# Where do you stand?



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

I'd like to see everyone that visits this site voice their opinion. Do you support tag increases? Do you think they should remain at current levels? Do you think buck:doe ratios should be increased?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Dahlmer said:


> I'd like to see everyone that visits this site voice their opinion. Do you support tag increases? Do you think they should remain at current levels? Do you think buck:doe ratios should be increased?


I support reasonable, science-based tag changes that increase hunt opportunity. Anyone who can't handle the DWR adding a relatively small amount of general season deer tags (after large population growth) can feel free to stay out of the general season application pool and wait their turn for a LE deer hunt, IMO.

After all, the purpose of general season tags is to manage deer populations, isn't it? If we can do that, and give a lot of people the opportunity to go hunting in the process, why shouldn't we? I'm happy to deal with crowds and the likelihood of smaller deer as a side effect.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Increase as recommended!8)


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I voted for an increased Buck/Doe ratio. No matter where you stand on the tag numbers debate, more bucks = more fun!


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

Although I am not fond of drawing my general season archery deer tag every other year, I would like to see the herds increase a little more. We aren't sure what kind of an effect this winter is going to have on the herds yet. Here in the south, it seems to be ok so far. I would vote status quo one more year.
Why does the DWR implement 5 year plans if they keep changing them and don't give the full 5 years to judge the effects?
Private property cow elk tags, sounds like a pay off to me. Cattlemen are giving the DWR a bad time, so the DWR throws them a bone while all the est of the average sportsmen get the bone. 
Just my 2cents.


----------



## AF CYN (Mar 19, 2009)

Clarq said:


> I support reasonable, science-based tag changes that increase hunt opportunity.


I agree.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

Deer herds are up, and buck to doe ratios are up. I agree with raising the number of tags.


----------



## Bucksnort (Nov 15, 2007)

Clarq said:


> I support reasonable, science-based tag changes that increase hunt opportunity. Anyone who can't handle the DWR adding a relatively small amount of general season deer tags (after large population growth) can feel free to stay out of the general season application pool and wait their turn for a LE deer hunt, IMO.
> 
> After all, the purpose of general season tags is to manage deer populations, isn't it? If we can do that, and give a lot of people the opportunity to go hunting in the process, why shouldn't we? I'm happy to deal with crowds and the likelihood of smaller deer as a side effect.


This. We need to give our youth more opportunities so we have someone to pass a legacy on to.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

I'm on board with the increases


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Pretty straight forward poll.
Sad to see so many people can't simply take 30 seconds, log in and take the poll.
Out of 340 viewer so far only 40 people have taken the poll. That's about 10%.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I thought it was kind of funny that someone commented on the Muley Crazy site that they were just a bunch of average joe hunters wanting to help the deer herds grow.
The average joe part couldn't be any further from the truth.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yeah, I dove into the fray there a little bit. Reasonable people can disagree on these kinds of issues, but it doesn't take long to weed out those that literally have no clue what they are talking about and don't understand the issue at all.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Pretty straight forward poll.
> Sad to see so many people can't simply take 30 seconds, log in and take the poll.
> Out of 340 viewer so far only 40 people have taken the poll. That's about 10%.


You have to figure that out of those 340 people that have viewed the post and 40 people that have taken the poll that those 40 people have visited the thread multiple times to see what others are saying.

I know that I have been here at least 5 or 6 times to look at the added post which add to the post views.


----------



## Utahyounggun (Nov 5, 2014)

I would like to see the tag numbers stay where they are for now. I see plenty of people out in the field and seems like the deer are just starting to make a rebound and get a few more bucks back on the unit. So I don't know why the dwr wants to knock the heard back down. Just my 2 cents. I probably would support this change if 40-50% of these added tags went only to youth hunters between 12-16 years old because I believe 20% already go to the youth.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Utahyounggun said:


> I would like to see the tag numbers stay where they are for now. I see plenty of people out in the field and seems like the deer are just starting to make a rebound and get a few more bucks back on the unit. So I don't know why the dwr wants to knock the heard back down. Just my 2 cents.


Utahyounggun, I'm not necessarily replying to you (since I don't know where you hunt or what kind of action you're taking regarding the proposed tag changes), but I think that many people see what you're seeing, and feel like you do. To them, I would offer this reply:

One thing I hope everyone remembers before they fire off a bunch of angry emails to the wildlife board is that while we have a proposed increase of ~4000 tags statewide, that doesn't mean that tags are going up everywhere. On the unit you hunt, there may not be any change in tag numbers, or any change may be very small (on the order of 50-150 permits for many units, which may result in 20-60 more deer harvested).

Most of us really only hunt one or two general season deer units, so I'm not a fan of people condemning these tag changes all across the state when they may only see what deer numbers are like in one unit (and often a small area within that unit).

I would recommend that everyone take a look at the RAC packet on page 7, and see what changes are proposed for the units you hunt. If you don't think that the tag changes are warranted on the unit you hunt, feel free to express your concern. If you hunt down on the Zion unit, for example, and aren't happy with the extra tags being offered there, go ahead and say so. But please don't try and speak for those of us who hunt other units across the state. Our situations are very different than yours.

I hunt the Wasatch West unit, and we've seen a good bump in tag numbers the last few years. Deer numbers last year were better than I've ever personally seen them. However, the deer hunt last year was as crowded as I've ever seen it as well, and when I heard that more tags were being offered, I was a bit concerned at the prospect of overcrowding and overharvest for the 2016 season. However, I looked at the RAC packet, and guess what? We aren't getting any more tags there for 2016 than we had last year. I feel that the DWR has a handle on the Wasatch West unit, and I'm not concerned. And since I don't know how the deer herds are doing in the rest of the state, I'll leave it to the professionals at the DWR to make the decisions for those units.

Trying to generically label increased tag numbers as "good" or "bad" simply doesn't work on a statewide level. Each area is different.


----------



## neverdrawn (Jan 3, 2009)

Clarq said:


> I support reasonable, science-based tag changes that increase hunt opportunity. Anyone who can't handle the DWR adding a relatively small amount of general season deer tags (after large population growth) can feel free to stay out of the general season application pool and wait their turn for a LE deer hunt, IMO.
> 
> After all, the purpose of general season tags is to manage deer populations, isn't it? If we can do that, and give a lot of people the opportunity to go hunting in the process, why shouldn't we? I'm happy to deal with crowds and the likelihood of smaller deer as a side effect.


Couldn't agree more! Mother Nature will always have a greater say in how our deer herds are doing, and if we have an opportunity to get a few more hunters in the field during the boom cycles I say do it. In our area the winter range is taking a hit from the increased herd so we need more harvest or we are shooting ourselves in the foot.


----------



## Utahyounggun (Nov 5, 2014)

Clarq said:


> Utahyounggun said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see the tag numbers stay where they are for now. I see plenty of people out in the field and seems like the deer are just starting to make a rebound and get a few more bucks back on the unit. So I don't know why the dwr wants to knock the heard back down. Just my 2 cents.
> ...


The unit I hunt has a proposed 400 tag increase and for being out all three seasons last year and seeing the heard making small improvements from years past, I don't think it's what's best for this unit. You are correct though and I can not speak for other units because I don't spend enough time on them to know.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

We need to send the results of the poll to the powers at be............


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> You have to figure that out of those 340 people that have viewed the post and 40 people that have taken the poll that those 40 people have visited the thread multiple times to see what others are saying.
> 
> I know that I have been here at least 5 or 6 times to look at the added post which add to the post views.


Good point.
It's probably more like 30%, which isn't bad.
I hope there's at least 100 people polled by the end of the week.
That would be a good sampling.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Utahyounggun said:


> The unit I hunt has a proposed 400 tag increase and for being out all three seasons last year and seeing the heard making small improvements from years past, I don't think it's what's best for this unit. You are correct though and I can not speak for other units because I don't spend enough time on them to know.


400 more tags proposed---So Kamas or Wasatch East, right? You don't have to answer, just going to show the numbers for those curious.

Kamas has a buck/doe ratio on the higher end with 18-20 as the objective. It's three year average is 24.5, with 2015 being at 27.5 buck/doe ratio. It is right at its overall objective for mule deer numbers as well. The objective 8000, and the herd was estimated at 7700 post 2014 season. Post 2015 has not been published that I know of, but I'm guessing those numbers went up. At an overall harvest rate of 24.2% on that unit, you're going to see ~97 more bucks killed.

Wasatch East has a buck/doe ratio objective of 18-20, so on the higher end as well. The three year average is 25.4 with 2015 being at 27.2. The overall deer herd numbers is doing really well. The objective is 18,200. The post-2014 estimate as was 20,000. With the proposed increase in tags, ~107 more bucks will be killed.

Take a look at the numbers and you'll see why these two units alone have almost 1/5 of the proposed increase. Do these numbers suggest an increase is appropriate?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Is it bad that I immediately discount anyone who uses 'heard' instead of 'herd'?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bucksnort (Nov 15, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> Is it bad that I immediately discount anyone who uses 'heard' instead of 'herd'?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lol, maybe you just haven't herd what they were saying.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Utahyounggun (Nov 5, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> Utahyounggun said:
> 
> 
> > The unit I hunt has a proposed 400 tag increase and for being out all three seasons last year and seeing the heard making small improvements from years past, I don't think it's what's best for this unit. You are correct though and I can not speak for other units because I don't spend enough time on them to know.
> ...


I was actually talking about the oquirah/stansbury unit. Which I'm sure the numbers are similar. I'm not holding my breath for even hunting this unit this year because I have 0 points. Which is perfectly fine with me because I'd rather not have 100 other hunters breathing down my neck. The dwr is going to do what they want anyways. Maybe it won't make a big difference, maybe it will, only time will tell. Sorry for previous posts with the word "heard" in them instead of herd I guess my phone hasn't realized I'm a hunter yet and chooses to be smarter than me.


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

Maybe the DWR should consider re-establishing the OTC archery deer tags. That would create more opportunity, sell more tags and not decline the herd much from over harvest.
How is winter survival /mortality in the state so far? Southern Utah seems to be ok I believe.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Bucksnbulls08 said:


> Maybe the DWR should consider re-establishing the OTC archery deer tags. That would create more opportunity, sell more tags and not decline the herd much from over harvest.


Never, ever happen. Option 2 was completely about hunter control, strict limits of how many permits and where they can be used. The opposite is probably in our future, the entire state going to LE and everyone getting to hunt once every few years or worse.

-DallanC


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

DallanC said:


> Never, ever happen. Option 2 was completely about hunter control, strict limits of how many permits and where they can be used. The opposite is probably in our future, the entire state going to LE and everyone getting to hunt once every few years or worse.
> 
> -DallanC


This was going to happen no matter what, we simply have more hunters then we do animals. Limits have to be imposed, but basing those limits off science and not politics is what's so frustrating


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Increase as reccomended 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

I cant see the poll since I use tapatalk but I vote for the tag increases to follow the mule deer plan. When buck to doe ratios are above objective, raise tags. When buck to doe ratios fall below objective decrease tags. 

I am against the cow moose permits. Herd numbers are well below what they were 10 years ago. To go in and shoot 20 cows right when the herd appears to be gaining traction is premature IMO.

I have also emailed my RAC and told them as much. I would encourage you each to email them your oppinions. They have been inundated by muley crazy form letters.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

ridgetop said:


> Pretty straight forward poll.
> Sad to see so many people can't simply take 30 seconds, log in and take the poll.
> Out of 340 viewer so far only 40 people have taken the poll. That's about 10%.


I personally have no dog in this fight, but have viewed this thread 6-7 times to read the comments. I have had one deer tag in the 13 years that I have been old enough to have one. I foresee myself having one more mule deer tag in my lifetime (CWMU tag this fall). I didn't voice my opinion in the poll because there isn't a poll selection that I agree with. Sorry for messing up the statistics of views vs votes. ;-)


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

For too many years this state has been reducing opportunity for thousands of Utahan’s to satisfy a few dozen trophy hunters.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Bucksnbulls08 said:


> Why does the DWR implement 5 year plans if they keep changing them and don't give the full 5 years to judge the effects?


The plan isn't changing. They are simply managing to the plan. The plan calls for a buck/doe ratio of either 15-17, or 18-20, depending on the unit. If the actual ratio falls below the objective, they cut tags. If the ratio rises above the objective, they raise tags. That is the design and purpose of the plan. If hunters wanted a different objective, that would require a change to the plan.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

archerben said:


> The plan isn't changing. They are simply managing to the plan. The plan calls for a buck/doe ratio of either 15-17, or 18-20, depending on the unit. If the actual ratio falls below the objective, they cut tags. If the ratio rises above the objective, they raise tags. That is the design and purpose of the plan. If hunters wanted a different objective, that would require a change to the plan.


State code forbids changing the approved management plan before it has run its 5 year term except in cases of emergency. When the WB implemented Opt 2 and eliminated statewide archery, they argued that deer population declines were the emergency that justified that fundamental revision of the existing plan.

It will be interesting to hear what current emergency would justify this revision if the WB decides to totally reject the DWR recommendations.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Finnegan said:


> State code forbids changing the approved management plan before it has run its 5 year term except in cases of emergency. When the WB implemented Opt 2 and eliminated statewide archery, they argued that deer population declines were the emergency that justified that fundamental revision of the existing plan.
> 
> It will be interesting to hear what current emergency would justify this revision if the WB decides to totally reject the DWR recommendations.


That's easy it's the huge selenium deficiency in the herd


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

berrysblaster said:


> That's easy it's the huge selenium deficiency in the herd


Rumor has it there's a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation of just deformed ball pics. Very convincing stuff.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Another thing I don't think anyone has brought up.
Is that probably a high percentage of those wanting to keep tags the same this year are those with either a lifetime license or already in the DH program.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I voted to increase as the plan was proposed (and I'm a DH in my 2nd year). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> I voted to increase as the plan was proposed (and I'm a DH in my 2nd year).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Did say all.;-)


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I support the increased deer tags. Follow the plan and adjust tags accordingly...


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

Why not leave the deer alone, and bring up the buck to doe ratio, then issue a few more tags once the ratio is up? There are still many units in the state that are below the proposed ratios. Colorado manages for 35/100. Most of our units are 17-20/100. One of the best parts of deer hunting is seeing more bucks than the one you shoot. If you are the type that shoots the first buck you see, then with higher ratios, you should get your buck faster than you do now, and better chances of harvesting. If you are the type that wants to see more and bigger bucks this is in your favor too. This generates are larger age class separation, from yearlings to old mature deer instead of mostly yearlings and a few older deer (not necessarily mature). 
My dad tells stories of hunting in the 60's and 70's about just going for a horse ride though the sagebrush and seeing 30+ bucks a day and only getting off his horse to eat lunch, or shoot one because he had one day to hunt...... Neither the population or ratio we have now can even come close to doing that.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

JuddCT said:


> I voted to increase as the plan was proposed (and I'm a DH in my 2nd year).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm in the same boat


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> Why not leave the deer alone, and bring up the buck to doe ratio, then issue a few more tags once the ratio is up?


Isn't that the exact reason for the proposed increases? The buck/doe ratios are up and the management plan calls for increases because of it. The WB should absolutely pass the DWR's proposal...


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Stick to the plan man! Raise the tags!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

paddlehead said:


> Why not leave the deer alone, and bring up the buck to doe ratio, then issue a few more tags once the ratio is up?


So what new ratio would that be? 18:100? 20:100? 25:100? 30:100? 100:100? Thats the problem with allowing these things to slip based on gut feelings over science.

Or we could just shoot a crap load of does, that'll get that buck/doe ratio up high right?

-O,-

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Isn't that the exact reason for the proposed increases? The buck/doe ratios are up and the management plan calls for increases because of it. The WB should absolutely pass the DWR's proposal...


+100.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

My only question would be is where and when did they come up with the new results? The surveys are usually taken during the winter or early spring when it is very hard to tell a buck from a doe and if they were taken last year after the hunts what about this years winter kill? 

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

Increase them ok just not on Vernon this year for I'll draw LOL


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

I'm saying to bring up the buck to doe ratio from 17 or 20 per 100 to 25/100, or something more than it is. Yes, there may be a few hunters that dont get to hunt every year. I'm happy to not hunt for a year or two to get the opportunity to have MORE bucks to look at when I get a tag. It has nothing to do with the size of the bucks. I like to look at as many bucks as possible during the hunt, for the fun of it. I often times pass on great bucks just to keep hunting. Why not use Colorado as a model of 35/100? Lots of deer to look at. How fun would that be?! When my boys are old enough to hunt I want to be able to show them deer. Lots of them, and hopefully a lot of them are bucks. Nothing is more boring to a kid than staring at an empty hillside. People say they want more opportunity? What good is a tag in your pocket, and your kids sitting next to you when your kid is so bored from looking at nothing that they never want to go again. Everyone says we need to issue more tags for the kids. Kids dont have to have a tag to go hunting and have fun. Why wait until they have a tag to take them? Finding a love for hunting should happen long before they can pull the trigger. I hear people say that "trophy hunters" just wont sacrifice. I am not a trophy hunter. Would I like to shoot a big deer? Sure I would. Everyone wants to kill at least one good deer. What I value more is getting to see a lot of animals and having fun with my kids and instilling a love of the outdoors at an early age. So long as one person has a tag in your group, everyone can hunt and enjoy an abundant game population. I get as much satisfaction helping someone else fill a tag as I do filling it myself. I think that "opportunity hunters" are equally or more selfish than other people that want a bigger healthier deer population and buck/doe ratio. "opportunity hunters" are not willing to sacrifice the chance to have a tag so that we can have deer herds like those of yesteryear. 

All this aside, UDWR should let the 5 year management plan run its course before they go and change it again. I am also willing to bet that we had a far worse winter kill this year than we have in the previous three. So this abundance of deer they speak of, probably isnt walking around the hills like they were 5 months ago when they were counted. You look at any winter range in Northern Utah, and they are littered with carcasses. Last week I literally found 7 dead deer within 100 yards on one draw on a big winter range. Multiply that by several miles, and all that surplus is GONE! Im with you Critter! The Northern end of that state took a BIG winter kill hit. 

I think fish and game counted their eggs (dollars) before they hatched.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

paddlehead said:


> All this aside, UDWR should let the 5 year management plan run its course before they go and change it again.


FWIW,
The proposed tag increases *are* part of the 5 year management plan. *NOT* adjusting the tags upward in response to units over B/D objective would be changing the plan, as would changing the B/D objectives to 25:100 or some other arbitrary number.

Carry on.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Interesting to see this poll become more opposed to tag increase the longer it goes along. Leading opponents catching wind on the huge discrepancy and asking people behind the scenes to go and vote to help their cause?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Is there a link so I can vote

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Is there a link so I can vote
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/148521-where-do-you-stand.html

This what you're looking for?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> Why not use Colorado as a model of 35/100? Lots of deer to look at. How fun would that be?! When my boys are old enough to hunt I want to be able to show them deer. Lots of them, and hopefully a lot of them are bucks. Nothing is more boring to a kid than staring at an empty hillside. People say they want more opportunity? What good is a tag in your pocket, and your kids sitting next to you when your kid is so bored from looking at nothing that they never want to go again.


Why? Hmmm...maybe because Colorado has lost more deer than any other state. And, the argument can be made that it has been, at least partly, because they have had too many bucks in their population and their buck/doe ratios are too high!

But, beyond that, because some of us don't want to sacrifice our opportunity to hunt for more higher buck/doe ratios. Some of us believe that the key to having more bucks is to increase the deer population through recruitment of fawns and does into the population. Higher buck/doe ratios can actually hurt this process.

And, beyond that, if your kid doesn't enjoy the process of getting out into the hills and enjoying the great outdoors without seeing a whole bunch of bucks, it is more of a reflection of his peers and role models than it is of the hunting. I'm sorry, but I know **** well my kids will love going hunting with me even if it means we see no deer and no bucks! That opportunity to get out and hunt is much more valuable than any harvest or even seeing any animals.

And, beyond that, poll after poll after poll done in Utah and other western states show that hunters want the opportunity and they value it over the chance at seeing bigger bucks and more bucks. So, why should we further restrict hunters when a) it won't hurt the deer population and could, in fact, help it? b) people want that opportunity and value it higher than seeing more bucks and bigger bucks? and c) kids will learn what you as an adult teach them and value what you value--if you value the chance at sitting in the hills even if you don't see anything, so will your kid?

I posted this article on another thread, but it is still appropriate for this topic: http://www.deernut.com/Documents/MDF Hunter Opportunity NovDec 2015c.pdf
Read it!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> And, beyond that, poll after poll after poll done in Utah and other western states show that hunters want the opportunity and they value it over the chance at seeing bigger bucks and more bucks. So, why should we further restrict hunters when a) it won't hurt the deer population and could, in fact, help it? b) people want that opportunity and value it higher than seeing more bucks and bigger bucks? and c) kids will learn what you as an adult teach them and value what you value--if you value the chance at sitting in the hills even if you don't see anything, so will your kid?


Utah is awesome because you can hunt "general units" for opportunity, while building up points for the special LE units where you can hunt that "big one" every so often.

People who want to screw with the general units, turning them more towards LE units just dont get it. Odds are if you waved a magic wand and made all deer units LE, there would be such a drop in applicants for hunting the DWR would face budget shortfalls.

-DallanC


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Catherder said:


> FWIW,
> The proposed tag increases *are* part of the 5 year management plan. *NOT* adjusting the tags upward in response to units over B/D objective would be changing the plan, as would changing the B/D objectives to 25:100 or some other arbitrary number.
> 
> Carry on.


Some people just do not understand this! This leads me to believe they do not truly understand what the plan is. You cannot have a discussion with someone who fails to realize this. They base their argument all on false facts. Then they bash the DWR for doing exactly what they are accusing them of not doing! SMH! These are also the people that take a lot of the surveys. No wonder why our system is so messed up! I read over and over again, people on this board who are a lot smarter and know a lot more then i do try and explain this to people, but they dont want to hear it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fishracer, 

You're right on having the discussion with those that don't understand the issue. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "We finally had 1 year of increase and now the DWR wants to destroy the limited progress just for more money!"


----------



## AJ13 (Apr 28, 2015)

_I am all for Increase buck to doe ratios_


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/148521-where-do-you-stand.html
> 
> This what you're looking for?


I was using Tapatalk on my phone and it didn't have a poll. Had to go out and use Google utahwildlife.net and could see it. I'm wondering though if there is a poll somewhere else people are referring to because the poll on this page is overwhelmingly for increase of tags.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

Fishracer said:


> Some people just do not understand this! This leads me to believe they do not truly understand what the plan is. You cannot have a discussion with someone who fails to realize this. They base their argument all on false facts. Then they bash the DWR for doing exactly what they are accusing them of not doing! SMH! These are also the people that take a lot of the surveys. No wonder why our system is so messed up! I read over and over again, people on this board who are a lot smarter and know a lot more then i do try and explain this to people, but they dont want to hear it.


I never said change the ratio today, tomorrow, this year or next. I do understand the management plan. Dont assume anyone is ignorant or not informed. Let the management plan run its course. Make appropriate adjustments once the plan has run its course and ACCURATE data can be evaluated. In the three units nearest my home there has been significant winter kill. The count was done after the hunt, before winter. I think that using data from before a relatively severe winter is a bad idea. We came off of 2 or 3 MILD winters, so numbers look up. We are now coming out of a tougher winter with a lot of die off. Anyone can see that the data will be skewed from November to March. Simple statistics.

They f'd up the elk in my area doing the same thing. Why would I trust them to not screw this up too?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

The only downside to the proposed tag increase IMO is the extra 100 tags on the Thousand Lakes unit. My dad put in for that unit... now he might actually draw it. 

%#@!


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

wyoming2utah said:


> Why? Hmmm...maybe because Colorado has lost more deer than any other state. And, the argument can be made that it has been, at least partly, because they have had too many bucks in their population and their buck/doe ratios are too high!
> 
> But, beyond that, because some of us don't want to sacrifice our opportunity to hunt for more higher buck/doe ratios. Some of us believe that the key to having more bucks is to increase the deer population through recruitment of fawns and does into the population. Higher buck/doe ratios can actually hurt this process.
> 
> ...


I agree that recruitment is the essential element. A hard winter its the most damaging factor in recruitment. We are coming out of a hard winter. Why issue more tags?

My boys are 4 and 2. They LOVE hunting. My 4 y/o has seen 4 antelope and 5 deer hit the dirt in his short life. Most of those were not mine. My point was that you dont have to have a tag to be "hunting." Keeping him entertained for 12 hours on the mountain can be hard when there isnt much to look at. If he's 10 and bored, thats another issue...... The opportunity has come and passed to teach him to love to hunt.

Bottom line is, we all want more deer on the mountain.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

AJ13 said:


> _I am all for Increase buck to doe ratios_


So you want to see Doe hunts?

-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> We are now coming out of a tougher winter with a lot of die off. Anyone can see that the data will be skewed from November to March. Simple statistics.
> 
> They f'd up the elk in my area doing the same thing. Why would I trust them to not screw this up too?


Except we came out of a normal winter with normal losses!

Could you tell us what area your talking about so I can look up the reccomended permit increase in that area and the existing 3 year trend of buck to doe ratios?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

DallanC said:


> So you want to see Doe hunts?
> 
> -DallanC


No reason we have to have doe hunts to have higher buck to doe ratios "IF" we have the habitat to support them. "IF" we have the alleged habitat to support 500,000 deer and we only have 370,000 the deer herd will still increase with high buck to doe ratios.

The problem is anywhere I look the deer herds don't really gain any traction. This gives weight to Lonetree arguments about pesticides.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Clarq said:


> The only downside to the proposed tag increase IMO is the extra 100 tags on the Thousand Lakes unit. My dad put in for that unit... now he might actually draw it.
> 
> %#@!


I guess that is one way to get the hunters out of the system that are using the loop hole.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> Make appropriate adjustments once the plan has run its course and ACCURATE data can be evaluated. In the three units nearest my home there has been significant winter kill. The count was done after the hunt, before winter. I think that using data from before a relatively severe winter is a bad idea.


Spring counts have begun or will begin shortly...these counts are done to determine how much winter loss we have actually experienced and how good our recruitment has been from last fall. IF these counts are showing significant winter loss, the WB and the DWR can still make emergency closures or changes. My guess is that the winter loss will be negligible and not significant compared to other years. Although the winter started bad here in the south, it has since become rather mild.

Again, though, you are missing the point--you are talking about cutting or keeping buck tags the same and not increasing them. The real gain or loss of the overall herd won't be determined in buck survival over the winter but of fawn and doe survival. SWbuckmaster is right in saying that habitat dictates whether buck harvest or lack of buck harvest changes the big picture, but those harvested bucks are still going to be extra bucks in the big picture. In other words, even if we do have some winter loss of bucks and even if our herd dropped, killing more bucks next year isn't going to leave too few bucks to breed the does and put us in trouble for the following years. They are still extra bucks. So, if that did happen, we could still make the necessary changes the following year without really hurting the overall herd...

...by the way and FWIW, my boys are 6 and 3. They love to go hunting and often spend entire days on the mountain with me. I believe they will learn to love the experience as I did from my father and learn that a good day hunting has nothing to do with the number of deer or bucks we did or did not see. If a 10 year old is getting bored on the mountain it is because he hasn't learned to appreciate what the mountain has to offer and he is too focused on the wrong things, in my opinion. The experience of the hunt goes well beyond just seeing, shooting, and tagging a buck.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I love it when I read people saying this was a severe winter, when it was at most an average winter turning into a slightly below average winter.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> I love it when I read people saying this was a severe winter, when it was at most an average winter turning into a slightly below average winter.


Thank you! My brother took a long horse ride on the front saturday and said the deer looked great. Only one "winter kill" but who knows what actually killed the deer.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

paddlehead said:


> I never said change the ratio today, tomorrow, this year or next. I do understand the management plan. Dont assume anyone is ignorant or not informed. Let the management plan run its course. Make appropriate adjustments once the plan has run its course and ACCURATE data can be evaluated. In the three units nearest my home there has been significant winter kill. The count was done after the hunt, before winter. I think that using data from before a relatively severe winter is a bad idea. We came off of 2 or 3 MILD winters, so numbers look up. We are now coming out of a tougher winter with a lot of die off. Anyone can see that the data will be skewed from November to March. Simple statistics.
> 
> They f'd up the elk in my area doing the same thing. Why would I trust them to not screw this up too?


That is what you are NOT understanding! If you go back and read what the 5 year management plan is (option 2), you will see giving back the tags that were cut IS part of the plan. The plan called for certain buck to doe ratios on certain units, some higher then others. The DWR cut tags to try and achieve this. Once a specific unit meets then exceeds what the plan calls for, the DWR would then increase the tag numbers on that unit. Option 2 did not say we are going to keep tag numbers as they are for 5 years to see how many bucks we can grow in a 5 year period. This IS part of seeing if the plan will work. The DWR needs to increase these tags to test there plan. Under this management plan the tag numbers are going to increase and decrease as the buck to doe ratios change. Hunting is just one factor that will plat into this. Winter, habitat, road kill, all play a factor in our deer heard. To say the DWR needs to stick to the plan makes you come across as you do not fully understand what the plan is.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> I love it when I read people saying this was a severe winter, when it was at most an average winter turning into a slightly below average winter.


I had this debate recently with a friend. He was telling me how this has been such a hard/bad winter. I reminded him we are actually just below "normal" in most places, and at worst just an average winter across the state.

Whatever it takes to push the narrative, though.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Fishracer said:


> That is what you are NOT understanding! If you go back and read what the 5 year management plan is (option 2), you will see giving back the tags that were cut IS part of the plan. The plan called for certain buck to doe ratios on certain units, some higher then others. The DWR cut tags to try and achieve this. Once a specific unit meets then exceeds what the plan calls for, the DWR would then increase the tag numbers on that unit. Option 2 did not say we are going to keep tag numbers as they are for 5 years to see how many bucks we can grow in a 5 year period. This IS part of seeing if the plan will work. The DWR needs to increase these tags to test there plan. Under this management plan the tag numbers are going to increase and decrease as the buck to doe ratios change. Hunting is just one factor that will plat into this. Winter, habitat, road kill, all play a factor in our deer heard. To say the DWR needs to stick to the plan makes you come across as you do not fully understand what the plan is.


Agreed +1000 ..... Later tonight, I'll give my take on where I think the next 5 year plan is headed. Which many of you won't like at all.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> My boys are 4 and 2. They LOVE hunting.
> ... Keeping him entertained for 12 hours on the mountain can be hard when there isnt much to look at. If he's 10 and bored, thats another issue......


What is going to happen when your boy turns 12 and doesn't draw a tag.
Then he turns 13 and doesn't draw a tag again.
Then 14 comes. And again, no tag.

We currently have kids in this state that are 14 and have never drawn tags. Isn't this a problem??

The opportunity to increase tags is here. Objectives that were agreed upon and implemented have been met. Tags should be increased!

for those who are against tag increases, you still have an option (assuming tags are increased). Turn your tag in. Or, keep your tag and opt to not hunt this year. You have that option. You don't have to kill. Just don't try to take my opportunity away. Or my kids. Or paddlehead's kids.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One problem that I have seen with youth not drawing a tag is that there are a lot of youth tags that go unused during the archery hunts. The last time that I checked there were over 3500 tags left over for the youth archery hunts. 

Perhaps the DOW needs to rethink the youth hunts and put more tags out for the general season instead of just archery.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Or kids could do what my kids do,
Pick up a bow and hunt every year !


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

If youth are going several years in a row not drawing a big game tag, then that is solely on the parents. Nobody else to blame.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ridge is right,
Kids can draw almost all units any weapon 
permits and hunt all 3 seasons with zero points.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> If youth are going several years in a row not drawing a big game tag, then that is solely on the parents. Nobody else to blame.


I knew I would draw some argument by entering the kids / tags side of this argument. But I don't believe the comment above.

I know and understand that there are other opportunities available. But not all fit for everyone. I won't take my kids out of school to hunt -- that's my personal decision. This means that I will only enter my daughter into a draw for a tag in a unit close to home. If she doesn't draw, then you are correct and that is my fault. But that does not justify the reasoning for changing buck:doe ratios under the current management plan!!

This whole discussion is about increasing opportunity where opportunity is available! The objectives set in the agreed upon management plan have been met -- and thus tags should be increased in those areas. So if the unit close to my home is meeting objectives and yet tags are not being increased and my daughter can't draw that tag -- that's no longer my fault. That's the fault of those greedy trophy hunters thinking only of the almighty dollar!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

My oldest daughter is 15 this year. This will be her 4th year hunting. She has had a mule deer tag in hand every year. Opportunity to hunt for youth is everywhere if they want to hunt. In the three years she's hunted she's taken three mule deer, one turkey, several geese, ducks, grouse, pheasants, rabbits and a cow elk. If she wanted or had the time she could have hunted open bulls or spike elk in that time. Blame is solely on the parrents if their kid is sitting on the sidlines come hunting season! 

If you think outside of utah the options are endless. My youngest has taken 2 bucks in idaho. This will be her first year being old enough to actually hunt in utah. She's also taken geese, rabbits, ducks and various other small game. She has a rifle tag this year in utah so we have three seasons to fill it. 

I'm not a dedicated hunter or lifetime license holder and I've never not drawn a deer tag in my life. In the last 12 years I've taken 10 big bucks. Opportunity to hunt is everywhere unless your looking for excuses. 




Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Gotta remember the reality of those who post on sites like this is much different than the reality of the average sportsman. And as such, the reality of their kids is much different too. Just because we always draw doesn't mean others do too-- which is easily seen being there are 130,000 applicants for 86,000 tags.......

The powers that be should pass the proposed increases.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

My oldest son as hunted every year since he was old enough to hunt, 4 years of hunting. Might not have always been a deer tag, but he drew a any weapon deer tag more times then not. He loved elk hunting tho, 4 elk in 4 years of hunting. 3 cows and a bull. The only time he missed school was on his L.E. elk hunt, and that was 3 days since he connected on opening day. Opportunity is not lacking!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Friend of my boys, same age, lives one street over... has never drawn a big game tag yet... of any kind.


-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

How old

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Packout said:


> Gotta remember the reality of those who post on sites like this is much different than the reality of the average sportsman. And as such, the reality of their kids is much different too. Just because we always draw doesn't mean others do too-- which is easily seen being there are 130,000 applicants for 86,000 tags.......
> 
> The powers that be should pass the proposed increases.


Absolutely! I have a couple of buddies that i hunt with from time to time. They have no idea what is going on. Its not that they dont care, its just not a huge priority to them. I try and keep them up to date on whats going on, and its like i am talking greek to them. They dont live to hunt, its something to do for a extended weekend once, maybe twice a year, so trying to explain all the options and points, and units, and when you can hunt a cow with a deer or bull, the diffence between a anterless tag and a control permit, with what weapon, and how the youth can hunt all 3 hunts. They cant keep it all straight. I believe this is the majority of the 130,000 applicants.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

All those examples above fail to recognize that buck:doe ratios have improved, and according to the existing management plan, tags should be issued as a result.

Opportunities to hunt turkeys, elk, and out of state don't matter. We all have extended opportunities if we so choose. In those units where the ratio objectives are being met, then tag increases should follow, as recommended in the management plan and by the UDWR.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Here's my personal experience:

Age 12: applied for wyoming doe pronghorn. First time anyone in our family didn't draw this tag.
Age 13: again, nada in wyoming
Age 14, finally able to hunt utah: giant goose egg on bucks, bulls, oial, and antlerless; drew wyoming doe antelope
Age 15: first UT buck tag SE (unfilled), drew doe deer UT (filled), goose egg in WY

And the tale continues for more years. I was into the points, researching the odds, etc. but I still only drew 2 buck tags as a youth so I started archery hunting at 18 when I could afford a bow (never managed to pull back on a buck in my comfortable range). 

I think there is a pretty serious arrogance on the part of some of us that are more serious about hunting when we say others can always find somewhere else to hunt. Lots of problems with that, and bad luck is just one of them. I figured that it was pretty rough for me to be 50% successful on drawing GS deer tags as a youth (years 2002-2006) especially in the light of the 20% reserved for youth AND that there were more total tags available. I can only imagine how it is now with fewer tags.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that the problem is that youth tags are slanted towards the archery hunts. The problem is that there are a lot of kids that don't hunt archery. You have to figure that if their dads don't archery hunt then they won't archery hunt since they need someone in the field with them and time off for the parent is difficult to get at times.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> Gotta remember the reality of those who post on sites like this is much different than the reality of the average sportsman. And as such, the reality of their kids is much different too. Just because we always draw doesn't mean others do too-- which is easily seen being there are 130,000 applicants for 86,000 tags.......
> 
> *The powers that be should pass the proposed increases.*


Thank you for bringing us back to the issue at hand and not a discussion of who is good hunting parents and who are not. I agree with your last statement whole-heartedly.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I agree with critter and would love to see the proposed tag increases go for rifle hunting youth. Tag increases are needed and I don't want to see this state turn bookcliffs buck doe ratios state wide unless they want to nock the buck doe ratios down on the paunsaguant, henry, San juan, vernon ect to 25/100 ratios. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Next year when the new 5 year plan is discussed. Be prepared to see a big push for higher buck/doe ratio's on many sub-units.
In some of the units with high amounts of private land, that might not be so bad, rather than pushing more and more hunters onto the small areas of public land.
What needs to be addressed is that no less than 30% of the sub-units be set aside of opportunity hunting(15-17/100 ratio units). I believe there will be a push to up many of the 18-20/100 units to possibly 20-22/100 and the 15-17/100 units up to 18-20/100.
You guys that are against these increases need to be talking about it now and letting the RAC and WB know how you feel about it NOW!!!
Otherwise next year you will be behind the 8 ball and many of the people in charge will already have made up their minds.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I voted to increase tags, I've been an outspoken critic on certain Facebook sites in this. It blows my mind that since the tag cuts in '93, we have increased the herd nearly 50%, but hunters are complaining about a .5% tag increase? Because shooting that big buck they see on a magazine cover didn't come to fruition, so apparently other hunters are standing in the way of their personal satisfaction? The "gimme" or entitled generation is influencing the future management of hunting tradition.

And since when does higher buck/doe ratio influence herd growth? All the comments about needing higher b/d to increase herd numbers or point restrictions are needed to manage "genetic quality" of the deer herd... Can't fix stupid I suppose. I miss PROutdoors for his direct criticism and common sense approach on these issues.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> Next year when the new 5 year plan is discussed. Be prepared to see a big push for higher buck/doe ratio's on many sub-units.
> In some of the units with high amounts of private land, that might not be so bad, rather than pushing more and more hunters onto the small areas of public land.
> What needs to be addressed is that no less than 30% of the sub-units be set aside of opportunity hunting(15-17/100 ratio units). I believe there will be a push to up many of the 18-20/100 units to possibly 20-22/100 and the 15-17/100 units up to 18-20/100.
> You guys that are against these increases need to be talking about it now and letting the RAC and WB know how you feel about it NOW!!!
> Otherwise next year you will be behind the 8 ball and many of the people in charge will already have made up their minds.


The funny thing about this, ridge, is that even ifthose higher buck to doe ratios were the standard today, the tag increases would still be supported in most units. That's how much over the objective we currently are.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> The funny thing about this, ridge, is that even ifthose higher buck to doe ratios were the standard today, the tag increases would still be supported in most units. That's how much over the objective we currently are.


That's why there will be a push for change.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That, and there are organizations and companies in the hunting world that are actually very anti-hunter, and they'd love to reduce opportunity as much as possible to line their pockets and drive up their own worth.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> That, and there are organizations and companies in the hunting world that are actually very anti-hunter, and they'd love to reduce opportunity as much as possible to line their pockets and drive up their own worth.


This is the scary truth. Some of these organizations don't realize(or maybe they do) that their arguments are not too many degrees of separation from those employed by the openly anti-hunting folks.


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> I had this debate recently with a friend. He was telling me how this has been such a hard/bad winter. I reminded him we are actually just below "normal" in most places, and at worst just an average winter across the state.
> 
> Whatever it takes to push the narrative, though.


Bad winter is a relative thing. True, we have had average precipitation, but in some areas there was prolonged cold, making the snow hard to melt or blow off of forage, and some severe late winter storms when animals are at their most vulnerable and most likely to die from the culmination of the hardships of winter. More die off occurs in February than other months of winter. An "average winter" in precipitation does not always mean its not a "hard winter." Just a week and a half ago we got 2 feet of snow in some winter ranges.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

It was a pretty average winter in all those categories you just listed. We often get snow in March and even April. The last two dry years were the exception not the rule.. 

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I voted to increase tags. No reason not to do so if objectives are being met in units where increases are being recommended.

Follow the current plan. Don't move the goal posts in mid-stream. There will be plenty to bicker about when the new 5-year plan is out for comment.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> Bad winter is a relative thing. True, we have had average precipitation, but in some areas there was prolonged cold, making the snow hard to melt or blow off of forage, and some severe late winter storms when animals are at their most vulnerable and most likely to die from the culmination of the hardships of winter. More die off occurs in February than other months of winter. An "average winter" in precipitation does not always mean its not a "hard winter." Just a week and a half ago we got 2 feet of snow in some winter ranges.


Coincidentally, I spoke with a biologist from my area last night and asked about how things were looking. In his region and on the units he works on, he said that there has been more winterkill this year than the past couple; however, he also mentioned that he believed that once his spring counts were finished that our herd would not be declining. He said that the radio collars are showing that winter survival for fawns is over 60% so far...lower than the past two or three years but not bad.

Also, the true effect of a winter cannot be determined until the following year. You have to remember that does who live through a winter may either abort their fawns naturally or will drop fawns that are thin or malnourished and with lower chances of survival.

The biologist I spoke with felt like we may have fewer yearling bucks this year than last, but that overall our buck numbers would remain above objectives throughout the south despite any winterkill this year.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> Why not leave the deer alone, and bring up the buck to doe ratio, then issue a few more tags once the ratio is up? There are still many units in the state that are below the proposed ratios. Colorado manages for 35/100. Most of our units are 17-20/100. One of the best parts of deer hunting is seeing more bucks than the one you shoot. If you are the type that shoots the first buck you see, then with higher ratios, you should get your buck faster than you do now, and better chances of harvesting. If you are the type that wants to see more and bigger bucks this is in your favor too. This generates are larger age class separation, from yearlings to old mature deer instead of mostly yearlings and a few older deer (not necessarily mature).
> My dad tells stories of hunting in the 60's and 70's about just going for a horse ride though the sagebrush and seeing 30+ bucks a day and only getting off his horse to eat lunch, or shoot one because he had one day to hunt...... Neither the population or ratio we have now can even come close to doing that.


IT will never get back to that with as many hunters and people building homes in winter ranges.


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

dkhntrdstn said:


> IT will never get back to that with as many hunters and people building homes in winter ranges.


Where I am speaking of, there is no risk of winter range crowding. The counties population is actually decreasing! A town of less than 400 people wont be pushing deer off of winter range. Also, there are not be as many hunters as back then when there were unlimited resident and non resident tags. Back in the 80's there were 250,000 deer tags sold. That is over 2 1/2 times what we have today. 100,000 more tags than we have APPLICANTS.

Winter range encroachment is a very real issue in many of the units in the state. It however is not the issue for many of the units that have the lowest deer numbers (below objective) and buck to doe ratios.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

paddlehead said:


> I'm saying to bring up the buck to doe ratio from 17 or 20 per 100 to 25/100, or something more than it is. Yes, there may be a few hunters that dont get to hunt every year. I'm happy to not hunt for a year or two to get the opportunity to have MORE bucks to look at when I get a tag. It has nothing to do with the size of the bucks. I like to look at as many bucks as possible during the hunt, for the fun of it. I often times pass on great bucks just to keep hunting. Why not use Colorado as a model of 35/100? Lots of deer to look at. How fun would that be?! When my boys are old enough to hunt I want to be able to show them deer. Lots of them, and hopefully a lot of them are bucks. Nothing is more boring to a kid than staring at an empty hillside. People say they want more opportunity? What good is a tag in your pocket, and your kids sitting next to you when your kid is so bored from looking at nothing that they never want to go again. Everyone says we need to issue more tags for the kids. Kids dont have to have a tag to go hunting and have fun. Why wait until they have a tag to take them? Finding a love for hunting should happen long before they can pull the trigger. I hear people say that "trophy hunters" just wont sacrifice. I am not a trophy hunter. Would I like to shoot a big deer? Sure I would. Everyone wants to kill at least one good deer. What I value more is getting to see a lot of animals and having fun with my kids and instilling a love of the outdoors at an early age. So long as one person has a tag in your group, everyone can hunt and enjoy an abundant game population. I get as much satisfaction helping someone else fill a tag as I do filling it myself. I think that "opportunity hunters" are equally or more selfish than other people that want a bigger healthier deer population and buck/doe ratio. "opportunity hunters" are not willing to sacrifice the chance to have a tag so that we can have deer herds like those of yesteryear.
> 
> All this aside, UDWR should let the 5 year management plan run its course before they go and change it again. I am also willing to bet that we had a far worse winter kill this year than we have in the previous three. So this abundance of deer they speak of, probably isnt walking around the hills like they were 5 months ago when they were counted. You look at any winter range in Northern Utah, and they are littered with carcasses. Last week I literally found 7 dead deer within 100 yards on one draw on a big winter range. Multiply that by several miles, and all that surplus is GONE! Im with you Critter! The Northern end of that state took a BIG winter kill hit.
> 
> ...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

If i remember right when they do the count. They add like 100 winter kill in the counts.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Or kids could do what my kids do,
> Pick up a bow and hunt every year !


but the problem is those people dont want to spend the money for the good stuff or the right stuff and then take the time to be good with the bow and learn all of the stuff. it easier to pick up a rifle or muzzy and go hunt.


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

I voted to wait one more year before implementing increases and I am not a Lifetime holder or DH. I expect to not draw any tags this year.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bucksnbulls08 said:


> I voted to wait one more year before implementing increases and I am not a Lifetime holder or DH. I expect to not draw any tags this year.


 And your reason for wanting to wait one more year before implementing increases is* ?*


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> And your reason for wanting to wait one more year before implementing increases is* ?*


I was going to ask the same thing.

Bottomline: Units are over objectives. The plan calls for additional tags, lets follow the plan.

-DallanC


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I was going to ask the same thing.
> 
> Bottomline: Units are over objectives. The plan calls for additional tags, lets follow the plan.
> 
> -DallanC


I think a lot of people just don't understand the plan.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I think a lot of people just don't understand the plan.


 And I suspect that's because most of them have never bothered to read it! And, unfortunately, that likely includes many on this forum.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> I think a lot of people just don't understand the plan.


BINGO!


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> And I suspect that's because most of them have never bothered to read it! And, unfortunately, that likely includes many on this forum.


Double BINGO!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The plan is broken if you can't find multiple 4 points driving your wheeler on dirt roads you can get your 30 foot fifth wheel on. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

swbuckmaster said:


> The plan is broken if you can't find multiple 4 points driving your wheeler on dirt roads you can get your 30 foot fifth wheel on.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I actually had to hike last year, there's bugs and stuff out there...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> The plan is broken if you can't find multiple 4 points driving your wheeler on dirt roads you can get your 30 foot fifth wheel on.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


The reality is these are not the guys trying to get plans changed, buck to doe ratios raised, and tags cut. The guys you just described might complain that it "isn't like the good old days" just like tons of members on this very forum do. The guys you just described, when it's all said and done, are usually just happy to get out with a tag in hand. And they might be aware that there is a mule deer plan in place.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Yes, the UWN Big Game forum or muley crazy FB page is not a diverse enough group to get an accurate picture of hunter desires regarding tag numbers, though I would argue this site is more accurate than the other. I doubt those at the RAC represent the true majority opinion. Bottom line comes down to common sense. Can we believe the RAC and WB will make the most common sense decision instead of special interest desires.


----------

