# Even the out of state folks see what we have going on here.



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

http://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/64615-be-thankful-we-dont-live-in-utahunreal/

Shame on you, DWR.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

colorcountrygunner said:


> http://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/64615-be-thankful-we-dont-live-in-utahunreal/
> 
> Shame on you, DWR.


Yup this is not hard to figure out about Utah.

Lurk here for a while and listen to the dialog and pretty soon the complexity and manipulation and money making for tags becomes readily apparent. Buying the license each year essentially becomes a waste of money.

This is why I will be hunting in Idaho instead, where a license and tag for a deer or elk run about $500 total per year for nonresidents. But at least the tag is guaranteed and your odds are not bad -- around 20%.

I get that Utah has about 10 times as many hunters as deer and elk. So the biologists need to do something about rationing the tags. Then the success rates are closer to 25% to 40%.

But I question pegging the success rates so high.

And it seems like ransom spending so many tag allocations on high priced special drawings. But money always talks.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

People complain about point creep, but something tells me that if we added 500 tags back into the general draw across all the species then we would cycle people through the draw pools a little more quickly. If I have time tomorrow I will go and break down how many tags per species were taken out of the draws. That would be interesting data. 

Keep in mind, especially for the auction tags, these are generally the more sought after hunts in Utah. Otherwise nobody would buy them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm going to take a wild shot here TS.

Bet if those 500 permits were to be put back into the regular draw that they
would not increase the draw odds much at all.

I'm pretty sure this study was already done.

And the results only showed a 1% increase in the OIAL permits,
and 2% increase for the limited entry tags,


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well the funny thing with numbers and studies is the results can be debated in favor of almost every opinion-- depending on what data is left out. It surely would only increase overall odds by a percent or two. But it would decrease the wait time for the top level point holders. For example-- if one moose tag was returned to the Wasatch Unit then over 10 years it would take 10 people out of the Max pool. That would shorten the wait by 10% for top point holders. Or if one Zion BH tag was put back into the draw then over 10 years the top point pool and the 2nd tier could be removed.

Or more easily, as witnessed by the talk at the Wildlife Board Meeting in Dec-- We could give out more tags on many units and not destroy those herds. Just a tag or 2 for many units would benefit draw odds more than people realize.......

... As for conservation permits-- well they are not going anywhere any time soon, so no reason to develope an ulcer over it. There have been battles and wars over these tags and nothing ever changed. 1,000 people showed up at a RAC meeting with the grand majority (like 980 to 20) against the Convention Permits and they still shoved the permits through. Now RACs have attendance of 20...


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Only more permits are going to be taken out of the draw or not included in the draw in the future not less. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> ... As for conservation permits-- well they are not going anywhere any time soon, so no reason to develope an ulcer over it. There have been battles and wars over these tags and nothing ever changed. 1,000 people showed up at a RAC meeting with the grand majority (like 980 to 20) against the Convention Permits and they still shoved the permits through. Now RACs have attendance of 20...


A perfect example of why the public doesn't participate.

And as was stated, nobody would argue that it will greatly increase draw odds. But as illustrated with just one OIL tag, taking more people out of the top end of the pool will decrease wait times and also the inflation of the max point total. Hence, why I said it would help with point creep, not draw odds.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't know why they picked on Utah? Arizona, and Wyoming from what I know of do the same thing. 

I also don't think that putting them back into the pools would do too much to get rid of point creep. Now if 25% of the tags were for the same units and hunts then it might help but not the few that they pull out of the draws. 

And I am one of them that bitches when I don't draw my bison, moose, or goat permits every year.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

There sure seems to be an excessive amount of tags given away.
I would feel a lot better about it if less than half of those tags were given away and the ones that were given away, would be separated out according to the same species that the group represented.
Examples:
WTF = turkey tags only
RMEF= Elk tags only
MDF= Deer tags only
FNAWS= Sheep tags only


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> There sure seems to be an excessive amount of tags given away.
> I would feel a lot better about it if less than half of those tags were given away and the ones that were given away, would be separated out according to the same species that the group represented.
> Examples:
> WTF = turkey tags only
> ...


Yes and any group not specific to a species gets left out! I like your list ridge it is literally the best idea I've seen on these permits.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> There sure seems to be an excessive amount of tags given away.
> I would feel a lot better about it if less than half of those tags were given away and the ones that were given away, would be separated out according to the same species that the group represented.
> Examples:
> WTF = turkey tags only
> ...


Makes a heckuva lot of sense to me. Unfortunately most current bureaucrats don't have much sense, and what they do have is overrided by $$.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So I finally was able to go through this and separate it out by species. I did not count turkey, cougars, or bears. I only did LE deer, LE elk, LE pronghorn, and OIL bison, moose, mtn goat, RM bighorn, and desert bighorn. Here is what I found, with two considerations: First, I might have miscounted. I don't claim to be infallible. Second, I do not have the list of expo permits for 2016. So I am taking the list of conservation tags from 2016 and adding it to 2017 expo permits. So with those two caveats, the numbers might not be perfect for this year, but will be plenty accurate enough for illustration purposes of what is wrong with this system. 

Here are the numbers:

Elk- 107 conservation permits and 45 expo permits, for a total of 152 tags.
Deer- 47 conservation and 17 expo permits, for a total of 64 tags.
Pronghorn- 37 conservation and 11 expo, for a total of 48 tags. 
Bison- 5 conservation and 3 expo, for a total of 8 tags.
Moose- 3 conservation and 1 expo, for a total of 4 tags.
Rocky Mountain BH- 5 conservation and 1 expo, for a total of 6 tags.
Desert BH- 6 conservation and 1 expo, for a total of 7 tags. 
Mountain Goat- 6 conservation and 2 expo for a total of 8 tags. 

This is a total of 264 LE tags and 33 OIL tags. As was stated above, and I acknowledge, throwing these back in don't increase overall odds significantly. But to suggest that putting these tags back into the general draw will not impact point creep and the inflation of the max point pool, if you believe that, I have some ocean front property for you in Arizona, and also a bridge I'll throw in for free. 

Take elk, just for an example. That is 1500+ more elk point holders out of the elk pool over the next 10 years. That is significant, especially at the top of the pool. To further illustrate the point, take the San Juan unit, for example. As it stands right now, there are 157 applicants that have more points than I do that applied unsuccessfully for the San Juan early hunt last year. There are 9 bonus tags available now, 19 tags total. Assuming that max point holders take all the bonus tags, and not other regular tags, it will take 18 years for me to reach the max bonus point pool. Of course, I'm not guaranteed that tag in 18 years, because there are 79 other people with my same points vying for those bonus tags. There are 4 San Juan early or multi-season conservation or expo tags. Put those back in the draw, and now we have 11 bonus tags and 23 tags total. My wait if we leave everything else the exact same just went to 14 years to get to the max bonus point pool. Cutting 4 years isn't significant? I would disagree vehemently with anyone that tried to tell me that. 

Now let's look at moose. Above someone mentioned that if they only put 1 Wasatch/Central Mountains moose tag back into the draw, that is 10 more people out of the pool over 10 years, and stated the reduction. Well, out of the 4 total tags for conservation and expo moose permits, 3 of them are Wasatch/Central Mountains tags. The other is a statewide tag. So it would not be 10 tags over 10 years, but 30 tags over 10 years. I'm not mathematician, but if you're going to tell me taking 30 more people out of the moose pool than we already were over the next 10 years won't help, I will tell you that you are wrong. People with 15 points putting in for Wasatch moose better by young or lucky, or they'll never see a tag in their lifetime. There are 756 people with more points than they have going into next year's draw. The overall odds don't increase much, but taking out those extra people from the top helps. At least for the short term. Once you start getting into the lower point pools (12 or less) that have so many people in them, then there is no saving anyone. At that point the bonus point system becomes useless.

I have not looked closely at the other species, but I can only assume 7 more desert bighorn tags per year would really help point creep at the top of the point pools. 64 more deer, same thing.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

colorcountrygunner said:


> http://www.coueswhitetail.com/forums/topic/64615-be-thankful-we-dont-live-in-utahunreal/
> 
> Shame on you, DWR.


I completely agree but guys this isn't the DWR's fault. The Wildlife Board makes the rules in Utah. Perhaps the DWR fully supports this program but they did not implement it and they cannot change it either.

It's important to know this so you know who to send your feedback to.

I'm surprised by the fact that so few people understand this process.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> So I finally was able to go through this and separate it out by species. I did not count turkey, cougars, or bears. I only did LE deer, LE elk, LE pronghorn, and OIL bison, moose, mtn goat, RM bighorn, and desert bighorn. Here is what I found, with two considerations: First, I might have miscounted. I don't claim to be infallible. Second, I do not have the list of expo permits for 2016. So I am taking the list of conservation tags from 2016 and adding it to 2017 expo permits. So with those two caveats, the numbers might not be perfect for this year, but will be plenty accurate enough for illustration purposes of what is wrong with this system.
> 
> Here are the numbers:
> 
> ...


Considering there were only 47 desert big horn sheep tags in the 'normal' draw in 2016....7 additional tags is very significant, nearly a 15% increase.

6 more Rocky Mtn Bighorn to the 34 others...nearly an 18% increase.

8 more bison tags to the 103 others...just shy of 8%--but this ignores the bull/cow split. I would wager that these 8 tags are mostly bull tags whereas the bulk of the demand for bison is on the bull tags and not the cow tags.

Even the LE deer tags would be just over 3% increase in tags in the draw. I think a 3% decrease in point creep is significant--but I might be alone in that thought. However, I don't think anybody would dispute 10% or higher is significant on point creep.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Totally Bullsnot! The DWR has zero say on our laws or regulations related to the wildlife. They most definitely can recommend, but the decision comes ultimately from the board. 

There really needs to be more support from hunters at the Wildlife Board Meetings. Unfortunately those who show up to speak their peace are generally special interest groups, cattlemen, and libetards...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Totally Bullsnot! The DWR has zero say on our laws or regulations related to the wildlife. They most definitely can recommend, but the decision comes ultimately from the board.
> 
> There really needs to be more support from hunters at the Wildlife Board Meetings. Unfortunately those who show up to speak their peace are generally special interest groups, cattlemen, and libetards...


Packout's post bringing up when hunters did try to do this and were still ignored underscores the apathy. When 20 voices are louder than 1000, what point is there in speaking?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Totally Bullsnot! The DWR has zero say on our laws or regulations related to the wildlife. They most definitely can recommend, but the decision comes ultimately from the board.


This is ,of course, true and the term "DWR leadership" is in large part the Wildlife Board. However, recent events would suggest to me that the top brass of the DWR is in lockstep with or at minimum, not opposed to the direction the WB has taken with issues like these. For instance, it was probably *NOT* the Wildlife Board that decided publicly to provide a thousand excuses for the Nebo ram poachers and toss some nameless DWR employees under the bus, making prosecution almost impossible.

I just don't sense that top DWR leadership is at all against what has happened with the Expo and Conservation tag situations and that they are eager to change things.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Packout's post bringing up when hunters did try to do this and were still ignored underscores the apathy. When 20 voices are louder than 1000, what point is there in speaking?


This is true. But we still have a responsibility. This is something I can definitely improve upon. I have been involved directly with some important legislation affecting sportsmen in Utah before, only to be trampled by a well-funded minority before. (Supreme Court arguments are Monday for Stream Access, BTW!) It was a disappointing experience, and one that jaded me towards Utah policy makers in a big way. But I need to put my big boy pants on, get over it, and get back at it. I need to be more involved.

The Wildlife Board is absolutely not bound by any recommendation from the DWR, and has at times gone against the DWR. But if you think that the DWR has "nothing" to do with the expo and how it runs and the process for the tags, you aren't paying attention. Who drafted the RFP and completed the RFP process for the new expo contract? It wasn't the Wildlife Board, even if they had to ultimately approve the outcome. The DWR handled the whole thing. They are the ones that changed the rules at the last minute to benefit SFW. They are the ones that propose how many and which tags go to each organization. Don't absolve the DWR in this. If you do, you are making a mistake.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> But if you think that the DWR has "nothing" to do with the expo and how it runs and the process for the tags, you aren't paying attention. Who drafted the RFP and completed the RFP process for the new expo contract? It wasn't the Wildlife Board, even if they had to ultimately approve the outcome. The DWR handled the whole thing. They are the ones that changed the rules at the last minute to benefit SFW. They are the ones that propose how many and which tags go to each organization. Don't absolve the DWR in this. If you do, you are making a mistake.


Might I submit that it seems to me that the WB and DWR brass were working in concert on these issues?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Might I submit that it seems to me that the WB and DWR brass were working in concert on these issues?


From the DWR itself:

"The Utah Wildlife Board's role was limited by state procurement code. These restrictions were explained to board members and the public at multiple Wildlife Board meetings in late 2015. In this case, the Board's only options were to either approve the proposal scored highest by the independent evaluation committee or to cancel the RFP. This ensured the contract was awarded based on the merits of the proposals and not on other factors.

After reviewing the two proposals and the State Purchasing committee's justification statement, the Wildlife Board chose to accept the committee's recommendation. The contract was then awarded according to state procurement code."

Who was it again that changed the expo contract rules in the 11th hour? (I use that word "change" loosely, since still to this day the rules don't allow them to do what they did. Maybe I should say "ignore" instead of change?_ Who was it that drafted the new RFP to favor SFW? Who was it that handled the entire process? Not the Wildlife Board.

Might I submit it is actually the DWR that is to blame on this one and deserves all the criticism they have received, and more?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla for Goobernor! #Vanilla2020 #notyermamasvanilla

Top of the page, so you know ^^^ is a good idea


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

At this point, we're all just along for the ride provided by the WB.

As I am now observing this as a Non-Resident, I would be thrilled if they would just allocate NR tags in even numbers, 2-4-etc. It hurts when you see a 1 tag issued (I know it is actually 10%), and know that the number of folks waiting will basically stay the same. 
Just bump it up by one and maybe, just maybe, we will see some light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

LanceS4803 said:


> At this point, we're all just along for the ride provided by the WB.
> 
> As I am now observing this as a Non-Resident, I would be thrilled if they would just allocate NR tags in even numbers, 2-4-etc. It hurts when you see a 1 tag issued (I know it is actually 10%), and know that the number of folks waiting will basically stay the same.
> Just bump it up by one and maybe, just maybe, we will see some light at the end of the tunnel.


There is no light at the end of the tunnel for a non resident and the Utah LE and OIL draw system, only hope and the fact that we can put in for all the OIL species and build points for when we might go back and become residents. Then we can pick out hunts that we want to go on


----------



## LanceS4803 (Mar 5, 2014)

Critter said:


> Then we can pick out hunts that we want to go on


Trying to talk the wife into that.
But, for now I am thoroughly enjoying Tennessee's overpopulation of whitetail! Getting lots of bowhunting in.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> So I finally was able to go through this and separate it out by species. I did not count turkey, cougars, or bears. I only did LE deer, LE elk, LE pronghorn, and OIL bison, moose, mtn goat, RM bighorn, and desert bighorn. Here is what I found, with two considerations: First, I might have miscounted. I don't claim to be infallible. Second, I do not have the list of expo permits for 2016. So I am taking the list of conservation tags from 2016 and adding it to 2017 expo permits. So with those two caveats, the numbers might not be perfect for this year, but will be plenty accurate enough for illustration purposes of what is wrong with this system.
> 
> Here are the numbers:
> 
> ...


How about adding the tags pulled out of the LE & OIL draws with vouchers given to the CWMU (Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit) Operators to sell with none of the voucher money mandated for wildlife? Should they be included in your lists? (The buyer pays the CWMU Operator for the voucher, then takes the voucher to the DWR and pays the normal LE/OIL fee for the tag.) They do have to offer some tags in the regular draw, but the ratio for the private buck/bull tags to the public buck/bull tags can be as high as 9 to 1. In other words, the CWMU gets 9 tags to sell for every 1 tag they offer the public. And, for the most part, the prices for the vouchers are in the 4 or 5 digit brackets.

Next year's totals for the 125 operating CWMU's are; (The totals do not include the numbers for the 5 new CWMU's which haven't yet been worked out.)

Buck Deer - 260 Public tags/1,956 Private tags
Bull Elk - 137 Public tags/919 Private tags
Buck Pronghorn - 60 Public tags/81 Private tags
Bull Moose - 33 Public tags/45 Private tags

I'm not suggesting that we close down the CWMU Program, but if the ratios favored the public instead of the CWMU, those numbers would help out the point creep for those 4 species.


----------



## CAExpat (Oct 27, 2013)

> But, for now I am thoroughly enjoying Tennessee's overpopulation of whitetail! Getting lots of bowhunting in.


How much property did you buy? When we lived in East Tennessee public hunting land was nearly non-existent, and what was available was not deer habitat. When we moved to Utah we bought property to hunt on in order to preserve the opportunity. There is little incentive for property owners to grant permission either so I don't blame them for saying no being as they (we) bear the burden of liability.

I also hunt lots of public land and in other states as well, I hate to be pessimistic but my gut tells me in short time Utah will be much like TN in that we have very few WMA's with the large majority of land being privately owned. People think Texas is a phenomenal hunting state, and it is if you have access to the millions of privately held acres. People talk about voting the bums out, I didn't see that happen in UT this year so prepare for land "transfer".

I'm still learning how these conservation permits/lottery tags or whatever work, but if the numbers are accurate it seems the revenue generated speaks louder than public land owner voices.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Lets don't forget the amount of Land Owner tags that are handed out too. And, then sold for an amount that is out of this world to someone that has the "frog skins" to pay $10,000 for an Elk Tag.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Elkfromabove,

I can't see lumping the cwmu tags into this argument--way too many differences. First, there are a number of CWMUs that are in general season areas for either deer/elk or both. Then, in order to get the 90/10 split of buck/bull tags (minimum 1 public tag though even if there is only 1 private tag) they have to give either all or almost all of any doe/cow tags offered to the public. If the public landowner wants some antlerless tags they do an 85/15 split on buck/bull and then I think it is 50/50 for the antlerless. 

Sure, a bull tag is way more sought after than a cow tag, but I know of 1 CWMU that has 1 public bull tag, 6-7 private, and then up to 30 cow tags all public. That is 30 people that get access to private land to fill a basically guaranteed cow tag on a stunning piece of ground that they'd otherwise never get to enjoy for the whopping cost of $60. And you'd be surprised how many CWMUs do not sell their private vouchers as the insurance risk is very significant. Moreover, CWMU participation requires some pretty intense involvement with the DWR in various wildlife studies, management targets, and other things that benefit lots of species beyond the ones that are hunted. Some of the best public land hunting in UT is hunting CWMU border areas, due to the habitat benefits. 

I just can't see the comparison between auction tags for the public units versus allocation of tags on private land (herd counts for the units do NOT include the counts on the CWMUs btw). If you don't provide a large enough incentive to the landowner to allow the public entry, then you will just end up with little to no option for the little guy available. I know a handful of CWMU owner/operators pretty well and the ones that do sell tags I was pretty surprised to learn that even at $10-15k for an elk tag and $5-10 for a deer tag the income from the hunting venture was pretty slim after costs/insurance/compliance with the CWMU program.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

CAExpat said:


> I'm still learning how these conservation permits/lottery tags or whatever work, but if the numbers are accurate it seems the revenue generated speaks louder than public land owner voices.


I'll try to keep this short, but here are the basics of most of the Utah sideline tag distribution programs. Please keep in mind that most of these tags are actually sold through a voucher system where the voucher allows the buyer to move to the front of the line and purchase, at the regular going DWR price, the permit/tag that the voucher is good for. The expensive voucher prices are the so-called "tag" prices we talk about, not the tags themselves.

Expo tags: These 200 Limited Entry (LE) and Once-in-a-Lifetime (OIL) tags are taken from the regular public draw pool and are distributed at the designated Expo through an actual special draw. Each voucher/chance only costs $5, but only the Expo Operators (currently SFW & Partners) collect the money. Up until UWC made a proposal to give some of that money back to wildlife, SFW & Partners kept all of it, (about $1,000,000 per year) to spend as they saw fit, but in 2015, UWC was able to get them to mandate 30% back to wildlife in the form of DWR approved projects. We (UWC) tried for a 90% return like the Conservation Permit Program, but politics got in the way, as usual, and wildlife/you only got 30% while SFW & Partners keep 70% to spend as they choose. In any case, the draw takes place after the Expo and each $5 application gets one chance at the tag applied for. It is a public draw that doesn't use points or waiting periods, but it has some stipulations, including a personal verification requirement at the Expo site. You don't have to pay for and go into the Expo, but you have to go to the venue. And your chances of drawing are almost nil. At this point, only 200 tags are allowed at the Expo.

Conservation tags: These LE & OIL tags are also taken out of the normal public draw and are given to the various wildlife organizations and are auctioned off to the highest bidders at various events (usually banquets) throughout the year and throughout the state. Of course, one of the biggest auctions happens at the Expo in order to get a better attendance. These are usually the highest priced tags, and include the Antelope Island deer tag which went for $410,000 this last year. There is a suggested limit on the number of Conservation tags taken out of each OIL species (5%), but that isn't set in stone. And there is a limit per population on the number of Conservation tags take from each Limited Entry hunt, but there isn't a limit of the number of Limited Entry hunts created, so the more Limited Entry hunts created, the more Conservation tags available to be auctioned. One positive thing about this program is that 90% of the funds are mandated to be returned to wildlife (30% directly to the DWR and 60% for DWR approved projects).

CWMU tags: These tags are taken out of the public draw and are given to CWMU's (Cooperative Wildlife Management Units) as an incentive for the ranchers/land owners to manage their property for wildlife as well as cattle/sheep/horses/agriculture. Each CWMU has to have a certain amount of wildlife habitat and has to agree to manage it accordingly. They also have to agree to allow the hunting public a fair opportunity to hunt their property. In return, they are given tags/vouchers that they can sell/auction/distribute in order to compensate them for the damage/inconveniences that wildlife cause to their operation. Otherwise, they may not allow the public to trespass or hunt their property. My concern is the high private to public tag ratio which can be as high a 9 to 1. And there have been some CWMU operators that don't treat the public hunters very well. I've only had 3 public tag experiences with CWMU operators and 2 of those experiences were not good. I reported both of them, but the operators remained in place, at least for a time. Luckily they're now both gone.

Landowner tags: I'm not sure how this program is administered, but I think those tags are either taken out of the current public draw or are tags that could be put into the public draw, but aren't. Is this the same thing as the Depredation Permit Program? Anybody know?

There may be other tags and/or programs I'm not aware of, but you can bet that if there is money to be made and/or influence to be garnered, the DWR and the more influential wildlife groups will take more tags out of the system (or object to more tags being put in.)


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> Elkfromabove,
> 
> I can't see lumping the cwmu tags into this argument--way too many differences. First, there are a number of CWMUs that are in general season areas for either deer/elk or both. Then, in order to get the 90/10 split of buck/bull tags (minimum 1 public tag though even if there is only 1 private tag) they have to give either all or almost all of any doe/cow tags offered to the public. If the public landowner wants some antlerless tags they do an 85/15 split on buck/bull and then I think it is 50/50 for the antlerless.
> 
> ...


You obviously know more about the CWMU program than I do, and that's why I asked the question about including those numbers. And why I wouldn't want to shut down the program. I also didn't know about the counts/classifications. I thought ALL the animals were included. Also, you're right about the antlerless tags. The ratios on those tags highly favor the public.

public/private:
5/0 on antlerless deer
1139/260 on antlerless elk
15/10 on doe pronghorn

I also know that the CWMU Program is, in the long term, beneficial to the public hunter, 'cause I hunt a narrow public area that is bordered by a hunting club and a CWMU and those deer, elk and moose don't know the boundaries. I also know that most CWMU operators treat the public well, and they really police their own, at least as much as they can.

And I can understand the finances. My daughter was given an antlerless depredation deer tag from a friend to hunt in a field behind our house. I had a chance to help her and it actually was an enjoyable hunt. When we reported back to the friend that we filled it, so he didn't have to worry about the damage, he just laughed. He said there was no way his 10 depredation tags would stop or pay for $130,000 in loss per his bale counts on his hay fields, let alone his corn fields. (And FWIW, I saw the biggest buck I've seen this year, 20 yards away, standing in front of the first doe we wanted to shoot. He forced us to come back another day.) I told the friend that I wanted to hunt him next year during the regular archery hunt along with a depredation doe. That way, I could remove 2 of those d*** deer. He agreed, so I'm changing deer units this coming year. And since I didn't get a buck deer tag this year, I'll probably get it.)

My major concern for the CWMU tags would be the moose tags. We just don't have that many and those 45 private tags would help with the point creep. Well, I guess it is what it is and we'll always have downsides to EVERY program.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> My major concern for the CWMU tags would be the moose tags. We just don't have that many and those 45 private tags would help with the point creep. Well, I guess it is what it is and we'll always have downsides to EVERY program.


I can see a point there, but then I end up with the thought of how moose tag numbers are allocated. They try to maintain 100% success, so lets imagine they add those 45 private and 5 public tags into the "normal" units where they fall. Now you would count the moose that live exclusively on these large areas in the unit count, so theoretically more moose=more tags. And that might work for a year or two, but the available public land in a unit didn't actually receive any new moose, just more tags and I would imagine success/satisfaction would both decline, leading to a reduction in tags to improve the rating. Plus you would have more people in the draw fighting for moose tags, people that otherwise would have just bought a voucher.

Also, there is an often overlooked aspect of buying a OIAL tag. Sure, you can draw a moose tag in 2017, and then in 2018 you *could* buy one getting a twice in a lifetime. BUT, if you purchase an OIAL tag from a CWMU then you cannot apply for a draw tag (except the Expo tags) from there on out. So there are still people leaving the draw system via the cwmu private tags, either bailing on the system when they realize a moose voucher isn't that expensive or never entering it to begin with because they have an easier route to get their "shiras" trophy.

I know there are definitely some bad apples in the CWMU program, but I think it is actually overwhelmingly positive in the big picture. The old saying about bad versus good reviews holds true: 1 person has a bad experience on a CWMU and you tell 10 people who tell 10 people...etc and everybody hears about it. The person that has a good experience tells NOBODY because, heck, this is a great little honey-hole and only 30 people are applying for 30 cow elk tags so I can have a fun hunt every year for a slam dunk no pressure meat filler...or decent odds at drawing a good buck/bull tag etc. Why would you tell people the good news?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Johnny is correct, CWMU tags shouldn't be viewed in the same light as the expo/convention tags. They aren't even close to the same. Now, people can argue the merits of the program and tag distribution on its own, but I think these are two vastly different discussions.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> From the DWR itself:
> 
> Who was it again that changed the expo contract rules in the 11th hour? (I use that word "change" loosely, since still to this day the rules don't allow them to do what they did. Maybe I should say "ignore" instead of change?_ Who was it that drafted the new RFP to favor SFW? Who was it that handled the entire process? Not the Wildlife Board.
> 
> Might I submit it is actually the DWR that is to blame on this one and deserves all the criticism they have received, and more?


Well I think this point deserves acknowledgement based on my previous posts. At the end of the day the DWR is an body of execution, not a body of creating rules. I know the DWR played a part in this. Absolutely. We know who executed this but I'm not sure who actually made the decision and gave the order to do this. I'm not sure who to pin the blame on for this particular scenario. It definitely smells.


----------

