# What big game changes would you like to see made?



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

So lets share our opinions and hopes of what we would like as future big game changes. I'm not saying they'll happen, not saying lets fight over the subjects, but what changes would you like to see made?

-I would like to see 3point or better units (I know that has been established)
-More coyote control
-further cuts on tags 
-shed antler hunting season
-not being able to shoot a cow elk during archery season on any units, unless they are over objective.
-Unlimited general season spike tags
-Raised buck:doe ratios
-the rifle elk hunt moved out of the rut


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

For Mule Deer: NONE Unless it's a biological necessity and an emergency basis. Let the current plan continue for it's prescribed duration so important information can be learned and adapted as needed.

For Elk: Lower the entire population by 20,000 ;-)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

How about taking the time for the current changes to actually have an effect? --e.g. nothing.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

How about revisiting the general deer drawing process regarding lifetime license holders and dedicated hunters to make it a little more fair to all?----SS


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

So #1DEER 1-I, how much is this forum paying you to come up with new subjects to argue about each day? 



Springville Shooter said:


> How about revisiting the general deer drawing process regarding lifetime license holders and dedicated hunters to make it a little more fair to all?----SS


What is 'fair' to you may not be fair to the lifetime license holders. They are entitled to the tag of their choice by law. Hard to renege on what they were sold so you can have what you think is 'fair'. Many dont believe me about lifetime license holders being entitled by law, check it out:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/licenses/9 ... cense.html

And for the record I am not a lifetime license holder, just a guy who gets tired about hearing what is 'fair'. Also am not a fan of springville, stuffy artsy types with high property taxes, poor city govt and did I mention how much better Spanish Fork is?


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

How about the money we pay for tags going straight to the division, instead of a general fund. Maybe that would help better manage the herds, and possible lower the costs of the tags. It seems like some of these other states that get the money back into the division, instead of it going into a general fund, seem to have better management. Maybe I'm wrong in saying that. For me I dont go for the trophy. The time spent with family and friends, and time away from work is what I go for. I have ate tag soup for years, but still enjoy being out in the mountains. Just wish the hunting was a little better. I dont know what changes need to be made, but they need to happen now and in a big way.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

johnnycake said:


> How about taking the time for the current changes to actually have an effect? --e.g. nothing.


+1

Yup!


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Sounds like a government deal..............
Take away my lifetime lisc that I paid for.......
Just like they want to take away the social security that I paid for my whole life.
Just before I get there.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Airborne said:


> So #1DEER 1-I, how much is this forum paying you to come up with new subjects to argue about each day?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't say take anything away. Use good reading comprehension skills and note where you quoted me as saying "fair to all", not fair to Springville Shooter. Your lack of attention makes you look silly and argumentative. The law is the law and that must be honored. I would never condone taking away someones entitlement, not even the welfare entitlements enjoyed by the folks in Spanish Fork. I merely suggested that those who understand the system better than myself take a look at it and figure our a way to remedy problems like thousand lakes. Heck, with only 4000 lifetime holders, maybe they could give them a statewide general tag, take the 4000 of the top of the aggregate tag number, and open up more zone specific tags for the general public. I am not claiming to have all the answers, but there might be room for improvement. Who knows, there might be a solution that is better for everyone. Imagine that? ---SS


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

SS, I believe the active number of LL holders who actually hunt each year is down to around 2000. I might be wrong but I believe that is the last number I remember hearing at the RAC. Attrition is likely the only remedy.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> How about taking the time for the current changes to actually have an effect? --e.g. nothing.


I would have loved to see that action taken when the DWR and multiple western states took 3 years+ to develop a Mule Deer Plan only to have SFW and their cronies dismiss a 5 yr plan after less than one year.

For starters, I think they need to quit selling unlimited spike/cow tags and put a number based on herd objectives and ACTUAL population for cows, and let the spikes grow up so they can start issuing more branch-antlered bull tags to thin the "pool" waiting 20 yrs to draw... oh, and reduce the elk population back to a "sustainable" number that will complement our efforts to restore our deer numbers. Just sayin.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

A little touchy today are we springville, oh well, you artsy types generally are, I would know since I married a red devil  

The words 'revisit' and 'fair to all' are yours and excuse me for jumpin the gun. Let's be honest here if possible, the only reason someone would want to revisit the LL holders entitlement is to limit them or give others what they have-bottom line. Stop throwing out red herrings and just man up and say that you do think its unfair they get to hunt where they want to each year and you don't. Not being argumentative, just want some honesty, I can respect that a lot more than smoke in mirrors and back handed insults. Jealous much springville? I can admit i am jealous of the LL holders and wish I would have bought one back then but I am not so petty as to make things more 'fair to all' to make up for it. 

We can disagree on this and that is great but don't hold back, tell it like you mean it!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

[/quote] Heck, with only 4000 lifetime holders, maybe they could give them a statewide general tag, take the 4000 of the top of the aggregate tag number, and open up more zone specific tags for the general public. Imagine that? ---SS[/quote]

I really like that idea... 2000 current active LL holders getting to hunt statewide on their choice of weapons hunt with the ability to hunt any "general unit" - to be allowed to leave overcrowded or overhunted areas in search of solice? I LOVE IT!!! Lets do it!! I don't care if I kill a buck or not, I go for the hunt.

On the other comment about entitlement... I am a lifetime license holder and I don't feel at all like it is an entitlement, thank you very much!! I spent a hard earned $500 dollars 25+ yrs ago to get into the program and have spent thousands more in $ and time since then to "EARN" that right to have a deer tag and fishing license yearly... and what have I taken? 1 muzzy buck, 3 rifle bucks and 3 archery bucks, and a LOT of catch/release brookies, browns, bows and cuts... 7 deer in 28 years is a 1 in 4 average and that was with 12 years in the Dedicated hunter program... does that sound like entitlement? Sorry, it sounds like a good way to keep people interested in a dying sport.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> How about taking the time for the current changes to actually have an effect? --e.g. nothing.


+1!, but since we will be criticized by those that demand we do "something", why don't we list what "nothing" really means in this context.

1. Unit management/option 2. (Which means tag cuts generally and especially in certain units if a unit truly is struggling)

2. Whack more coyotes, adequately funded by our esteemed legislature.

3. Habitat projects.

4. Working on stuff like transplant success, doe/fawn survival studies, and other projects.

There is a lot going on for "nothing".

I would also like to see the LE and regular deer draws combined, so the trophy guys don't need to compete with the "riff-raff" general hunters and vice versa.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

No smoke and mirrors, I guess I should have been more specific from the git go. My issue lies in the fact that because of changes instituted recently, bottlenecks have occured that might not have been foreseen when the sate was divided into all the little zones. Such as the fact that some of our 'general' zones have so few tags that they are all eaten up by LL and DH folks who had alot more options when they made their deals as well. I think there must be a way to spread things out a bit, such as separating the LL tags out from the beginning and not including them in the general draws. How can you call it a general hunt when there are only a handful of tags available to the general public and your chances of drawing are less than an LE tag? As far as being touchy, I was only trying to return your spry, spirited style of exchange......thought you would appreciate that?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

gmanhunter said:


> How about the money we pay for tags going straight to the division, instead of a general fund. Maybe that would help better manage the herds, and possible lower the costs of the tags. It seems like some of these other states that get the money back into the division, instead of it going into a general fund, seem to have better management. Maybe I'm wrong in saying that. For me I dont go for the trophy. The time spent with family and friends, and time away from work is what I go for. I have ate tag soup for years, but still enjoy being out in the mountains. Just wish the hunting was a little better. I dont know what changes need to be made, but they need to happen now and in a big way.


I believe you are mistaken about DWR money going to the General Fund. Per Utah Code 23-14-13 no DWR monies goes into the State General Fund per se. It only goes into the Wildlife Resources Account within the General Fund and is available *only* to the DWR. In fact, some of the monies come *from* the General Fund, not the other way around.

Per Utah Code *23-14-13. Wildlife Resources Account.* (With some words highlighted in color for clarification)
(1) The Wildlife Resources Account within the General Fund is established.
(2) The following monies shall be deposited into the Wildlife Resources Account:
(a) revenue from the sale of licenses, permits, tags, and certificates of registeration issued under this title or a rule or proclamation of the Wildlife Board, except as otherwise provided by this title;
(b) revenue from the sale, lease, rental, or other granting of rights of real or personal property acquired with revenue specified in Subsection (a);
(c) revenue from fines and forfeitures for violations of this title or any rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board, minus court costs not to exceed the schedule adopted by the Judicial Council;
(d) funds appropriated from the General Fund by the Legislature pursuant to Section 23-19-39;
(e) other monies received by the division under any provision of this title, except as otherwose provided by this title; and
(f) interest, dividends, or other income earned on account monies.
(3)Monies in the Wildlife Resources Account *shall be used for the administration of this title.*

How that money is used by the DWR may be an issue, but that's a different story!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Yeah springville, I can come off spry to say the least! I appreciate the debate. 

No one should get offended at the word 'entitled'. It's the chosen word by the dwr and only means that you are getting what you paid for--no rub there. I have to say that I love it that I live in a land among peoples who are offended by the word though. That we are so proud that we earn everything we make, that to use a word that even hints at privilege is insulting. As long as we carry this attitude there is hope for our country--good on ya topofutaharcher


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

2full said:


> Sounds like a government deal..............
> Take away my lifetime lisc that I paid for.......
> Just like they want to take away the social security that I paid for my whole life.
> Just before I get there.


Unfortunately my friend, your chances of having your lifetime license honored are much higher than your odds with social security. The deer herd issues here in Utah pale in comparison to the fiscal problems in Washington. At my age I am not counting on seeing one cent of social security and at this rate I probably wont be chewing on any deer jerky either. :? ----SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Deer:
NO CHANGES for 5 years, Except tag allocations.

Lion:
Emergency closures have now started....Totally unacceptable.

OIAL hunts:
Pretty much awesome on all accounts except the moose problem..
Leave them alone.

Elk:
Some serious tag adjustments will have to be made on LE the next 5 years.
If it were up to me, I'd eliminate spike hunting everywhere EXCEPT,
The Wasatch, Manti, Fish lake, Boulder, and Cache, cap spike tags at 7,500..

Antelope:
Doing great, Leave it alone too, Except were tags can be increaed..My 2 cents


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lifetime license holders selecting the weapon they want to hunt with then getting a statewide general tag? *YES PLEASE!* Sign me up for that. I'm not sure biologically it would be great as the best areas would be über-crowded if all the regular tags were issued then the LL holders mostly showed up there as well. Could hammer those deer populations in a short time.

As for 'entitlement', the political climate has made that word a faux pas in conservative circles. But in definition and reality it is not a negative at all and all of us rely on them daily. No, I'm not talking about food stamps and other welfare, I'm talking about you paying your gas bill so you are entitled to have the gas company leave your gas on. You go to the car dealership and buy a car, you are entitled to take that car. You go to sizzler and get the steak and salad bar, you're entitled to get your steak and salad.

If you were wise enough to buy a lifetime license prior to going off the market in 1994, you are entitled to hunt deer, small game, and fish in Utah....every year for the rest of your life. Best $500 a 13 year old kid could have ever made! I knew that paper route would pay off eventually for me.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Deer:
> NO CHANGES for 5 years, Except tag allocations.
> 
> Lion:
> ...


sounds about right to me!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Besides EVERYTHING Goofy wants, I just want state wide Traditional Only Archery deer and elk with a three month season. :mrgreen:


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

i concure with goofy elk with a couple of tweeks to the elk situation: if a units herds are below there objectives than no unit should have cow hunts period should be allowed including archery. also the spike hunt on the smaller units should be stopped units like the oquirh/standsbury unit should have a limited area bull hunt and depending on there currant population i beleive it was around 300 short of there stated objective both the antlerless and spike hunts elementated. these two items severly impact the calf recruitment the antlerless part anywan and as for as the spike hunt there may be only 10 to 15 spikes shot on this unit a year which is indeed a small number of bull but you add that number the the mature bulls it makes a big diffrence in the both age and number of the bulls going into the spring bull counts


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Emergency closure on Cougar hunts? Based on what? Houndsman boobing about hard hunting? What if the 6 guys who hunt the Manti like yourself have voluntarily quit harvesting? 

When was the last time the DWR closed a deer unit down because deer hunters said there were to few deer there?

Honestly who is calling for closure other than 20 houndsman? The UWC? 

This is insane. :roll: 


Well at least we will have other states to hunt in the future. And I'm talking back east where hunters aren't left with predator scrap.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Honestly who is calling for closure other than 20 houndsman? The UWC?


Oh please, when has the UWC asked for a reduction in tags for any hunt? Your alphabet is backward on that one.

There are plenty of cow and spike elk on the Panguitch Lake unit. Its almost always at or above objective and based on the number of calves I saw this last year and the number of spikes, those surviving the winter are only going to punch up that number.

The only tweak I think needed concerning elk is to swap muzzy and rifle. Those wanting bigger, faster, stronger bulls would get them and objectives would allow for an increase in tags which might just speed up the draw. IMHO!


----------



## ARCHER11 (May 26, 2011)

If there was one thing I would change it would be to put the archery elk hunt (general and LE) in the middle of the rut. The way things are setup now just screams MONEY HUNGRY. How that strategy is wise management is beyond me.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I'd like:

Go 75% of deer tags primitive.

3 day general season.

60 general deer units

Cut cougar tags in half.

Cut general deer tags in half or more.

Double fees.

More conservation tags to reward all the groups who have successfully taken habitat and carrying capacity to new limits. They have kept the populations from crashing and should be given a token of gratitude. 

I'm confident if we did all of this, the hunt would improve.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

provider said:


> I'd like:
> 
> Go 75% of deer tags primitive.
> 
> ...


You forgot;

Shortening the archery hunts to 9 days (or 7 or 5) because it's the only fair thing to do.

Closing all Extended Archery hunts. (see above)

Closing all moose hunts since the moose population is declining.

Doubling or tripling the non-resident tags so we get more money.

Increasing Convention permits so we (or someone) gets more money.

Paying all tag fees up-front to weed out all non-serious hunters.

Allowing everyone to apply for every species as many times per year as they want. (see above)

$100 application fees. (see above)

No more waiting periods.

100% of LE and OIL tags going to the top point holders.

More than one OIL and LE tag per year.

Transfer and/or sale of permits with no stipulations.

50% of deer tags go to dedicated hunters and/or lifetime license holders and/or youth and another 25% to geezers.

4 point or better deer statewide. (all 60 units)

5 point or better elk statwide

Minimum P & Y (archery) or B & C (rifle). I'm not sure what the muzzy standard is, but that too!

40 hours hands-on conservation work for everyone.

5 dead coyotes per year for everyone. (Or you can buy them from someone else)

I may have missed a few things, but wouldn't the hunts be awesome for those who qualify? -/|\-

I almost forgot, 25 to 30 buck to doe ratios (or better) statewide.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> provider said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like:
> ...


^^^^this sums it up perfectly. Provider your post is ridiculous. I nominate your post as the SFW post of the month:-x, ie stupid post.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

The original post was not stupid...but it did get that way. Ironically I believe it was actually the UWC guy that took it there not SFW.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

^^^given how just about everyday 1eye posts up something pretty much just like it, yeah it was.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> The original post was not stupid...but it did get that way. Ironically I believe it was actually the UWC guy that took it there not SFW.


If you're talking about me, I may have embelished a bit, but I have heard or seen all of those proposals (and more) in RAC's, Wildlife Board meetings, DWR open houses, SFW sponsored meetings, various Expo's and on this and other forums. But I thank you for the compliment and I gladly accept it! I accomplished what I intended to accomplish. 

Edited: PS, even some UWC members have mentioned them.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I was referring to providers post. Not elkfromabove. I took EFA's post as sarcasm.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I'll still stand by that comment. Someone asking a legit question and then it turns to ridiculousness. Another example of not having an idea...just bashing other ideas. 


Carry on gents


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I would like to see the "left over" archery tag rule changed. Leftover tags should not be allowed to be converted over to muzzleloader or rifle tags. There's a set % of tags already for those hunts, they should not be added to. If and that's a big if, budget shortfall is the reason for this. I would rather see a $5 increase in deer tags that would go into a "shortfall" fund, to cover the cost of unused tags.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I'll still stand by that comment. Someone asking a legit question and then it turns to ridiculousness. Another example of not having an idea...just bashing other ideas.
> 
> Carry on gents


You mean to tell us that you consider 75% primative tags, 3 day general seasons, 6o general deer units, cutting cougar and general deer tags in half, doubling fees and even more conservation tags issued as legit proposals? That's scary! I took Provider's post as tongue-in-cheek and just played along for fun. If, in fact, he was serious, that's even scarier.

So, if I were to back off the sarcasm and make the following proposals, they'd be considered legit?

- Shorten the archery season to 14 days.
- Close the Extended Archery areas or shorten the season to end in November.
- No doe deer hunts, even on the extended hunts.
- Cut the bull moose tag numbers in half.
- Eliminate cow moose tags. (already done) 
- Increase the non-resident quotas to 15% instead of 10%.
- Allow non-residents to apply for all species. (already done)
- Allow seniors to apply for all species.
- Collect all tag fees up front. (no change)
- Increase application fees to $12.
- Longer waiting periods.
- 75% of LE and OIL tags to the top point holders or use the current 50% and round up instead of down.
- Allow one LE and one OIL tag per year.
- Allow the transfer of tags to youth. (already done)
- 20% of tags to seniors.
- 3 point or better in 1/2 of the general units with alternating years.
- Shorten spike elk hunts to 2/3 the time of bull elk hunts.
- Require mandatory harvest reports of everyone.
- Require 8 hours of hands-on conservation work of all big game hunters or 2 dead coyotes.
- Add a third tier to the buck to doe ratios (20 to 25) for all units currently at that ratio.
- Increase the number of landowner and CWMU tags.
- Require a 30% direct return to the DWR for all landowner and CWMU tags sold.
(Note that I dropped increasing Convention tags, 5 point elk and the P&Y/B&C proposals. You're welcome.)

Well, are they legit now? Or maybe you're still hung up on the reasons for the proposals or maybe it's the SFW versus UWC thing, which you brought up, by the way, not me. (Note that I don't even have a UWC link or reference in my signature, which I did on purpose so people wouldn't think I spoke for UWC every time I posted. I don't always agree with their position and I only indicate my association with them when it's necessary, like here on the deer transplant updates or sometimes at the RAC and Board meetings.)

I posted earlier that I accomplished what I set out to accomplish, but I guess I missed the mark with you. You seem to have missed my most important idea which was that we already have 5 year plans which were developed by trained, experienced, professional, competent biologists with hunter committee input for every species and every unit, so *let those 5-year plans play out before we make all these mostly social changes we think we need to make in midstream in order to make the hunts better ("quality") for those who think we should see trophy animals every time we walk 100 yards from the road.* (Sorry, I guess I embelished that 100 yards! OK, a quarter of a mile.) :V|:


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Great response there EFA! It think the original post was to create dialogue not criticism. I find it interesting how some get so defensive at the mere hint that someone doesn't agree with their emotional desire to turn Utah in the "Serengeti of the West".


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I agree 100% that was the intent of the original post. EFA I would agree with some of those ideas. Not so much with others. Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Looked like a shot at others ideas too me. But alas I may have been wrong. My apologizes.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I agree 100% that was the intent of the original post. EFA I would agree with some of those ideas. Not so much with others. Maybe I misinterpreted your post. Looked like a shot at others ideas too me. But alas I may have been wrong. My apologizes.


Accepted! Sometimes my attempts at humor are a bit feeble. 

Edited: Feel free to seriously discuss any you like or don't like, but please give reasons. (FWIW, I don't like some of them either. They're just some I've heard and/or read.)


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

Take LE rifle elk out of September and after muzzy hunters. No, I am not a muzzy hunter.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I agree EFA, you and I are getting feeble in our age...

I thought my proposal was serious  

Noone takes me serious anymore except when I make funnies.

I still stand by the idea of ending spike hunting, and making CWMU units hunt the same dates as the public units...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

> Honestly who is calling for closure other than 20 houndsman? The UWC?


I have not heard anything about UWC wanting to closer cougar hunting.What changes I wold like to see STOP CHANGING EVERYTHING EVERY FLIPPEN YEAR.LEAVE IT HOW IT IS.ALSO DONT RAISE THE TAG PRICE ANY MORE IT BULL CRAP. THE MONEY NOT GOING BACK WHERE IT SHOULD GO. ALSO BRING BACK STATE WIDE ARCHERY HUNTING. THEN LEAVE IT ALONE.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

why do you guys want to bump the app and tag fees up ? So you can push people out that having a hard time now coming up with the money for there tags.That not right and you must want the DWR to even hurt more for money as they are now. People will lose there jobs. Dont raise the app fee drop it instead and leave the tag price a loan as well. you keep raising it you are pushing hunters out.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

put the archery elk hunt in the rut. ok that it for me.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> > Honestly who is calling for closure other than 20 houndsman? The UWC?
> 
> 
> I have not heard anything about UWC wanting to closer cougar hunting.


Me neither.

The UWC wouldn't be concerned with the over harvest of cougar?

I believe it would be.

Correct me if I'm wrong but they largely do not support most predator control for the sake of increasing deer populations. Increased cougar and bear tags, coyote bounties, liberal trapping laws?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear...is that you hiding in the bushes just outside of the UWC world headquarters? Please tell me you have something on underneath that overcoat.

I think one change that I would see as beneficial for just about everyone is moving to one deer points system. It just makes sense to me and would dramatically simplify the draw system for hunters. We can still classify units as premium LE, LE and general (or what ever words we wanted to use) so that the management plan stays in tact. You could even continue to enforce waiting periods if you chose.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> why do you guys want to bump the app and tag fees up ? So you can push people out that having a hard time now coming up with the money for there tags.That not right and you must want the DWR to even hurt more for money as they are now. People will lose there jobs. Dont raise the app fee drop it instead and leave the tag price a loan as well. you keep raising it you are pushing hunters out.


A good solution may be to keep the price of permits the same, but drop the price of licenses while raising the price of application fees an equal amount. The reason that might work is we would be paying about the same as we are now, and we wouldn't decrease the number of licenses and permits sold, so we'd still get the same amount of federal Pittman-Robinson funds from USFWS and state funds which are based on license and permit sales. In fact, we may actually sell more licenses which would bring in even more federal funds, (2012 nearly $19 million, 30% of DWR's budget) and state funds (2012 $5.6 million, 9% of DWR's budget).

For instance we could drop the price of licenses $10 and then raise the price of application fees $2.50, assuming we all apply for a total of 4 hunts during the year.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I think one change that I would see as beneficial for just about everyone is moving to one deer points system. It just makes sense to me and would dramatically simplify the draw system for hunters. We can still classify units as premium LE, LE and general (or what ever words we wanted to use) so that the management plan stays in tact. You could even continue to enforce waiting periods if you chose.


+1. This is the only change I am interested in seeing happen within the next 3-5 years. Well, that and change the draw system so that all 1st choices are awarded before any 2nd choices are considered.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but they largely do not support most predator control for the sake of increasing deer populations. Increased cougar and bear tags, coyote bounties, liberal trapping laws?


I guess I got that straight? :O||:



bullsnot said:


> Iron Bear...is that you hiding in the bushes just outside of the UWC world headquarters? Please tell me you have something on underneath that overcoat. .


Yep but nobody's ever there. I guess they are sitting outside the SFW headquarters. 

And its a duster not an overcoat thank you very much. 8)


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

The only change I'd like to see is to allow 8 applicants in a group for general deer tags again. This would bring back some of the family aspect lost in the move to Option 2... at least it would for me.
Other than that, let the current management plan play out without making any additional changes.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Archery hunt -September 1-30.
Muzzy Hunt - October 1-15.
Rifle Hunt - October 16-31.

Can kill up to 2 deer in 3 years. Hunt any weapon, or all weapons each season. A tag is a tag, regardless of what weapon you use. 

Deer and elk hunts correspond. 

Special Youth deer hunt - Nov. 15-Dec 15, any weapon. Youth are eligible every year from age 12 - 18, or until they harvest their first deer. Then part of regular tags. 

That's what I'd like to see.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll still stand by that comment. Someone asking a legit question and then it turns to ridiculousness. Another example of not having an idea...just bashing other ideas.
> ...


You typed it so I guess I'll play along.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

This must be what makes the jobs of those stupid biologists who haven't got a clue so easy! Instead of the science supported by the data, lets make everyone happy, eat it all up, digest it, then crap out a management plan that we are going to change again next year. Oye! I need an apple beer.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


Good conversation on a lot of subjects. Thanks.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > why do you guys want to bump the app and tag fees up ? So you can push people out that having a hard time now coming up with the money for there tags.That not right and you must want the DWR to even hurt more for money as they are now. People will lose there jobs. Dont raise the app fee drop it instead and leave the tag price a loan as well. you keep raising it you are pushing hunters out.
> ...


ok now i would be fine with that. but you did not say that.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

derekp1999 said:


> The only change I'd like to see is to allow 8 applicants in a group for general deer tags again.


yes that would be nice to see come back.

Now why do you guys want the points to be all together for deer? I dont understand that beside it will free up the waiting time to draw a deer tag. Then I lose my points for my le deer tag sent I got a ge deer tag that if we are still calling it a ge hunt.I still would like to hunt for a nice buck on the book cliff and hunt with my family friends on Ge hunt.So I dont like that Idea.


----------



## Highbrass (Dec 31, 2012)

I would like to see a program where sportsmen are given the opportunity, encouragement, and incentive to personally participate in improving the units in which they hunt. The entire goal would be that hunters of each unit would team up in helping to improve "their unit' and "their herd".

A rough-draft of the idea is as follows:
1. Following recommendations of biologists; Sportsmen would help grow at their home, and then in the spring, transplant appropriate vegetation to strategic areas of their unit that would offer more food and cover for the animals helping to sustain a larger heard and offering more food to bulk up on before winter, and to eat during winter itself. All of this is to make sure "their herd" is well fed and given every opportunity to survive. 
2. Following recommendations of biologists; Sportsmen in the summer would work together in creating/funding guzzlers to make sure the animals have ample access to water and increase their chances of survival during the hottest part of the summer. Making sure "their herd" has enough water.
3. After the hunting season has concluded all the Sportsmen of each unit would work together on a coyote control plan for "their unit". The goal would be to thin out the coyotes before winter, and then to thin out the coyotes once more before the does and cows start giving birth. The Sportsmen would either organize themselves and do it, or as a group fund professional trappers/coyotes killers to protect "their herd" 
4. Following recommendations from biologists; if appropriate, Sportsmen would work together creating/funding/maintaining a system of feeders throughout their unit to be used only during the worst of the winter months (December-February). This would ensure that "their herd" suffers as little winter kill as possible. But only following recommendations given by biologists. 

State money is tight. DNR can't make perfect Units for us. But units and herds could be considerably improved if the Sportsmen of each Unit worked together to improve the habitat and the herd. If a program with appropriate leadership was created, and incentives to Sportsmen given, I feel everyone would begin to experience a higher quality hunt if they took personal responsibility over the area they were hunting. Everyone would benefit, especially the game.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

dkhntrdstn said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > dkhntrdstn said:
> ...


That's why I added the for instance! I couldn't get it to come out right. And also because the exact numbers probably would have to be negotiated.


----------

