting read:

http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_l/l-111/welcome.html


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Here ya go Mad. From one of the better bio's I know. 
Also happens to be from Utah.

http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/antler-growth-101/comment-page-1/#comment-13725


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Oh. My. Hell. We need an emotocon of a guy slappin himself in the forehead while shaking his head.

And you sat on the committee? Good heavens. 

I quit.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

2 from me plus the one from still.

Dr Kay is as good as it gets.

http://idahoforwildlife.com/Charles Kay/73-How to grow trophy mule deer.pdf


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

You can think whatever you wish about me
Random. 

However arguing with two professional 
Biologists that back my statement concerning
Genetics makes me slap my head with amazement
At your stubbornness. 

Lemme see if I cal find anything from Val Geist. 
Surely you know who that is and would trust his work
Right??


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Here ya go Mad. From one of the better bio's I know.
> Also happens to be from Utah.
> 
> http://www.muleymadness.com/articles/antler-growth-101/comment-page-1/#comment-13725


Age. Genetics. Condition.

"Certainly there are areas where no matter how old a buck gets and no matter how much you feed him, he's just not going to be a 200 class buck. In this case genetics are the missing link. I maintain that in order to truly grow a big mule deer, you have to have all three."

Exactly what I said dude. Genetics are the missing link. I said environment, the big section about minerals he goes over... Yeah, henry's.

"When it comes right down to it, you either already have good genetics in the local population or you don't."

Uh, again... What I said. Henry's. This sentence alone shuts you down. Hard to track, yes. Doesn't ever say that genetics don't matter.

And age.... Restricted access.

I don't love the article, but you seriously just proved yourself wrong. Hoqever you will read it to say that AGE and AGE and ummm AGE are all it says. You have to read, dissect, and mentally compose what it is trying to convey.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

RandomElk16 said:


> NO IT DOESN'T! Age allows the antlers to grow to their full potential. You can let bad genes grow for 10 years and you will not get a 200" deer. Point. Period. The last time I checked, the average age harvested on the Henry's was 6 years old. That may not be the case now, but seems accurate. This age does play a very important role, but it is not alone. Have you ever seen a 20+ inch 2 point? I have seen many. How old do you think these deer are? They can get older, but they aren't going to grow more points because of age! If you allow these to continuously breed in an area, you damper down quality. Big 3 points are awesome, but don't produce 200" deer. Management tags eliminate the small deer from the population. There are still small deer that get old there, but by having the majority of the stud's being big and old they are the ones that get the doe's. Diet is also very important. This goes with environment factor. Both are things the Henry's provides wonderfully.


My post #71. I include age, genetics, diet/enviro(he calls it conditions).

Your link says what I said. In so many ways even the Henry age being 6. He says max maturity is 5-6. Its the same info man. Good. Hell.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Val Geist. Dr. That means PHD. One of the most respected
Biologists world wide really blows your theory to Shiz.

The adaptive horn/antler configuration is that of the "average male". We know, from centuries of experience, exactly how to produce "trophies" without genetic manipulation. In a nutshell, offer superior food for body and antler growth and insure that he male does not breed. To generate "trophy heads", feed the population maximally with a diet rich on protein and minerals for about five generations. Even then maximum growth will not set in, unless the male can be prevented from breeding. -

See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2009...ticle-on-trophy-hunting/#sthash.edAvZnnW.dpuf

Apparently Geist believes that big antlered bucks are big because
The don't rutt!!'

Can't pass genes with out hooking up now can they.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Val Geist. Dr. That means PHD. One of the most respected
> Biologists world wide really blows your theory to Shiz.
> 
> The adaptive horn/antler configuration is that of the "average male". We know, from centuries of experience, exactly how to produce "trophies" without genetic manipulation. In a nutshell, offer superior food for body and antler growth and insure that he male does not breed. To generate "trophy heads", feed the population maximally with a diet rich on protein and minerals for about five generations. Even then maximum growth will not set in, unless the male can be prevented from breeding. -
> ...


Did you read this article? It is about Ram's.


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

Getting back on topic.



TS30 said:


> This view point is so troubling to me. This takes us back to England and hunting the king's deer. The desire of people to sustain public wildlife on public lands with public money, and then attempt to shut the public out is, as I said earlier, in my opinion...immoral. Potentially even illegal. Certainly no offense intended. I just simply couldn't disagree with this more.


What is a "moral" price for an application and a tag?

Do you believe that applications and tags should be free? If a person cannot afford the $10 application fee should they be able to apply for free applications similar to free school lunch? If a person cannot afford the cost of hunting (truck, rifle, gas, ammo, etc.) should the state of Utah provide that person with "hunting stamps" similar to food stamps?

What is a person entitled to?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That's a great red herring you just threw out there. Unfortunately, it won't throw me off the topic at hand. You used the word entitled. Not me. 

If you want to price people out of hunting, then do this:

Privately fund the wildlife. Privately fund the millions of acres that they reside upon. (Ooops, state is already trying to do that...) Privately fund the biologists, law enforcement, etc it will take to manage the resources and enforce whatever laws will be in place. If you want a purely capitalistic system in hunting, then do it. Quit sucking off the public teet. Put your money where your mouth is. Not a single penny more of public tax payer money goes to wildlife. Are you game?


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

TS30 said:


> That's a great red herring you just threw out there. Unfortunately, it won't throw me off the topic at hand. You used the word entitled. Not me.
> 
> If you want to price people out of hunting, then do this:
> 
> Privately fund the wildlife. Privately fund the millions of acres that they reside upon. (Ooops, state is already trying to do that...) Privately fund the biologists, law enforcement, etc it will take to manage the resources and enforce whatever laws will be in place. If you want a purely capitalistic system in hunting, then do it. Quit sucking off the public teet. Put your money where your mouth is. Not a single penny more of public tax payer money goes to wildlife. Are you game?


So should applications and tags be free?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

No.


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

TS30 said:


> No.


Then how much should they cost and who gets to decide?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Just my opinion.... NOBODY IS ENTITELED TO ANYTHING...PERIOD

Now, tags should cost whatever the real value of the animal is according to the state after whatever taxes and fees sportsmen pay into the system. They should not be subsidized in any way.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I've already answered that at least once, but I think multiple times.


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

*Don't give up*



GaryFish said:


> Good example Hatch. I started getting points when the whole system started. So if I had put in every year, I'd be assured the elk tag I've been chasing. But instead, I moved out of state for five years, and missed out on those. Then I got so wrapped up in life for a couple more, I just spaced it. So here I am with nine elk points. And I am moving to Arizona later this year, so this is my last year to apply as a resident in Utah. So if I don't draw, I'm pretty much done applying in Utah.


Even when you move out of state don't give up. As a NR you can build points for all species so as of today a license 164 would get you a license and points for 7 species, gotta be a silver lining


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Derek, sorry for the post hijack. Random 
Won't understand that as long as we kill two
Year old bucks that genetics never come in to
Play. Or listen to the words of Todd Black, Dr. Kay
Or Dr. Geist. Done with that argument. 

My argument of doing away with the point system
Is highly offensive to many and would personally
See me lose an elk opportunity I could have drawn 
The last several years. 

Somebody brought up phasing out points over a period
Of time. Great idea. 

Wildlife is part of the public trust doctrine. 
Meaning no member of public should have
More or less access to it. 

Peace.


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

TS30 said:


> I've already answered that at least once, but I think multiple times.


I read back through your post and could not find an answer. All I could find from rereading your post is that you are very much against raising tag prices. That's okay, I respect your opinion and no offence intended.

I believe time and mathematics are on my side. You can almost feel the growing frustration from unsuccessful hunters seething over the internet. Every 2 to 3 weeks there is a fresh thread desperately throwing out ideas on how to change the current system to make the terrible, miserable draw odds just a little better.

The simple answer is raise prices.

I fully encourage everyone who gets an UNSUCCESSFULL letter AGAIN this year from the UDWR to consider if they would have been happy paying a few more dollars and getting a tag.

$40 dollars for a LE deer tag is immoral.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

oldTimer said:


> $40 dollars for a LE deer tag is immoral.


And where do you get a LE deer tag for $40 in Utah? You can get a CWMU tag for $40 but a LE tag is $80 for a resident and $468 for a non resident or you can go the the premium LE tag for a resident for $168.

It is sad when those with money want the prices raised to the point that only they can purchase a tag and forget about the working stiff who can't. If you really want to hunt that bad why don't you spend your money on a fully outfitted hunt in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming or some other state or even go north to Canada. They will gladly welcome your money.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Yeah, sorry Derek for Gbell's comprehension issues. 

I stated before, I don't believe we have a better alternative. Right now anyone has opportunity to draw, 0-20 points. So I don't understand why the problem? If you are worried tags will never be a guarantee, but then want it all random? Right now at least you get a little benefit for waiting.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Tags should never be a guarantee for anyone. 

That's my point. Shouldn't be a guarantee for a 70 year old thats been applying 
for 56 years any more than it should be a guarantee for a 14 year old.

should be equal access to all.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

oldTimer said:


> I read back through your post and could not find an answer. All I could find from rereading your post is that you are very much against raising tag prices. That's okay, I respect your opinion and no offence intended.
> 
> I believe time and mathematics are on my side. You can almost feel the growing frustration from unsuccessful hunters seething over the internet. Every 2 to 3 weeks there is a fresh thread desperately throwing out ideas on how to change the current system to make the terrible, miserable draw odds just a little better.
> 
> ...


Oh I get it now...........to create more opportunity the answer is to take potentially take away the opportunity entirely to some. Increase opportunity for those that are willing to pay through the nose by removing people that can't.

I remember years ago in high school during an assembly, I addressed the principal and asked him if there were future plans to increase the parking areas so there was adequate for everybody in a growing school. His answer: "show up earlier and you'll have a place to park."

Same line of thinking.......Self centered BS. As long as YOU have a tag and YOU have place to park YOU are good.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

SKINNER Gets it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Oldtimer, 

You can claim that time and math may be on your side, but facts aren't. First, as pointed out, a LE deer tag isn't $40. Next, the threads you refer to one this site are largely all started by the same few individuals and just rehashing old arguments. Further, Internet forums represent a very very small portion of the hunting public. I don't believe the majority of hunters would support a tag increase. I believe this based upon things former DWR director Karpowitz stated to me personally in a committee meeting on stream access when we were proposing a $5 fishing stamp to help fund certain measures to go in place. He stated that even minuscule raises in prices of hunting and fishing licenses have consistently been met with uproar and outcry by the vast majority. 

You are correct in one thing: raising prices would prevent some people from playing the game and in turn, would increase your chances by .0001%. Maybe even .003%!!! As for who should decide...well, last I checked these are still public resources owned by the people we are talking about. I'd say its up to 'the people.' Not the rich or special interest groups. But ALL the people.

Edit--Well said Mr Muleskinner!


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Comprehension??? Random???

Apparently your comprehension skips the question I've asked several times.

One more shot at it.

Spider Bull.... Where are they other Spider Bulls?
Frito's... Where are the other Frito bucks?
The General at Camp Williams... Where are the other Generals??
and lets add the Cemetery Buck to the list..... 

Genetics exhibited in any of these animals offspring. Just one will do, please and thanks.

The Spider bull was a 500 inch genetic freak. The Monroe should be full of more 
500 inch bulls right??


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

The spider bull has so much controversy around its legitness that isn't the one to bring up. And as your article you posted states, if you have genetics you have em. Look at high fence breeding, genetics is the whole operation. 

The camp williams Freetos buck? And the general. That was poached? There are lots of monsters out there, same with at ATK. Nothing new about them, just don't see picks because no one is allowed there and no more have been poached.

Something in their genetics made them freaks. Get it? Like muleskinner says, a recessive gene.

You are basically saying genetics don't exist. Your point is bouncing back and forth. 

Lets just disagree and move on.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Given the spider bull as an example..........just because a rack like that may seem dominant, the particular gene that created the odd rack was obviously a recessive gene or there would be far more of them. Freaks big or small, are freaks for a reason.

Freaks=recessive genes or freaks would be the norm.

Same goes for black panthers and albino deer. Don't confuse big racks with dominant genes. They are not necessarily connected. Study up on how chromosomes work.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mule said it best.

And Melanistic deer.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Look at high fence breeding, genetics is the whole operation. 

BECAUSE ITS A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

Wild animals ARE NOT FREAKING CONTROLLED!!!

Genetics work in controlled environments where captive animals are controlled.

IN REAL WORLD HUNTING SITUATIONS YOU CAN'T CONTROL BREEDING. YOU CAN'T CONTROL WINTER KILL OR ANY OTHER SORT OF PREDATION YOU CAN'T CONTROL 
WHICH ESTRUS CYCLE THE FEMALE CONCEIVES, YOU CAN'T CONTROL STRESS DURING THE RUTT, YOU CAN'T CONTROL THAT A MATURE BUCK IS DOING THE BREEDING.

THE ONLY THING YOU CAN CONTROL IS FRICKEN AGE CLASS AND MALE, FEMALE RATIOS AND EVEN THEN ITS AN ON THE FLY ADJUSTMENT.

Look Random, in controlled environments genetics make a difference, in the wild
they absolutely are the freak occurrences that I've tried sarcastically to get you to realize. My point with the Spider Bull is that it is an anomaly just like a piebald or any other genetic rarity.

Deer on the Henry's are big for one reason. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO KILL THESE DEER AS TWO POINTS.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

GBell said:


> Deer on the Henry's are big for one reason. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO KILL THESE DEER AS TWO POINTS.


Oy....I don't know why I'm going to say this because the above statement was literally that silly...but this assertion couldn't be more inaccurate factually than it is. You said the there is ONE reason deer on the Henry's are big. False.

By that inaccurate logic we could issue only 30-40 tags per year on Wedt Desert Tintic for 5-6 years and by doing so would create one of the best mule deer units in the world. If in fact that ONE reason you stated was true, that would be the case. And as we all know, that wouldn't happen. Therefore making your ONE reason totally false.

Again, I don't know why I even replied to such rubbish. My BS meter was going off the charts though...


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

TS, the Vernon is right down the road. Big bucks. 

The Book Cliffs another perfect example. The unit
Was so bad it was closed. Now it's severely limited
And GROWS big bucks. Because they are not
Killed as two points. 

Again myself and the three biologists are 
Dead wrong, right??


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

_what has any of this have to do with point creep?_


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

TS look at it this way.

Hypothetical situation of course.

Lets say the division comes up with a way that will absolutely Guarantee
a buck will be 200 inches at maturity. Guaranteed. Lets say it's a food pellet
that passes these genes to every male deer.

With me??

Now lets take unit 17 in the Strawberry / Currant Creek area. Feed 2 of the three subunits the pellets. Genetics are in place to have a ton of 200 inch deer. Agree??

17A is going to be a GS Unit. Wide open for all seasons, this unit gets the magic feed.

17B Other side of I40 is another GS unit that gets the magic feed.

17C is right in the middle of the A and B units just as big and with the exact same habitat conditions. NO MAGIC FEED AND WILL BE UNDER THE HENRY MTN UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN. 50% OF THE BUCKS HARVESTED MUST BE 5.5 YEARS OLD OR PERMITS WILL BE CUT UNTIL THIS RATIO IS REACHED.

Still with me TS

Run this program for 3 years and tell me which unit is going to have more bigger bucks. A with guaranteed 200 inch genetics. B with guaranteed 200 inch genetics or C with no genetic guarantee but only 50 permits.

Please and Thanks.

Feel Free to Chime in as well RANDOM.:grin:


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ridge It ain't got squat to do with point creep and I sincerely apologize to all.

However it is just as important as antler point restrictions or reducing buck harvest to grow more deer mythology.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Just like a July night. 

CRICKETS!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

GBell said:


> TS, the Vernon is right down the road. Big bucks.
> 
> The Book Cliffs another perfect example. The unit
> Was so bad it was closed. Now it's severely limited
> ...


Yes, you are dead wrong. Especially if you think that the Vernon and Books are even in the same galaxy as the Henry's for quality. To bring this full circle to point creep. There is a reason that you can draw two of the mentioned units with around 10 points and there will be some with 10 points now that will NEVER be able to hunt on the Henry's.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

There are people with no knowledge or false knowledge, and that is O.K.

Then there are people that have false knowledge, but are also stubborn. These are the worst to speak with. Stubborn Stupidity. Can't be genetics, because they don't exist. 

The only thing I apologize for is letting myself try and have a conversation even knowing that stubborn stupidity exists, and I have found another case.

I have offered my opinion on the point creep. I don't know why anyone feels it is bad to ever be a guarantee to receive a tag. Then others, and sometimes the same people, complain that with creep there never will be a guarantee. So If there is no guarantee and anyone can win, getting rid of points does nothing. It takes away a better opportunity from those who have waited, and adds a slightly larger opportunity to those who haven't. I don't think people have given thought that regardless of your point number this year, that if you get rid of points you may never ever ever ever draw a tag. Ever. And The lucky ones may draw over and over and over and over. 

To say no one has the right to have better odds makes absolutely no sense to me. However, those of you that don't like the point system I offer you this: since you want opportunity for all, pat yourself on the back because it already exists. Just not as much as you would like. If you want to make a stand, please call the DWR each season and surrender your points. I am sure they can do this for you and you would be doing a great service to the point creap creep crepe issue.

The point that I do see as somewhat realistic is those that aren't worried about an even draw, but those that worry they never will have a guarantee. Basically the other side of the fence. Problem is, I can't give a solution that will promise you a tag. All I know is that the opportunity is plentiful. I didn't draw a cow tag for a few years, and because of points am able to hunt a premium area. Kind of a cool bonus that I didn't intend on.

As far as LE.... Wow, have you seen the archery odds? Muzzy odds? Not the top 5 unit odds? You have more opportunity then you know. If you are truly passionate and really want an opportunity to hunt "better" (not best, not normal) areas, you can definitely do so.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Avoided the question. Way to go men. 

Random. I'm pretty sure I'm older than you. 

Using your point logic and giving certain hunters
An advantage. You wouldn't mind if I follow
You to camp on public land, watch you get all
Set up and comfortable then ask you to move
Because I have earned it?? Wildlife is the same. 
Should I be able to kick you out of a spot on public
Land?? Hell no. Then why should you limit my ability
At the same thing via the draw? 

Neither of you have answered my unit management
Question so I'll do it for you. 

17 A and B being GS units with no restrictions
Will see very few bucks get past 3 years of age
And provide max opportunity. 

17C MUST reach a certain AGE CLASS of 
Buck ( just like the Henry's ) or permits are
Cut till the unit does. 

Have fun with those genetically superior 
2 points knowing that genetically inferior 
More mature bucks will ALWAYS be bigger
Than 1.5 year old bucks will. 

TS if you limit the Vernon and Books the way
The Henry's is you'll see the EXACT result.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

GBell said:


> TS if you limit the Vernon and Books the way
> The Henry's is you'll see the EXACT result.


About the 15th totally and completely false statement you've made. You either have absolutely no clue or are just trying to argue because you get your jolly's off of it. Either way, I'm done with ya.

Point creep sucks. But it's better than any other option I've heard of so far.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

C'mon TS at least be man enough and answer 
The deer management question I asked??

Which unit will have bigger bucks?? 

The unit where the majority of bucks are killed
By hunters at under 18 months of age or
The unit managed for 5.5 year old bucks ??

TS you are aware the books and Vernon
Are managed by buck to doe ratio
And not age class like the Henry's right??

Kay, Black and Geist. Idiots every one.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

One last question then I'll start another thread
For further discussion. 

TS and Random are you in favor of 3 or 4
Point or better hunt strategies?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> One last question then I'll start another thread
> For further discussion.
> 
> TS and Random are you in favor of 3 or 4
> Point or better hunt strategies?


 I'm not.
Also, please start a new thread with a clear mission statement.;-)


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

GBell said:


> TS, the Vernon is right down the road. Big bucks.
> 
> The Book Cliffs another perfect example. The unit
> Was so bad it was closed. Now it's severely limited
> ...


FYI..... the vernon area and the book cliffs will never grow the size of bucks you see in the henrie's. The GENETICS are just not there. The vernon and the books dont have monster bucks. they have big bucks.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> FYI..... the vernon area and the book cliffs will never grow the size of bucks you see in the henrie's. The GENETICS are just not there. The vernon and the books dont have monster bucks. they have big bucks.


To tell you the truth I have actually seen a bigger buck on the Book Cliffs than I ever did hunting the Henries but I will say that the Henries has a lot more of them.

I hunted both units while they were general season tags and there were big bucks on both but that largest buck that I saw in the Books was in 2002 while elk hunting.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

Just a question for you guys that are fighting over the quality of the bucks and genetics, How dose the Henneries of today compare to the Paunsaugunt of the late 80's and early 90's say up to 1993? 

I seem to remember the Paunsaugunt being the greatest trophy unit in the world for mule deer at one time but I am wondering what changed on it or what is it about the Henneries now that make it so much better the then gaunt now?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

^^^management scheme^^^

One is managed by age class one by buck to doe
Ratio. 

But I'm wrong cause a 20 month old genetically
Superior buck is always bigger than a buck with
Average genetics that reaches 5.5 years of age.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

GBell said:


> ...are you in favor of 3 or 4 point or better hunt strategies?


UGHH! :roll::roll::roll:

I'm exhausted with this back and forth... arguing that any one factor (genetics, age, condition) is more important is ludicrous. All three are required to achieve what is seen on the Henry's. Remove or reduce any one of those factors and you get exactly what we have in the other units throughout the state. Remove genetics and the result is what you see in many of the LE units, remove age and the result is what you see in many of the general units, and conditions are deteriorating throughout the state so this may actually be the least important variable to the argument.

Nothing more than a couple guys in a pissing match with the rest of us trying to keep our shoes & pantlegs dry.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

derekp1999 said:


> UGHH! :roll::roll::roll:
> 
> I'm exhausted with this back and forth... arguing that any one factor (genetics, age, condition) is more important is ludicrous. All three are required to achieve what is seen on the Henry's. Remove or reduce any one of those factors and you get exactly what we have in the other units throughout the state. Remove genetics and the result is what you see in many of the LE units, remove age and the result is what you see in many of the general units, and conditions are deteriorating throughout the state so this may actually be the least important variable to the argument.
> 
> Nothing more than a couple guys in a pissing match with the rest of us trying to keep our shoes & pantlegs dry.


So you can complain about it and jump into it at the same time? Makes a lot of sense.

Gbell cut out the comments. We all said all of them mattered and you have said genetics don't exist and age is the only factor. That and an article about rams where you threw the idea out that monster bucks don't rut. You are seriously lacking knowledge on the issue and need to cut it out. I have mentioned several times to move on, so you are only making yourself look worse.

Troll city.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> So you can complain about it and jump into it at the same time? Makes a lot of sense.


I guess so, I figured that since my pantlegs were already splattered upon that I'd at least get a few drips of my own in.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

I didn't write the article Random. 

Pile up the laundry boys. Looks like I'm
Doing a bit of washing. 

End all points. 

Carry on I'm done.


----------



## 5pointbull (Mar 4, 2014)

I love hunting elk, and would relish to hunt a LE tag again someday, but if this point creep think is as bad as it looks, perhaps they should make LE Elk an official once in a lifetime hunt if the hunter is successful in taking a bull, and a 10 year waiting period for hunters unsuccessful. Everyone who puts in should have the shot at one of these elk tags at some point especially residents. This would eliminate a lot of lower redound point holders out of the pool, though very likely not to happen and piss them off. It's just a thought, thought I would share it, but I'm no means religious about it.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Certain units are definitely OIAL (Pahvant, San Juan, Monroe, Beaver, etc.). I think guys know exactly what they are getting themselves in for (or at least with a little education come to that realization) when they apply for one of those top tier units. 
There are a number of units that can be had with lower points and have a much lower rate of point creep that can still result in an enjoyable and memorable experience.


----------

