# 3-yr gen tag



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I have 8 relatives who put in for Pine Valley this year - all with one point. Only 2 people drew. That tells me Pine Valley is no longer an every-other year hunt. Its now every 3 years. 

I listened some of the wildlife board meeting today. They are increasing b/d ratios on a number of units including Pine Valley and increasing population objectives on units that have improved. This will basically ensure that tags will not be increased on units that are improving. Meanwhile, it is taking 2-3 years to draw a general tag. 

Wake up guys. Trophy interests are eating your lunch. Please contact RAC and board members and tell them to stop finding excuses to get rid of general hunters. Only SFW and its slapees are speaking up and stacking the meetings. All is working as planned.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Your right, unfortunately after the recent appointments, SFW pretty much is the wildlife board.


----------



## swbuckmaster01 (Jun 5, 2015)

It's all about the guys screwing the point system not the cutting of the permits keeping you from drawing. 

people arw putting in for some lame unit that takes 4 to 10 years to actually draw and automatically drawing their second choice unit every year ahead of first coice applicants. 

The reason John Bear and the wildlife board didn't fix the point banking joke system is when they actually combine the point system with le units in the future they will all rise to the top. It may sound like a conspiracy theory but it's going to happen imho. There's been napkin talk about it for a few years. 

Do you actually believe he didn't know anything about the point banking?


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

swbuckmaster01,

The loop wasn't fixed? I thought they changed it so that someone with more points on choice 2 could not bump someone who put in for choice 1. 

I'm not sure of the complete accuracy of your first statement that cutting permits doesn't keep us from drawing. The number was thrown out today in the meeting that going from a 15-17 b/d unit to 18-20 will result in 20% fewer tags.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The fixing of the loop hole was tabled until next year.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I have a son in law and 2 nephews that drew Pine Valley muzzle with 0 points.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

provider, 
the Southern region was a 3 preference point region before it went to the sub units. 
Also, Pine Valley is already a 18-20 B/D unit, not 15-17/100.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

provider said:


> swbuckmaster01,
> 
> The loop wasn't fixed? I thought they changed it so that someone with more points on choice 2 could not bump someone who put in for choice 1.
> 
> I'm not sure of the complete accuracy of your first statement that cutting permits doesn't keep us from drawing. The number was thrown out today in the meeting that going from a 15-17 b/d unit to 18-20 will result in 20% fewer tags.


Not when the unit is already over 20/100 ratio.
Someone is just trying a scare tactic.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I stand corrected. The Panguitch and Boulder units are going to 18-20 - not Pine Valley; however, Pine Valley and Zion increased population objectives significantly. I don't think that is necessarily bad if the carrying capacity is there, but it is yet another block to tag increases when the metrics justify them. 

I will say I've rarely heard of anyone that could not draw Pine Valley with 1 point. 

You can call my statements "scare tactics" its not exactly helpful to the conversation, but you can do that. I'm not trying to deceive anyone. Its indisputable that the most avid hunters are pushing out general hunting opportunities. 

I'm not addressing people like Ridgetop here who seems to be fine with the SFW model of wildlife management. If you like it that way, that is your preference. Congratulations on getting your way.

This is nothing more than a note to general hunters who systematically see their hunting privileges yield to SFW and the likes. Speak up for your turf. There are a number of people here who don't want the general hunt to yield to trophy hunting, but they don't express their opinions where it matters. Go to a southern RAC meeting. You will quickly see the meeting is stacked by SFW and there is hardly any dissent. Other opinions need to be heard.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

What we really need is the Wildlife Board (SFW) to be removed from power. The power needs to go back to the hands of the biologists and those with actual training/education related to fish and game. Having a group of guys with no public interest in charge of the public's property is total scam.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Not when the unit is already over 20/100 ratio.
> Someone is just trying a scare tactic.


Actually Ridge, those numbers are darn close. Scare tactic? How about reality. The UDWR could issue more tags on a 15-17 unit compared to a 18-20 unit. So this disallows increases in permits long term. The biologists stated it will result in a 20-25% decrease in permits. Pretty simple.

As for the original statement-- in 2013, 14 of the 30 units took over 2 points to be assured an any weapon permit. That equates to a 3 year wait. It will only get worse.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> Actually Ridge, those numbers are darn close. Scare tactic? How about reality. The UDWR could issue more tags on a 15-17 unit compared to a 18-20 unit. So this disallows increases in permits long term. The biologists stated it will result in a 20-25% decrease in permits. Pretty simple.
> 
> As for the original statement-- in 2013, 14 of the 30 units took over 2 points to be assured an any weapon permit. That equates to a 3 year wait. It will only get worse.


That's probably the same Biologist that has claimed Unit 29 has increased by 30% in the last 4 years. BS!
The Biologist also said there would be big tag cuts once we went to 30 units in 2012. That never happened and we have actually gained a few thousand tags in the past couple years.
I'm not an SFW member but I do support the idea of having the same quality of buck we had in the 80s and early 90s in the Southern Region. 
Yes, I do support 18-20/100 ratios but absolutely no higher.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Packout said:


> Actually Ridge, those numbers are darn close. Scare tactic? How about reality. The UDWR could issue more tags on a 15-17 unit compared to a 18-20 unit. So this disallows increases in permits long term. The biologists stated it will result in a 20-25% decrease in permits. Pretty simple.
> 
> As for the original statement-- in 2013, 14 of the 30 units took over 2 points to be assured an any weapon permit. That equates to a 3 year wait. It will only get worse.


What happens when they combine the LE and general season point systems, and make you lose your points regardless what choice you choose if you draw a tag?

I don't know the future and neither do you. If they did something like that and people have to make some hard decisions and lose your points when you get any deer tag--maybe it turns it into a 0 to 1 point draw. Point is I see something changing in the future, hard decisions made and this entire discussion being moot until the new systems numbers come into play.

If everything stays the same then your argument has validity, but face the facts, if SFW members are willing to show up to the meetings they are going to get their way. Wasn't UWC set up to counterbalance this? If there were hundreds of sportsmen at each meeting yelling 'opportunity over quality' I am confident that is what you would get. But there is not and those willing to put in their time and show up get their way. You should be upset at fellow hunters that share your views who are unwilling to 'show up' not at an opposing view point who is willing to work.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Apparently people dont remember when we had 5 units the southern took on average 2-3 years to draw? So now the sky is falling smaller units have similar draw odds?

I agree MANY people are milking the system taking advantage of the loophole to be guaranteed tags in other units and it needs to be fixed.


-DallanC


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

bowhunt3r4l...,

Sorry to be abrasive, as I like the way you think, however, what we really need is for you and your buddies to contact RAC members / board members and say its okay to increase tags.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

provider said:


> bowhunt3r4l...,
> 
> Sorry to be abrasive, as I like the way you think, however, what we really need is for you and your buddies to contact RAC members / board members and say its okay to increase tags.


EXACTLY!!! Those with a voice get heard, if you don't like the system then do something about it. But here we sit on an internet forum complaining with our thumbs up our bums spinning our wheels.

Have I went to a RAC meeting to express my view point--NOPE and I don't complain about the current system either. If I am not willing to do the work and go to the RAC I expect my viewpoint to be ignored and I am ok with this.


----------



## kstorrs (Oct 29, 2012)

My thoughts are a general season hunting permit should be sold over the counter. The biologists would determine how many permits should be available for each unit for a given species then that many permits go on sale on a given date. The people who truly want to hunt will be sure to be in line or getting online when the tags go on sale. 

There is no point system for buying derby, rodeo, concert or any other kind of tickets. General season hunting permits should be the same way...


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- The cut of tags is 20-30% depending on the unit. The math is fairly simple if a guy takes time to understand it. If you want more bucks after the season you have to shoot less of them during the season. To shoot less of them you have to cut the number of hunters afield. Going off the current ratios that means there will be less hunters afield under 18-20 management then under 15-17. 

Airborne- Thanks for the lecture. I've been involved with this stuff for a long time. We had hundreds show up in support of certain topics only to be shot down by the Board. My comment simply was stating that on the road we are headed it will only get worse. You don't agree? As the Unit Plans are modified through this year and the next 4 years, will we see more 18-20 units or less? My wager is more and thus it will decrease permits further. And once we hit a major weather event which kills deer then we will see more tag cuts. Making the wait to draw even longer.

I agree something will change with points. The most ABSURD idea would be to combine general, DH and LE deer points. If the masses allow that to happen then shame on all of us. 

So you are correct, people need to engage. Better put might be to "Re-Engage". Problem is how many times are the masses going to make the effort to show up when their voices are rarely heard?


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Packout,

I'm sorry your efforts have not produced what you want. 

This is my point-of-view to date though.

I went the the southern RAC, i emailed every RAC member, and said I appreciate the proposed tag increases. One RAC member let me know that all the feedback he heard is the opposite of what I expressed. Another RAC member indicated he "didn't want to sound like someone who wants to increase tags" when making a point. I was the only individual who said thanks for the tag increase. A couple of organizational reps said they were okay with the increase and a few said they were not. When the RAC summarized everyone's comments they noted that 95% of the internet feedback did not want tag increases. 

When the biologist was being questioned on tag increases, he said they need to balance interests with those who want general opportunities. Comments like that have little traction when there was hardly anyone to back up this point of view.

Its being implied to me by RAC members that nobody else wants a tag increase and I'm on my own. It is clear to me that the RAC's group mentality is adverse to increases. 

I feel like I'm standing alone yet when I spend time on this website it seems there are a lot of others who would like to see tags go up when numbers are up.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Packout said:


> Airborne- Thanks for the lecture.


You are welcome!

I think a flash in the pan of support vs consistent, well organized support is the difference. SFW has one, others don't.

Truth is I don't care what they do with tags, if I have to wait 3 years between rifle deer tags I am fine with that. The state has lots of opportunity out there if one is willing to branch out and expand one's horizon. I don't complain, I roll with the punches and I can hunt bucks and bulls every year. Most guys I talk to would rather rifle hunt once every few years and see better bucks than see nothing every year and I would tend to agree. It's only on this forum that I hear different.

I just like to see folks put their money where their mouth is. It's like when my Bro-in-law complains about Obama, I ask him if he voted in the last election and he says no--I tell him to stop complaining because its obviously not that important to him. Same with many on this forum. Good luck to you.


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> What we really need is the Wildlife Board (SFW) to be removed from power. The power needs to go back to the hands of the biologists and those with actual training/education related to fish and game. Having a group of guys with no public interest in charge of the public's property is total scam.


Hey, that's just like politics!!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> Ridge- The cut of tags is 20-30% depending on the unit. The math is fairly simple if a guy takes time to understand it. If you want more bucks after the season you have to shoot less of them during the season. To shoot less of them you have to cut the number of hunters afield. Going off the current ratios that means there will be less hunters afield under 18-20 management then under 15-17.
> ?


Simple math?
How about looking at the DWR numbers on units 22 and 28?
Unit 22 has a 3 year average of 17/100. So yes, I could see about a 10-15% cut in tags to get it up over 18 the first year but not even close to a 30% cut.
Unit 28 has a 19/100 3 year average. 
I don't see any cuts needed to maintain 18-20/100 ratio.
I guess I'm a guy that tries to look at the best case scenario and not always the worse.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

If you attended RAC meetings you would actually know that SFW did NOT support the 18-20 bucks at the Southern RAC. Th RAC voted in support due to soortsmen attending the RAC and multiple townhall meetings asked overwhelmingly to increase to 18-20. After this all happened the sportsmen asked SFW to support what the local chapters in the Southern Region wanted. At this point the SFW agreed to show support for this at the WB meeting. That is all factual. No conspiring no evil doing, just the system working for those that care enough to put in the effort. 

One thing Packout conveniently leaves out is that FACT that those they pushed for 18-20 were very vocal that this should happen without cutting tags and by shifting some rifle tags to archery or muzzy to avoid loss of opportunity while still adding bucks and herd numbers to tie units. Sounds like a well thought out plan to accomadate many different hunters across the board. 

So much BS from both sides. Get off the interweb and find out what's really happening rather than gobbling up what yoo find on forums.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Packout said:


> I agree something will change with points. The most ABSURD idea would be to combine general, DH and LE deer points. If the masses allow that to happen then shame on all of us.


Pack,

Please explain this statement as I am interested in the basis of your opinion. PM me if you want. Thanks.------SS


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> Pack,
> 
> Please explain this statement as I am interested in the basis of your opinion. PM me if you want. Thanks.------SS


Well first off, that would mean deer will basically be LE using bonus points.

Are you still going to force only one type of LE application? If yes, people who currently put in for LE elk and general deer are going to be super mad about that. If you change it so you can put in for both, you are going to increase point creep to levels unseen as people will be running up points in both pools.

Either way will limit hunting options over what we currently have.

-DallanC


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Well first off, that would mean deer will basically be LE using bonus points.
> 
> Are you still going to force only one type of LE application? If yes, people who currently put in for LE elk and general deer are going to be super mad about that. If you change it so you can put in for both, you are going to increase point creep to levels unseen as people will be running up points in both pools.
> 
> ...


Ya but just think of all those monster bucks and bulls you'll get to see.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Well first off, that would mean deer will basically be LE using bonus points.
> 
> Are you still going to force only one type of LE application? If yes, people who currently put in for LE elk and general deer are going to be super mad about that.
> 
> ...


Ok, so people will be mad, even super mad. I disagree with the limiting options part. If people were limited to hunt either buck deer OR bull elk, then I believe it would be much easier to get a tag for one or the other. Take all the general deer guys out of the LE and any bull pools, take all the elk guys out of the deer pool. Take all the guys who want to hunt every year out of the trophy unit pools, take all the trophy guys out of the easier to draw pools. Looks like everyone gets more of what they want to me. Think how easy this would make getting pronghorn tags.

Sure, this would 'anger' the folks who want to hunt multiple species per year but it would also thrill those who want to hunt their favorite area more often. As it is, we have more and more folks not getting a tag while we have others, like some in my family who have a LE bull tag and a general buck tag the same year. I think one antlered species per year is sufficient when there are so many who aren't getting to hunt.

Flame away, just my opinion and it is subject to change.------SS


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley73, you missed the part where I stated -- "Going off the current ratios that means there will be less hunters afield under 18-20 management then under 15-17." Changing the weapon ratios sounds great as a sound bite-- until we do the math and look at the demand. I don't really care about the Monroe, but it is foolish to think that managing for higher buck to doe ratios does not cut current opportunity-- which includes any weapon hunters. 

SS- I gotta stop typing on my phone. I was talking about combining people's Gen/DH/LE points (3 Gen + 1 DH + 17 LE = 21 points). I didn't mean to refer to combining the LE-Gen units into one draw. Sorry for the confusion. Seems reasonable to think LE and Gen should just be Deer units.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

SS,
I think you are on the right track. This is the fear of some....I believe. Look at what happened to elk in Utah. When they first started the DWR said with the current # of applicants and increasing the # of units with trophy Bulls by implementing spike only it should only take around 5 years to draw a mature bull tag. What happened? Well big Bulls started to show up on all these units and "trophy" hunters came out of the wood work. Now it's 15-20 years to draw a rifle mature bull tag. Why, because people actually do care more about shooting a big bull than the DWR had counted on. Think about how many posts you read that say my Dad or my Grandpa or my wife just drew a LE elk and we will be so excited because it's their first elk hunt! Those hunters could hunt elk every single year OTC but they don't. Why not? Could it be because the trophy is what they are after more so than having a tag in the pocket every fall??? 

Well if the units for deer all jumble into one there will be more pressure to make more "trophy" units because the odds are so bad, the odds will out weigh those of the "non trophy" units. Well if sooo many people are applying for the "trophy" units then more units should be made "trophy" units....right?? If Packout and all those that say we should follow what the majority wants I believe the odds will show more people are actually interested in "trophies" than hunting every single year on a family outing type hunt. When people actually put their money where their mouth is it will show there are more people interested in a "quality" hunt every few years than a camping trip with a tag in pocket every year.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> ... and all those that say we should follow what the majority wants I believe the odds will show more people are actually interested in "trophies" than hunting every single year on a family outing type hunt.


Please show me a DWR survey where that was the case. In every one I've read: hunting every year > trophies.

-DallanC


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I'm still not sure about an ultimate solution but I am sure that it's time to limit hunters to one buck or bull tag per season. There would be many ways to sort this out but ultimately I would rather see more people having opportunity to hunt one animal than to have so many walking around with tags for two. Besides, if you can't draw an LE deer and general deer in the same year, how is it fair to have a LE elk or antelope tag and a general deer in the same year? My daughter has done this twice now in 3 years so I'm sure it happens quite a bit. Let's get those doubled up tags back in the pool for other hunters.-------SS


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Dallan,
Too Funny, that's what I'm saying. When people actually vote...with their dollars it will show differnent than the survey. Look at the elk it says it all.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

SS, 
I think you are spot on!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

In fact think about throwing in all the antlerless tags. The odds for everything would level out....right?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> SS,
> I think you are on the right track. This is the fear of some....I believe. Look at what happened to elk in Utah. When they first started the DWR said with the current # of applicants and increasing the # of units with trophy Bulls by implementing spike only it should only take around 5 years to draw a mature bull tag. What happened? Well big Bulls started to show up on all these units and "trophy" hunters came out of the wood work. Now it's 15-20 years to draw a rifle mature bull tag. Why, because people actually do care more about shooting a big bull than the DWR had counted on. Think about how many posts you read that say my Dad or my Grandpa or my wife just drew a LE elk and we will be so excited because it's their first elk hunt! Those hunters could hunt elk every single year OTC but they don't. Why not? Could it be because the trophy is what they are after more so than having a tag in the pocket every fall???
> 
> Well if the units for deer all jumble into one there will be more pressure to make more "trophy" units because the odds are so bad, the odds will out weigh those of the "non trophy" units. Well if sooo many people are applying for the "trophy" units then more units should be made "trophy" units....right?? If Packout and all those that say we should follow what the majority wants I believe the odds will show more people are actually interested in "trophies" than hunting every single year on a family outing type hunt. When people actually put their money where their mouth is it will show there are more people interested in a "quality" hunt every few years than a camping trip with a tag in pocket every year.


How are things in fantasyland? Maybe yoir talking abt all the ppl on MM?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

McFly,
Ask yourself this. Is my fantasyland your reality? The fantasyland is thinking that thing are not going to change.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Good to see y'all still arguing over bucks giving birth. 
Lemme know when You decide to cut through the smokescreen 
And get to the issue. 

Best part of this whole thread is questioning Packout's resume. 


Carry on.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Oh come on Wiley I'm even saying you'll possibley get a few more archery tags back. Got celebrate the small victories!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Like I said, I'm done with the bickering over
Tags and dividing hunters. Time to deal with the
Real issue.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Wow!!! Seems like a said that 3 years ago Gordy and you wanted none of it!!! That must be an Idaho or Colorado 12 pack you're nursing today!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Nope nursing allergies just like everybody else


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

And, not to be a stickler, but Colorado brew is 3.2:grin:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Colorado cookie 12 pack! ?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

wileywapati said:


> And, not to be a stickler, but Colorado brew is 3.2:grin:


Where are you buying your Colorado brew that is 3.2? Grocery stores are 3.2 but liquor stores sells the good stuff.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Same with Utah. Or the Beer Store ( Squatters Uinta ) has the
Real deal.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

This is like the gallop pull where 90% of Americans favor universal background checks for firearm purchases and yet it doesn't pass congress. That's because opinion polls or internet forum don't mean anything when it comes to showing up-- to RACs in this case and in force with a large group of organized hunters willing to put their money and time where their mouth is. Polls and internet opinion don't mean crap--

Remember that 3.2% beer is "up to 3.2%" I think Utah's grocery store stuff is more like 2.8% or lower and who wants to go to a liquor store where its $1.8 per--head to the land of Goob, Evingston is the local name, where they have good beer and an ample supply of velcro gloves


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Good to see y'all still arguing over bucks giving birth.
> Lemme know when You decide to cut through the smokescreen
> And get to the issue.
> 
> ...


I got a chuckle out of that as well...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I'm still not sure about an ultimate solution but I am sure that it's time to limit hunters to one buck or bull tag per season. There would be many ways to sort this out but ultimately I would rather see more people having opportunity to hunt one animal than to have so many walking around with tags for two. Besides, if you can't draw an LE deer and general deer in the same year, how is it fair to have a LE elk or antelope tag and a general deer in the same year? My daughter has done this twice now in 3 years so I'm sure it happens quite a bit. Let's get those doubled up tags back in the pool for other hunters.-------SS


This would be the best option to give "Everyone" the best "opportunity" to hunt big game ever year.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^^^ Definitely the direction Utah is headed...^^^^^^^^^^

Just to much demand on a limited resource.......


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> SS,
> I think you are on the right track. This is the fear of some....I believe. Look at what happened to elk in Utah. When they first started the DWR said with the current # of applicants and increasing the # of units with trophy Bulls by implementing spike only it should only take around 5 years to draw a mature bull tag. What happened? Well big Bulls started to show up on all these units and "trophy" hunters came out of the wood work. Now it's 15-20 years to draw a rifle mature bull tag. Why, because people actually do care more about shooting a big bull than the DWR had counted on. Think about how many posts you read that say my Dad or my Grandpa or my wife just drew a LE elk and we will be so excited because it's their first elk hunt! Those hunters could hunt elk every single year OTC but they don't. Why not? Could it be because the trophy is what they are after more so than having a tag in the pocket every fall???
> 
> Well if the units for deer all jumble into one there will be more pressure to make more "trophy" units because the odds are so bad, the odds will out weigh those of the "non trophy" units. Well if sooo many people are applying for the "trophy" units then more units should be made "trophy" units....right?? If Packout and all those that say we should follow what the majority wants I believe the odds will show more people are actually interested in "trophies" than hunting every single year on a family outing type hunt. When people actually put their money where their mouth is it will show there are more people interested in a "quality" hunt every few years than a camping trip with a tag in pocket every year.


I hunt on an Otc elk tag every year and also put in for LE. I would love to hunt an l.e. Unit once or twice, but if push comes to shove and I had to choose, it would be an easy decision. I'd hunt the otc tag every year. Most of my friends and acquaintances are the same.

When I see or hear someone say that their LE hunt is their first hunt, that's fine, but you are making some pretty bold and illogical assumptions about priority based on some tangential observations about applicants and a few first time hunters drawing a limited entry tag.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Kwalk,
I get what you are saying but it's easy to say that when you only are able to draw a LE elk tag once or twice in 30 years. If you're able to draw a quality hunt every 3-4 years would that decision to hunt yearling animals every year be so easy?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Please show me a DWR survey where that was the case. In every one I've read: hunting every year > trophies.
> 
> -DallanC


In last years Mule Deer survey there was a question that asked....
Would you be willing to make sacrifices in order to see more or hunt more mature bucks? (or something close to those words).
Over 60% said... YES, they would.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Kwalk,
> I get what you are saying but it's easy to say that when you only are able to draw a LE elk tag once or twice in 30 years. If you're able to draw a quality hunt every 3-4 years would that decision to hunt yearling animals every year be so easy?


I understand where you are coming from as well and I respect the desire to pursue trophy animals.

I guess quality is all about perspective. I can have a quality hunt on a general season unit every year. I see the opportunity to hunt as beneficial to me personally. However, I also don't see a shortage of mature animals where I hunt and am in the hills year round watching, observing, and pursuing them(in season). I like to think those experiences would continue were I not to have a tag every year. However, there is something distinctly exciting and special about watching a big velvet buck in June or seeing elk on the turkey hunt, knowing that if I play my cards right I have the opportunity to take that animal come Fall.

Given all that, I don't believe that this issue should be one to divide hunters as it currently does. I think that trophy hunting has an important place in hunting, as does camping with a tag as you say. I tend to believe that there is an excess in trophy units, especially for elk in this state that's not necessarily proportional to the amount of people who want to hunt every year. I play the game by applying for my l.e. Tag every year, but that in no way means that I want more trophy units. It's tough to strike that balance between opportunity and quality and I'm not sure there is an easy solution.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

If rather draw a tag every year and decide for
Myself what is quality and what ain't.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> If rather draw a tag every year and decide for
> Myself what is quality and what ain't.


Nice grammar.:mrgreen:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You guys are hung up on the 15-17 vs 18-20 crap. Thats a drop in the bucket to whats causing the creep! The real cause of the creep is the guys abusing the point system! Every hunter I know is abusing the point system! The ones not drawing the tags are the new hunters and ignorant to the system hunters. This is causing the once 2 to 3 year waits to increase to Le type waits because people are getting tags every year with no waiting periods! 

If anyone has been seeing the dwr deer poles about better bucks and longer waits will know what the general public wanted. They overwhelmingly voted for 18-20 bucks. This very forum was once moaning about never seeing a buck. Three years later they all want a buck tag. SFW didnt do this! The wildlife board didnt do this! The public got what they wanted and now they get to reap what they sow 

I actually think the forums are relatively quiet now when it comes to the way deer are being managed in Utah. I think most are happy with what their seeing.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hey SW, like I've always tried to tell you, if they would just have more archery tags and less rifle tags then everyone would have a chance to hunt more often. Why doesn't anyone ever listen to me? Sheesh!:mrgreen:------SS


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Airborne said:


> This is like the gallop pull where 90% of Americans favor universal background checks for firearm purchases and yet it doesn't pass congress. That's because opinion polls or internet forum don't mean anything when it comes to showing up-- to RACs in this case and in force with a large group of organized hunters willing to put their money and time where their mouth is. Polls and internet opinion don't mean crap--
> 
> Remember that 3.2% beer is "up to 3.2%" I think Utah's grocery store stuff is more like 2.8% or lower and who wants to go to a liquor store where its $1.8 per--head to the land of Goob, Evingston is the local name, where they have good beer and an ample supply of velcro gloves


3.2 by volume is roughly 4.0% by weight.

High point domestics are ~4.5% by weight, which is 3.6 by volume.

Alcohol by Weight X 1.25 = Alcohol By Volume

Alcohol By Volume X .8 = Alcohol by Weight

When I lived in Northern Nevada, we did some math and found out it was more cost effective to buy Utah beer.

Utah 30 pack was $20 ~ 0.67 cents a can.

Nevada 30 pack was $24 ~ 0.80 cents a can.

8 Nevada beers = 9 Utah Beers

Only 3.6 more beers per thirty pack.

Plugging that into the beer cost, the cost is 0.70 per beer.

Thus making the Utah beer more economical.

Interning with engineers has it's benefits.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> 3.2 by volume is roughly 4.0% by weight.
> 
> High point domestics are ~4.5% by weight, which is 3.6 by volume.
> 
> ...


I have a friend that goes by the same theories, but a little bit different. 
His reasoning is to purchase one 6pack of good beer and then the rest that he plans to drink for the night the cheapest that he can find. His reasoning is that once you are drunk you don't care what it taste like.

The funny thing is that he is the only one that is bent over a log for half the night loosing what he drank and all the savings.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> 3.2 by volume is roughly 4.0% by weight.
> 
> High point domestics are ~4.5% by weight, which is 3.6 by volume.
> 
> ...


You are assuming the Utah stuff is 3.2abv/4.0abw. The wording on the case says "up to 3.2% abv". Now in my--cough, cough, I mean somebody else's-- uncontrolled experiments I will say that higher quality Utah made stuff like squatters (3.2 version) is taken right up to the limit and are quality beverages. On the other hand I believe that the grocery store macro beers are watered down well below the 3.2abv level. Why wouldn't they when they can produce more product cheaply and blame it on the state regs.

I would love someone to actually scientifically test a sampling of Utah's grocery store stuff and really see what is being sold--betting it's not 3.2. This is why you have actual beer drinkers in Utah say the stuff is weak and watered down while the non drinking regulatory folks are saying there's such a small difference it shouldn't matter--well if it's not that big of a difference then why on god's green earth do they have the restriction in the first place.

Also I think the cost for a 30 pack varies so much regarding what's on sale that a cost factor is a weak indicator of value.

The current best value/quality/buzz ratio for Utah bought stuff is at the liquor store and it's Squatters Hops Rising which I think sells for around $1.8 per beer and is 9.0% abv. Give one or two a try on an empty stomach, it's the same effect as like 9 Utah beers with a whole lot less calories and much better taste. That's the word on the street anyways--like other fine Utahns I never drink, just ask my home teacher :grin:


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Airborne said:


> You are assuming the Utah stuff is 3.2abv/4.0abw. The wording on the case says "up to 3.2% abv". Now in my--cough, cough, I mean somebody else's-- uncontrolled experiments I will say that higher quality Utah made stuff like squatters (3.2 version) is taken right up to the limit and are quality beverages. On the other hand I believe that the grocery store macro beers are watered down well below the 3.2abv level. Why wouldn't they when they can produce more product cheaply and blame it on the state regs.
> 
> I would love someone to actually scientifically test a sampling of Utah's grocery store stuff and really see what is being sold--betting it's not 3.2. This is why you have actual beer drinkers in Utah say the stuff is weak and watered down while the non drinking regulatory folks are saying there's such a small difference it shouldn't matter--well if it's not that big of a difference then why on god's green earth do they have the restriction in the first place.
> 
> ...


Good Beer. I personally like Stone's Ruination IPA the best, but can't find it in Green River. I can't go to Evingston, because it is in Utah. I can't go to Rock Springs, because of this Lion King picture http://i.imgur.com/oQZBZSu.jpg.

Either way, I think there are different factors other than alcohol that lead to drunkenness. Quality beer will lead to quality ingredients which may help more alcohol become absorbed quicker. Maybe we should fill out the 100 pages of forms to kill a bunch of rats in the name of Beer Science.

I digress, thread hijacked.

Keep the GSD tags the way they are. I love rigging the system for my benefit. :mrgreen:


----------

