# 2012 Unit Boundaries...Likes? Dislikes?



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Just wanted to get a feel for what folks were thinking as far as the proposed boundaries? Are there some boundaries that should be moved? If so why? What is unclear about these boundaries? Anything else?

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


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

This is not change we can believe in, so please help us get it changed back. Thank you.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

I believe :^8^:


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2011)

-8/- if a hunter in the woods crosses the (their) unit boundary line, will anyone know it? o-|| 

...probably not :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

kill_'em_all said:


> -8/- if a hunter in the woods crosses the (their) unit boundary line, will anyone know it? o-||
> 
> ...probably not :roll:


Great point. Especially in light of revenue cuts due to legislative decisions and cutting license revenue by quite a bit.

As far as getting more COs in the field to police these types of infractions, we are moving the opposite direction, resource wise. They are far more likely to let COs go than they are to hire more. Many people don't realize that we have just over 50 COs STATEWIDE.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Manti/San Rafael.

The whole pretents was to better manage areas based on the individual areas. If this is so , then why are these two different areas in the same unit?

Personally it looks to me like it is being setup for the dumping grounds for permits "Just to keep the General hunters happy". These areas should not be lumped together. Should be cut at I-70.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Manti/San Rafael.
> 
> The whole pretents was to better manage areas based on the individual areas. If this is so , then why are these two different areas in the same unit?
> 
> Personally it looks to me like it is being setup for the dumping grounds for permits "Just to keep the General hunters happy". These areas should not be lumped together. Should be cut at I-70.


Shhhhh, you don't want to give away all the secrets. :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

So not only did we get 30 units but the state grew in size as well?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You hear guys say all the time we cant issue any tags on the wasatch, dutton, fish lake for Le elk because the elk dont live on those units they move from unit to unit. You then hear them B&M the quality sucks for a unit like the wasatch which is a year over age objective. 

What is going to make it any different on these smaller deer units? Last I saw deer dont see imaginary lines on a map. You can bet the 18 buck to 100 doe ratio isnt going to be enough for these tards. Its not now! Once you get any higher of a buck to doe ratio you will just end up like the bookcliffs 300 tags times 29 units = 8700 permits for that type of quality state wide.

Then throw in the lifetime license holders, youth hunters, old fogie hunters, special interest hunters, ect and you can see why I fought this as long as I have. Having a rifle tag once every 10 years just isn't worth it.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Hate it. It is basically turning the entire state into a bunch of LE units. The WB should admit that they are running and agenda in allignment with special interest groups mainly SFW/MDF (who by the way are very heavily involved in a membership drive). If this has been their plan they should admit that it's their plan but don't insult the intelligence of thousandds of hunters by pitching as something it's not.

Hunting has taken the biggest turn for the worst in Utah if this gets implemented.


----------



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

I would like them to bring back the statewide archery. If they only knew how bad I shoot, they would know that I am not much of a threat to the buck to do ratio on any of their precious units. I would also like to see them leave the Wasatch Extended alone. 
<<--O/


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

It will be interesting to see how many tags are allocated for many of these units, and whether or not CWMU's, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, private property, firearms restrictions, antlerless tags, etc. are part of the mix. My guess is that if these concerns are considered, there will be a lot more than 13,000 tags cut. And if they are not considered, the little accessible public lands will be covered with orange dots during the any weapon season, and we'll have to cut some more anyway so it's not too crowded.

What a boondoggle this move is/will be!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> The WB should admit that they are running and agenda in allignment with special interest groups mainly SFW/MDF.


FWIW, MDF opposed opt 2.



Fritz said:


> I would like them to bring back the statewide archery.


Me, too. But I'm tossing in the towel on that fight, for now. Until the anti-bowhunt crowd can admit that weapons are management tools and not social classes, the divisive "fairness" hoax prevents any sensible discussion of it.

Funny thing is, as they try to figure out how many permits to allocate on each of these units, they'll have to use past survey numbers as a benchmark. Since the archery deer hunt and archery elk hunt are concurrent and the surveys aren't specific enough to distinguish between the two hunts, that data isn't worth much as far as bowhunters and deer management objectives go. So any biological rationale for unit bowhunts goes out the window.

Add to that little conundrum the fact that these "new" units are pretty much the same old units, the boundaries of which were originally set for data collection (on winter range) not harvest control. Even with a statewide buck/doe ratio, (which some apparently confuse for unit management :roll: ), the stage is set for some really serious screw-ups both in terms of deer management and hunter satisfaction, (overcrowding). Of course, everybody will blame the DWR for that. :lol:

And speaking of responsibility, nobody's yet offered an explanation about how unit management works with each of these units under the control of *REGIONAL RACs* and a *STATE* Wildlife Board. That's probably because it doesn't work...not for 30 units. Unit by unit is more detailed than region by region. So I'm thinking the November RAC meetings will each be about, what, 3 days long? Or would deference be given to the unit biologists and the unit committees as it was before they became LE units? I somehow doubt that's going to fly.

Utah currently has no management plan aside from objectives and this map. The previous plan and most of its strategies were statewide and far too vague to be of much practical use in serious unit management. So without a plan, these unit boundaries are pretty much just arbitrary lines on a map.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

Is this map from the DWR? if so then it is not official, I say that because the WB board is the one to make the boundaries however they wish, so where is the map of boundaries that the WB want? Anyone else remember the wording used in last decembers meeting?


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2011)

i wouldnt even trust the "official" maps they will put out for the general public.... my experience has been even the fish cops dont know they real boundaries when they check you


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I haven't been through every one yet, But they look to be the same boundaries
that have been used for Utah's lion hunts for 20 years now..............

Very solid, easy to fallow , Looking very good to me. may be a few minor tweaks.


----------



## SureShot (Oct 2, 2007)

Love the boundaries, love the plan, can't wait for it to be implemented.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

keep statewide archery or create archery/muzzleloader only units...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Where is every one reading or hearing them taking away the state wide archery and the extended hunt?Im I just that blind?So if they take away the state wide archery.How long is the archery hunt going to be ?


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2011)

you cant hunt state wide archery with 30 units. the 30 units isnt just designed for rifle and muzzy guys, its for everyone


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

They voted to take away statewide archery at the WB meeting last November.

I disagree that archery couldn't be statewide while maintaining unit management for other weapon types. It happens in other states. Idaho has many units for elk and deer that are LE for rifle and muzz and OTC for archery.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> They voted to take away statewide archery at the WB meeting last November.
> /quote]
> 
> Well that sucks big time. Ty do you know how long are season will be next year?If we dont get the extended area.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

No clue.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Just dont like the boundry splitting two units on heber main. But hey we have dealt with it on the 5 Region plan this whole time. Don't care much how some units will winter deer off other units to get a acurrate count for buck/doe ratio for that unit. Other than that bring it.


----------



## Stbmldcgrvs (May 5, 2008)

So I went to the deer biologist meeting in Ogden last week and saw the boundaries back then. Too bad that there were only a handful of guys that went. Anyway, It is my understanding that the DWR will be recommending that the Wasatch Front Extended area be continued and it will add west of I-15 to the lake from basically North Salt Lake to Perry. Once your "Archery Unit Hunt" is done you will be able to hunt the Wasatch front extended. Other possibilities mentioned included a "earn your buck" concept on the Wasatch front by shooting a doe first. Also on the West side of the Freeway the terminology used by the particular biologist that I was talking to was "eradicate the deer population west of I-15" btw- the waterfowl management Units would not be open to archery deer hunting on the west side of the freeway. I had a very informative visit. It was very much worth my time. I also gained a wealth of insight about Urban deer populations and the problems the dwr is having all accross the state (not just in Bountiful) It seems that the legislature has tied everyones hands by micro-managing everything and that lack of flexibility is effecting the DWR's ability to deal with these problem areas. The stumbling block is the shooting within 600 feet of a dwelling. It needs to be amended such that it would allow municipalities to set their own limitations with regard to wildlife management. Thus opening up the door for some highly trained personell to address the problem. These problems have largely been dealt with back east and have found successful ways of dealing with the issues but there is a mind-set that will have to change here first before they can be implemented. Very good talking to the DWR boys. They were really straight forward and didn't pull any punches. I appreciated their efforts.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> I haven't been through every one yet, But they look to be the same boundaries
> that have been used for Utah's lion hunts for 20 years now..............
> 
> Very solid, easy to fallow , Looking very good to me. may be a few minor tweaks.


Very solid, easy to follow? A few minor tweaks? I suppose, if you're very familiar with the area. For the rest of us, let's see;

San Juan, Abajo Mtns includes "north along this canyon bottom" for 4 different canyons, also includes "the Big Causeway", "Big Indian Road", "Lisbon Valley road", "Indian Mesa road", "the Navajo Indian Reservation boundary".

Nine Mile, which is located in two separate regions, contains "Hastings Road".

Manti/San Rafael contains "(hunters may harvest deer within 2 miles south of SR-24 between SR-95 and the Notom Road)", "Caineville Wash road", "Cathedral Valley road", "Rock Springs Bench and the Last Chance Desert road", "Blue Flats road", "Windy Springs road".

Beaver contains "Black Rock road".

Plateau, Thousand Lakes (see Manti/San Rafael)

Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits contains "Notom to Bullfrog road", "Widstoe-Antimony road",

San Rafael, which is listed as part of the Manti/San Rafael unit, but is also listed separately contains "north on SR-95 to a point 2 miles south of SR-24; west from this point along a line 2 miles south of and parallel to SR-24 to the Notom Road".

Nebo is located in two separate regions

Kamas contains "the Weber River trail".

North Slope which is located in two separate regions contains "west along the summit of the Uinta mountains".

Oquirrh-Stansbury contains "the Pony Express road south of Faust; west along this road to Government Creek Road".

Fillmore, Oak Creek contains "Boundary excludes all USFS lands".

I didn't list them all because some of the units have the same boundaries.

"This canyon bottom" could be rather wide, the Indian Reservation and USFS boundaries and the "line 2 miles south of and parallel to SR-24" are likely not marked, the "summit of the Uintah Mountains" (or any mountain) isn't always exact, and the colloquial names of roads could pose some problems, but
I'm sure we could all figure this stuff out. However, we're all going to have to carry a GPS to be sure where we are.

I suppose we can be thankful we're not _yet_ like the neighboring states that many of us lovingly refer to when we're trying to make a point, ie:Idaho-98 units, Nevada-110 units, Arizona-80 units, Wyoming-171 units, Montana-67 units, Colorado-165 units, New Mexico-69 units, and Oregon-65, but I predict we'll come to that when we discover Option #2 doesn't produce the population or trophy numbers. After all, if it doesn't work, we just didn't do enough of it, right?


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Oh the horror, you're telling me that with the wicked sky is falling prop 2 the extended hunt might not only survive, but might even be expanded... Who would of thunk it. o-|| 

Think how bad it'll be if this gives managers a chance to get creative with some more archery hunts on a small "evil" micro managed units.

Personally I see a lot of oppotunities for all weapons.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

To me, micro management is fairly insignificant in comparison to the whole plan. 20, 50, 100 units, whatever. 

The raised buck to doe ratios, especially that often unnoticed '25' number is what is going to blindside quite a few people in the coming years.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

What option will the RAC groupies vote for when they realize they cannot EASILY kill a mature buck with 30 units. 

We do not have a deer problem in this state but we do have a hunter entitlement problem. Here's a news flash... Mature bucks are supposed to be hard to find and hunting in general is supposed to be difficult.

This is what makes hunting mature bucks so rewarding. If you did not kill or see a mature buck, you simply did not work hard enough. 

Do any of you remember back in the day when you actually had to accomplish something difficult in order to be proud of yourself?


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

We're going to try to increase buck to doe ratios to be more like the Wasatch extended area? I think it's even a lot higher than 25/100. That'll make for some ****ty hunting! Not!

I think I understand what you're saying, but you gotta admit there are some potential positives to come out of this.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

EFA,,,,,,

Its a hunters responsibility to know the area hes hunting and its boundaries....

If you cant do that,,,,,IT's TIME TO QUIT!!.........................Period.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> EFA,,,,,,
> 
> Its a hunters responsibility to know the area hes hunting and its boundaries....
> 
> If you cant do that,,,,,IT's TIME TO QUIT!!.........................Period.


Yell that to the DWR Director! Your being a tad bit pompous, yes? Maybe its time to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and stop making things so **** complicated so people can HUNT.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> EFA,,,,,,
> 
> Its a hunters responsibility to know the area hes hunting and its boundaries....
> 
> If you cant do that,,,,,IT's TIME TO QUIT!!.........................Period.


Just when I thought I had read it all Goofy strikes again. I am starting to think you actually DO NOT want more people to take up the sport. Many of your comments have been to the tune of "If you don't like it too bad" or "If it's too hard quit". Perhaps you should be orienting those comments to the idiots that have mismanaged our wildlife and are destroying our sport.

There is a practice in the corporate world that involves overcomplicating things in order to push unwanted people out of a company or organization or a competitor into failure. It's an elitist mentality and even though it is not illegal it is certainly unethical. That is exactly what is happening to hunting in Utah. Consciously or not you are partaking in that movement.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> EFA,,,,,,
> 
> Its a hunters responsibility to know the area hes hunting and its boundaries....
> 
> If you cant do that,,,,,IT's TIME TO QUIT!!.........................Period.


Just for fun, I took out some of my old proclamations that had the hunt boundary descriptions in the back.

Besides the normal unmarked/sometimes disputed or recently drawn lines between cities, counties, states, Forest Service, BLM, military installations, Indian Reservations, National and state parks, private property, etc. we find these descriptions;

2004 Antlerless Cache, Richmond-Hyde Park, ...east along this trail (049) to the drainage divide between the Logan River and the Bear River in Cache Valley; north along this divide to the Utah-Idaho state line.

2004 Antlerless Central Mountains, Danish Bench, ...east on this boundary (USFS) to the base of the escarpment; along the base of the escarpment around the southeast end of East Mountain..

2004 Antlerless Central Mountains, Levan ..southwest from Levan Canyon staying along the edge of the foothills to Deep Canyon Road; ...

2004 Antlerless Central Mountains, Southwest Nebo ...east along Fourmile Road and up Fourmile drainage to the Juab-Sanpete County line; ...

2004 - 2007 Lots more drainage divides, summits, rims, crests, canyons and ridges

Then we have several hunts that follow contour elevation lines. Good luck on that without a GPS that has elevations on it.

We hunted antlerless deer for several years up by Antimony where the north boundary was Dry Wash and the east boundary was a line 2 miles east following and parallel to SR-22. One year my daughter shot and wounded a doe that came down out of the hills south of Dry Wash and crossed the road at the bottom and even crossed the dry creek bed to the north, and hid in the tall sagebrush. As we were looking for her, some other hunters saw us on the other side of the road and creek bed and told us we were on the wrong side of the road. I had to point out that the description only said Dry Wash, not Dry Wash road nor Dry Wash Creek. The whole canyon (200 or so yards wide) is considered Dry Wash by the locals and when I contacted the DWR to clarify, they were baffled and eventually had to agree with the locals. As for the east boundary, there's no way of knowing whether or not you're exactly 2 miles east of SR22 at any given point unless you have a GPS and have made your own map, 'cause the map the Division provided just had a straight line.

Additionally, if you'll read the old Wasatch Front Extended description ( and maybe the current Ogden Extended) when it went all the way to Brigham City, you'll see that it says "north along Skyline Trail to the crest of the Wasatch Front at Willard Basin; north along the crest of the Wasatch Front to Perry Peak". As the old saying goes "you can't get there from here", at least not along the crest. Perry Peak is on the ridge northeast of Willard Basin with a rather massive deep canyon between them.

These are some of the problems hunters and the Division encounter when drawing regions, hunts and units.

If everyone who had ever gone out of bounds were to quit, you'd be the only one left, I guess!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> ....there's no way of knowing whether or not you're exactly 2 miles east of SR22....


Is that 2 miles as the crow flies or 2 miles over terrain?

The simple fact is as these units get smaller, there will be more violations with less officer interface. I have seen it to many times on the duck hunt when a bird is dropped in the rest area. Now someone who has waited an extended amount of time for there chance at the big one and that big one runs over the next ridge into another unit. They will go after it and if he is not expired they will finish it. Now how often this will happen, I'm not sure. My guess is this will depend on where the boundaries are.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

This all reminds me of a time that I was headed down Mayfield Canyon and a wreck had closed the road. I was talking to another hunter and his wife and he said that since he hadn't seen any deer that he was headed up to Strawberry to finish the hunt. I asked him what tag that he had that allowed him to hunt both the Northeastern and Southeast region. He said that he only had the Central region tag and that he had been hunting the Manti and the Strawberry area for years. You should of seen his face when I told him that nether the Strawberry area or the Manti were in the Central unit.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> > ....there's no way of knowing whether or not you're exactly 2 miles east of SR22....
> 
> 
> Is that 2 miles as the crow flies or 2 miles over terrain?
> ...


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Is there a way someone could number these regions just as references? There are a few units that the deer winter on another unit but it is hard for me to explain. When is the buck/doe ratio figured, on the winter ground or what.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The units are more or less the management units the division has been using to manage _deer_.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -11-07.pdf


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> Manti/San Rafael.
> 
> The whole pretents was to better manage areas based on the individual areas. If this is so , then why are these two different areas in the same unit?
> 
> Personally it looks to me like it is being setup for the dumping grounds for permits "Just to keep the General hunters happy". These areas should not be lumped together. Should be cut at I-70.


Being that I hunt both units I can see why they lumped them together. The San Rafael deer herd is at max 500 animals, I really can't see them making it into its owm unit. I can see maybe using it like an any bull unit because the success rate would be low. 
My wifes family has hunted it for years and they know where the deer are and they will maybe get 2 bucks out of 12 to 15 hunters and they consider that a good year. I have personally hunted with them for 4 years and I seen a total of 3 bucks and no does.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

mikevanwilder said:


> Being that I hunt both units I can see why they lumped them together. The San Rafael deer herd is at max 500 animals, I really can't see them making it into its owm unit. I can see maybe using it like an any bull unit because the success rate would be low.
> My wifes family has hunted it for years and they know where the deer are and they will maybe get 2 bucks out of 12 to 15 hunters and they consider that a good year. I have personally hunted with them for 4 years and I seen a total of 3 bucks and no does.


The premise for option 2 is to manage units exactly like you have described. After what you have stated it really should be its own unit base on the whole reason for option 2.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Thanks TREE but that map doesn't show the unit split on Heber Main/hwy 40. I will see if I can come up with something.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > Being that I hunt both units I can see why they lumped them together. The San Rafael deer herd is at max 500 animals, I really can't see them making it into its owm unit. I can see maybe using it like an any bull unit because the success rate would be low.
> ...


True but I don't think the San Rafael is the the right place for a larger mule deer herd. Not alot of cover and certainly not enough water. 
I like the San Rafeal the way it is. There are huge bucks there that not alot of people know about because you won't see them in a vehicle or on an atv. The ones I seen was after hiking and tracking one for 4 days finally got them into a canyon but the circled on us and beat it out of dodge.
But you would have more of a chance at seeing a Desert Bighorn than a mule deer.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

mikevanwilder said:


> True but I don't think the San Rafael is the the right place for a larger mule deer herd. Not alot of cover and certainly not enough water.
> I like the San Rafeal the way it is. There are huge bucks there that not alot of people know about because you won't see them in a vehicle or on an atv. The ones I seen was after hiking and tracking one for 4 days finally got them into a canyon but the circled on us and beat it out of dodge.
> But you would have more of a chance at seeing a Desert Bighorn than a mule deer.


That is right. It's limit would be set at say the 500 with enough tagges issued to keep it there.

But then with the number of tagges that are going to be thrown at this unit currently as it is, maybe I'll just have to ease on down. :mrgreen:


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm sure it would have alot of tags that go unfulfilled if it was moved to its own. But with it combined with the Manti I think it will draw out.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I guess it is a start. I wish they would have pushed for 62 units like the old time biologists had broken the state into. 

Goofy,
'mI not sure that I agree that hunters should stop hunting it they have trouble understanding the boundries. 

However I agree 100% that it is a resposiblity of any sportsmen or outdoor user to know where they are at. We expect it on all private land? Yet we now think that this is asking to much. 

Get real folks, come up with a valid reason to not support this, rather than lean on the ignorance of some "sportsmen". I support option 2 and can give you better reasons to not support it than this!!! 

The option haters are saying the average joe general hunter can not be trusted to stay on his or her unit. Are all you average joes listening to that? That is saying you are not smart enough to figure this out so we should not do it. Yeah thats a group I would like representing me for sure. Thanks but I read maps and gps and do my best to not break the law. If I do mess up and hunt the wrong unit, then shame on me! That is no different than breaking any law. It is my fault and my fault alone!


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Finnegan said,


> Until the anti-bowhunt crowd can admit that weapons are management tools and not social classes, the divisive "fairness" hoax prevents any sensible discussion of it.


I think there is a perception that weapon use creates a social class, but not just by anti-bowhunnters. Many, many bow-hunters look down their noses at rifle hunters. Evidence of that is seen routinely on this website. Statements such as "archery hunters deserve to hunt in the rut" (often made) aren't helpful.

Your conclusion that archery hunts can be an effective management tool is spot on. I don't think that the same thing can be said of ML hunts. The weapons just aren't all that primitive any more.

Down with social classes; up with effective management!


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Muley73 said:


> I guess it is a start. I wish they would have pushed for 62 units like the old time biologists had broken the state into.
> 
> Goofy,
> 'mI not sure that I agree that hunters should stop hunting it they have trouble understanding the boundries.
> ...


Hmmm, don't know where you got some group is against 2 cuz they think hunters won't be able to follow the boundaries. sounds like you have a personal grudge given your last couple of posts. stand back and look at the forest, don't focus on just the tree, :mrgreen:


----------



## lifeisgood (Aug 31, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> I guess it is a start. I wish they would have pushed for 62 units like the old time biologists had broken the state into.
> quote]
> 
> I agree with Muley73 here. I think we are still dealing with macro units and many of these are still pretty large and likely house many micro heards on each. If the DWR really wants to manage buck:doe ratios and closely watch heard growth then we should have even more units. I typically hunt the same areas and move around depending on what has happened a few weeks prior to the hunt (early snows or still hot). Even with that moving around I would think I am dealing with only 20 mile x 20 mile area (likely only 10miles x 10 miles). These so called micro units are huge by comparison and if broken down most hunters would still be able to hunt there favorite area. Also if one of the heards needed a break form hunting you could close that unit down for a few years and we could hunt an adjoining unit that would still feel like home or roll the dice on a new part of the state.
> ...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

So how many of you folks like being micromanaged at work or at home? I know I hate it. Sorry about the randomness. :mrgreen: :lol: 

Muley73, law enforcement is down the list of my concerns about option 2, but it is a valid concern especially considering the self imposed budget cut by getting rid of 13,000 tags. I will admit, there are some good things about unit management, if not taken over by special interest groups. I am not going to go into what I don't like about option 2, I don't have enough time and I have said it a hundred times already, but I will state I am against raising buck to doe ratios/cutting tags for no biological reason, bottom line.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

For the guys that are concerned about the budget decreasing because of opt 2-are you serious? It's the govt for crying out loud. They'll figure out how to keep money coming in. Infact, in the long run they'll figure out how to make more money because of this. Sure it may be on our backs, a few extra cow elk tags on the wasatch, a few more general turkey tags, spike bull tags, any bull tags, a token license increase here and there. But sleep easy knowing they'll be just fine. And in the grand economic scheme of things we'll be just fine too even if a license cost us an entire extra $10 bucks or so.

Besides that, last I checked the DWR was pulling in more dough now than they ever have. Good for them!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Mrad, go talk to the DWR officers that are out there and ask them if they are understaffed right now? Then ask them how they will enforce option 2 with the same amount of officers? It is a concern and a big deal to the DWR. Now you are right, the DWR will find ways to supplement that money and UWC has provided them an option to make up a large chunk of the money lost from the tag cuts. Unfortunately there will be untold and unrealized financial effects of option 2 way beyond that of just the lost revenue of fewer tags.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Mrad said:


> if a license cost us an entire extra $10 bucks or so.


If that happens that Takes a couple people out of hunting. My wife and I dont have extra 100+ bucks laying around for her and I to hunt and fish. So if it goes up they will be pushing people out of the sport.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Mrad said:


> For the guys that are concerned about the budget decreasing because of opt 2-are you serious? It's the govt for crying out loud. They'll figure out how to keep money coming in. Infact, in the long run they'll figure out how to make more money because of this. Sure it may be on our backs, a few extra cow elk tags on the wasatch, a few more general turkey tags, spike bull tags, any bull tags, a token license increase here and there. But sleep easy knowing they'll be just fine. And in the grand economic scheme of things we'll be just fine too even if a license cost us an entire extra $10 bucks or so.
> 
> Besides that, last I checked the DWR was pulling in more dough now than they ever have. Good for them!


Nope. The DWR is tightening up all over the place due to huge shortages, part of this shortage is due to the *$750,000* revenue loss due to the WBs decision to raise buck to doe ratios forcing the division to cut tag numbers to reach the WB objective, another is due to substantial budget cuts directed by the legislature. This is from the horses mouth.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

I think everybody is tightening up to some extent because these are uncertain times. Anyone want to look up what the DWR 2009 vs 2010 budget was?

Funny some officers I've talked with like the idea of micro management. I think it's human nature to dislike change, especially if it potentially means more work and gets us out of our comfort zone. But in the long run it generally makes us better and stronger!

As for the extra $10. I really feel for guys goin through hard times. Honestly I'd spot a guy $10 if it really meant the difference of going or not.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Mrad said:


> For the guys that are concerned about the budget decreasing because of opt 2-are you serious? It's the govt for crying out loud. They'll figure out how to keep money coming in. Infact, in the long run they'll figure out how to make more money because of this. Sure it may be on our backs, a few extra cow elk tags on the wasatch, a few more general turkey tags, spike bull tags, any bull tags, a token license increase here and there. But sleep easy knowing they'll be just fine. And in the grand economic scheme of things we'll be just fine too even if a license cost us an entire extra $10 bucks or so.
> 
> Besides that, last I checked the DWR was pulling in more dough now than they ever have. Good for them!


Oh I see now, how can we be out of money if we still have checks... Right!

If we messed with this idea a little more I bet we could figure out way to give everyone free health care too!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> I support option 2 and can give you better reasons to not support it than this!!!
> 
> The option haters are saying the average joe general hunter can not be trusted to stay on his or her unit. Are all you average joes listening to that? That is saying you are not smart enough to figure this out so we should not do it. Yeah thats a group I would like representing me for sure. Thanks but I read maps and gps and do my best to not break the law. If I do mess up and hunt the wrong unit, then shame on me! That is no different than breaking any law. It is my fault and my fault alone!


Muley I'm trying to wade through your post and I'm not sure I understand.

First this thread was intended to be about a discussion over the proposed boundaries. Don't read anymore into it than that.

Second maybe I'm misundertanding what you are really trying to say but I haven't seen ANY "group" on this thread stating that unit management should be thrown out because people won't be able to keep boundaries straight.

Third let's throw out the term "option 2". Option 2 was a proposal last fall. It is no longer an "option", the changes that were a part of that proposal are now part of the management plan. From my perspective there is just the management plan and several items in that plan need to be addressed. We will address those items independently. There is no reason to continue to lump them together as if they are all the same issue. They are now unit mangament, minimum buck to doe ratios, and 25:100 ratios before tags are restored in any unit. We will no longer discuss all of these items under one umbrella any more than we will discuss predator control and habitat restoration as being the same thing.

Sorry but your drive by posts are out of touch and as Berg mentioned the other day to someone else, you are just putting out a straw man.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mrad said:


> I think everybody is tightening up to some extent because these are uncertain times. Anyone want to look up what the DWR 2009 vs 2010 budget was?
> 
> Funny some officers I've talked with like the idea of micro management. I think it's human nature to dislike change, especially if it potentially means more work and gets us out of our comfort zone. But in the long run it generally makes us better and stronger!


The problem is that the demand from the public is that more should be done for mule deer in the way of studies, habitat restoration, law enforcement, coyote control, surveys, etc. The division was already in a tough situation fiscally. The recent tag cuts has them forecasting even more difficulties in accomplishing what we've asked them to do from a fiscal perspective.

In the last 5 years the division, in part, has spent on mule deer:

Habitat - $70 million
Coyote Control - $3 million
Stepped up law enforcement (Cost unknown)
Disease - $1 million
Deer Collaring - $1 million
Emergency Feedings - $228,000
Fencing (Mostly UDOT Funds) - $45 million

With unit management people are expecting A LOT from the division in the way of knowing exactly what is going on in each unit with predators, forage, hunters, weather, range conditions, etc. People are expecting much more information than is being generated today by going to hunter units. Expectations far exceed the budget.

I suppose one can argue all day long that this is not the reality.....but it is.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I guess we could go on and on about the details of implementing these new mandates, including 13,000 lost tags, 30 or 62 units, lost or made up revenue, limited entry versus general units, increased buck to doe ratios, statewide or unit archery, hunters knowing or not knowing unit boundaries, buck/bull combo tags, smaller or larger extended archery areas, increased fees, etc., etc., etc., but the bottom line is; NONE OF YOU PRO-OPTION#2 GUYS, nor SFW, nor WILDLIFE BOARD, nor MDF, nor RAC's, nor BOU, nor even UWC, nor me, HAVE COME UP WITH ANY SOUND BIOLOGICAL REASONS, BENEFITS OR STUDIES JUSTIFYING THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS MAJOR MOVE, and until you do, I, among others, will oppose it. 

A well represented mule deer committee came up with a sound 5 year deer management plan in Dec, 2008 which was adopted by the Wildlife Board and which has the goal of increasing the deer population, as well as increasing the number of trophy bucks. The plan already provided for managing the herds on a unit basis, for providing adequate funds, strategies, equipment and materials for saving and improving habitat, for fawn recruitment, for predator management, reducing highway mortalities, controlling diseases, providing both general and trophy hunts, handling depredation issues, promoting youth hunter recruitment, and promoting more opportunities for primitive weapons. These new mandates add nothing to that list, but in fact, reduce the chances of reaching the plan's goals.

I, along with the majority of hunters, will make the necessary adjustments to my hunting plans if/when these new mandates are implemented, but I will still continue to fight them because they lead us down a path that is detrimental to the herds and hunters!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

BERG said:


> This is not change we can believe in, so please help us get it changed back. Thank you.


+2

Elk, well spoken. I was part of that committee, and was APPALLED at the outcome of the WB meeting in December despite the science backing the overthrown Mule Deer Plan. Let's get back to science based management.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I talked with several commitee members that really supported, "the new management plan"?

bull,
I responded to the some of the comments being made. Not just the original post. I am not sure my opinions or ideas would even rate as a staw man, but thanks.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I am not totally against the new management plan, but who the hell knows what that really is yet? There comes a time when managing hunters can have some direct benefit in that respect, but that idea will never grow more deer. The previous deer plan should have been followed through, but as always, the WB had to stay on course of "NOT" staying on course.... The system needs some help, almost as much as our wildlife does!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

You're still alive eh Cody? Good to see. You're opinion is as important as anyone's, even if it is not making much sense ;-) Myself, I rarely if ever agree with you, especially in this case. It is going to be an interesting year this year, lets all hope by the end of the day it is the wildlife that truely benefits.


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> kill_'em_all said:
> 
> 
> > -8/- if a hunter in the woods crosses the (their) unit boundary line, will anyone know it? o-||
> ...


Are you guys for real???I think you guys just like to hear yourself complain. Let me help you out.

Where I hunt there is a road about 4 miles to the south. I can't cross that line. Next year I still can't cross that line. It will have a different name though. Same with the road just to the west. I feel confident that the new name won't thrown to many people off though. If you can't figure it out you shouldn't be hunting. You can figure it out for elk, antelope, bear, moose, sheep, squirrel, snipe's, etc.

Bottom line is if your going to cheat then your going to cheat and you may or may not get caught. Do you guys seriously think that Law Enforcement Officers witness most of the crimes that people commit? What if someone hops over your fence (boundry)? Who will take care of that?

That's just how it is. Get used to it!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

sharpshooter said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > kill_'em_all said:
> ...


Huh? I wasn't complaining about anything, just pointing out that if it were to happen, that having more boundaries makes it lees likely that the infraction will be cited.

I agree, most crimes go unseen. I personally think boundary issues are a non-issue.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> I responded to the some of the comments being made. Not just the original post. I am not sure my opinions or ideas would even rate as a staw man, but thanks.


You said more in your previous post than you're willing to admit at this point but that's ok. Let's move on.


----------

