# Wildlife Board openings



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

The WB has two openings. They're accepting applications until March. This is someones oppertunity to make a big difference.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... board.html


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Yep! It will be a tough job getting a couple of qualified individuals that will also represent the average hunter (and majority hunting voice) appointed to the WB, but we can sure give it a hellofa go!


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I nominate Pro and Tree.Finn as an alternate if either of them don't want to throw their hat in the ring.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I nominate Pro and Tree.Finn as an alternate if either of them don't want to throw their hat in the ring.


Unfortunately, they have to be from the Central or the Southeast region. That would leave 1eye chevy lover and blandingboy, right?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Packout would be a great candidate!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Packout would be a great candidate!


I'll second that nomination!! He'd be phenomenal!



Huge29 said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > I nominate Pro and Tree.Finn as an alternate if either of them don't want to throw their hat in the ring.
> ...


PRO is in the Central region. Thereby, he would also be a phenomenal candidate!!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

suave300 said:


> PRO is in the Central region. Thereby, he would also be a phenomenal candidate!!


Stansbury is in the Central region?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> suave300 said:
> 
> 
> > PRO is in the Central region. Thereby, he would also be a phenomenal candidate!!
> ...


Yep


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

It might be possible for this forum to nominate a person and have the nomination be taken seriously. The nominating committee would not take any nominations from a single person seriously and reject that nomination off hand. But, if this forum could somehow present a name that was arrived at by some sort of election...not sure how that could be done...and then submit that name along with documentation as to how the the balloting was done, proving sincere interest and support by a group of sportsman like our forum, them maybe, just maybe that nomination would stand a chance for consideration. 
Sooo, if someone wants to organize it, put all the paperwork together and submit it IN THE NAME OF THIS FORUM'S MEMBERS, you never know, you just might actual get it done.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I think Packout and Finnegan would be EXCELLENT choices. I am NOT interested, but I am flattered.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I thought you had to serve on the RAC to be eligible? If no I would vote for Goofy!


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I think there are several people that are regular contributors to his forum that would make good board members BUT if you are serious you need to play the political rules game to get them nominated. The nominations that get attention come from legitimate known organizations like say Rocky Mt Elk for example or they come from politically influential people that might have the Gov's ear. So it you want to nominate one of our own you need to do as I suggested in my previous post...anyone out there ready to put in the work?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I thought you had to serve on the RAC to be eligible? If no I would vote for Goofy!


Thanks Muley, This is kind of ironic as well.
I was approached last week by some members of the outfitters board.
And yes, I have been entered into the nominees.

Even though I know I really have no chance, knowing some of the other
nominees are much more qualified and have political ties needed to get
Governor Herbert's approval........None the less, I let them throw my name in the hat.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

That's great news Goofy Elk! Good luck getting the bid!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

There would be some hard headed opinions. :mrgreen:


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

Unfortunately...Goofy, nominating you is just putting another SFW lacky in the board...we need someone who actually listens to what the "common hunter" wants and not the elitist minority that is present now.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lacky?????? Wow! Now I have seen a lot of lackys on this sight, but I surely would not classify Goofy as one of them. 

Keep dreaming "Lackys"


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Lacky?????? Wow! Now I have seen a lot of lackys on this sight, but I surely would not classify Goofy as one of them.
> 
> Keep dreaming "Lackys"


 -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O-


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Yup coyote, my reaction exactly!


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Well Goofy definitely has alot of knowledge about hunting but I think he misses the forest for the trees on alot of issues. I think he is more concerned with trophy hunting and running hounds than the average joe hunter.I would be very disappointed if he were seated on the board.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Oh how my support for Goofy grows!!!!! Now I'll hold my breath and wait for my verbal kick in the junk!


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

You have to support your daddy don't ya?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Now I never said I wouldn't go fishing with goofy... :lol: Goofy do you fish? -|\O- but I also don't think goofy is one id like to see on the board either.  We simply are on different sides of the issues way too often. -)O(- 

Id like to see a guy like packout sitting on the board. -()/- *()* :O--O: I don't always see eye to eye Mike but he does look at all the facts and usually comes up with a solution that is good for all. o-||


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Now I never said I wouldn't go fishing with goofy... :lol: Goofy do you fish? -|\O- but I also don't think goofy is one id like to see on the board either.  We simply are on different sides of the issues way too often. -)O(-
> 
> Id like to see a guy like packout sitting on the board. -()/- *()* :O--O: I don't always see eye to eye Mike but he does look at all the facts and usually comes up with a solution that is good for all. o-||


+1


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> Well Goofy definitely has alot of knowledge about hunting but I think he misses the forest for the trees on alot of issues. I think he is more concerned with trophy hunting and running hounds than the average joe hunter.I would be very disappointed if he were seated on the board.


+1


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

A lot of people like to argue and bash Goofy, but no one on this forum steps up and offers more help to those who ask than he. He's an upstanding person and this forum greatly benefits from his contribution.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Gumbo said:


> A lot of people like to argue and bash Goofy, but no one on this forum steps up and offers more help to those who ask than he. He's an upstanding person and this forum greatly benefits from his contribution.


I agree with this statement also.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

My daddy? Nope but somebody I respect, you bet!!!!!

Now Packout will be interesting, was a time I'd have bet on that horse. I guess we'll see how it all pans out. Sure things seem hard to predict these days!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Gumbo said:


> A lot of people like to argue and bash Goofy, but no one on this forum steps up and offers more help to those who ask than he. He's an upstanding person and this forum greatly benefits from his contribution.


I agree completely with this statement, but that doesn't necessarily make you a good candidate for the WB. I respect him for getting out their and trying to make a difference.

I second the Packout statement.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The problem with Goofy is sometimes he won't admit when he's wrong like when it comes to 3 point or better. There has been a lot of facts and studies to back up the fact that 3 point or better doesnt work. Goofy will argue until the cows come home or until he's blue in the face. Goofy does have passion, but so does a lot of other people on here.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Again my support for Goofy only grows!!!!!! We currently practice antler restriction in Utah and nobody even realizes it!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Name one deer unit that is managed under antler restrictions? Is your father Deloross and was he at the Central RAC meeting in November?

Spike elk hunting isn't the same as 3 point or better because we issue very few mature elk tags while were are killing baby elk.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Every deer unit General and LE is currently under antler restriction. Yes I believe DeLoss was at the Central RAC meeting?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes if you're talking about antlers under 5 inches long which are legal to shoot on a doe hunt so what is your point?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Actualy I believe DeLoss was at the Central,Southern,Southeast and WB meetings. Were you?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Do we doe hunt on most units?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes, I was there at two of the RAC meetings. I had to work during the WB meeting. He was quite entertaining.



> Do we doe hunt on most units?


 :roll: :roll: :roll: of course not. We also dont have antler restrictions other than deer with antlers 5 inches or smaller either.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

But antler restriction none the less. We just choose to protect a smaller buck. So were you at the meetings?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Antler restrictions are an UNWRIITEN law an limited entry and CWMUs..

And while if you have a L/E or CWMU permit you COULD shoot a yearling buck,
which is basically LESS than a 3pt., might account for .5% of the harvest on these
GOOD hunting units.........Kind of ironic the VERY BEST hunting in Utah is on these units..

Then we have the general season hunts were 70% of the harvest is yearlings,,,,
And that's fine for opportunity and those that enjoy it,,,,,,But its not my cup of tea...

And as far as the wildlife board opening is concerned, I believe Nebo 12000 is a SLAM DUNK!
He has served on the central RAC and knows the "in's & out's",,PLUS he has the connections.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Antler restrictions are an UNWRIITEN law an limited entry and CWMUs..
> 
> And while if you have a L/E or CWMU permit you COULD shoot a yearling buck,
> which is basically LESS than a 3pt., might account for .5% of the harvest on these
> GOOD hunting units.........Kind of ironic the VERY BEST hunting in Utah is on these units..


Rediculous. Yet another broad characterization that isnt true.

My wife drew a recommended CWMU 8 years ago... there was no talk in any way shape or form prior to the hunt about what animals she could and could not shoot. The hunting sucked... absolutely sucked. We saw a grand total of 15 does and 3 bucks, the one she shot was a 20" 2x2. The other two bucks were even smaller. The other group of hunters there hadn't seen even a doe by the time she tagged out and left.

+20,000 acre property and some of the worse hunting I've ever seen. Thankfully she got something so it wasnt a wasted tag, and no-one cared what it was that she did shoot.

-DallanC


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> But antler restriction none the less. We just choose to protect a smaller buck. So were you at the meetings?


So what is your point? Only to argue? Read what I wrote.......Yes, I was at the meeting. These trophy bucks that you're refering to are often mistaken for does.

This 5 inches antler restriction isn't to keep the bucks in the herd or are you applying that we are trying to keep them in the herd, hence, the antler restriction?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Rediculous. Yet another broad characterization that isnt true.
> 
> My wife drew a recommended CWMU 8 years ago... there was no talk in any way shape or form prior to the hunt about what animals she could and could not shoot. The hunting sucked... absolutely sucked. We saw a grand total of 15 does and 3 bucks, the one she shot was a 20" 2x2. The other two bucks were even smaller. The other group of hunters there hadn't seen even a doe by the time she tagged out and left.
> 
> +20,000 acre property and some of the worse hunting I've ever seen.


Were you hunting the Old Woman Plateau?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

coyoteslayer said:


> Were you hunting the Old Woman Plateau?


Yes, yes we were.

-DallanC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here is what I want in a Wildlife Board member: someone who doesn't think they know everything, someone who is willing to listen to ALL sides/consider ALL the data and feedback, someone who doesn't make decisions on what they want but instead on what is FIRST best for the animals and second what is good LONG TERM for hunters, someone who doesn't have an ego.

I am not one to make personal attacks on REAL people, but I will say I stand strongly on my endorsement of Michael Anderson (finnegan) and Mike Christensen (packout). As I find them wise/thoughtful/rational men with principles and a great passion/understanding for wildlife and hunting now and in the future. If ANYONE other than these two are appointed I will be disappointed but not surprised. 

Carry on.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Ouch! The Old Women is brutal for deer. Usually is every season. Not sure if I've ever seen a buck bigger than 20 inches on that unit. Research man, RESEARCH! 

Not trying to "just" argue. The point is we DO practice antler restriction. We just don't draw the line at 3 points. One of the major reasons for the DWR fighting it is illegal kills. Yet they feel hunters are competent enough to see a difference in a buck 4.5 inches instead of 5.0 inches. Again you can find a study that will support just about any point of view on about any issue, if you look enough.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Antler restrictions are an UNWRIITEN law an limited entry and CWMUs..
> 
> And while if you have a L/E or CWMU permit you COULD shoot a yearling buck,
> which is basically LESS than a 3pt., might account for .5% of the harvest on these
> ...


+1

I would bet 90% of harvest on LE's and CWMU's are not yearlings......Im sure though, on some of them, there is a case here and there of it, but I just don't know to many guys shooting the first thing with horns on most of the units.

Goofy, you have my support......but i will keep that quiet as its likely to ruin your chances :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Ouch! The Old Women is brutal for deer. Usually is every season. Not sure if I've ever seen a buck bigger than 20 inches on that unit. Research man, RESEARCH!
> 
> Not trying to "just" argue. The point is we DO practice antler restriction. We just don't draw the line at 3 points. One of the major reasons for the DWR fighting it is illegal kills. Yet they feel hunters are competent enough to see a difference in a buck 4.5 inches instead of 5.0 inches. Again you can find a study that will support just about any point of view on about any issue, if you look enough.


Ok wyo2ut's brother -_O- -_O- -_O-


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
That is the problem. Not to attack either person you support, but my view on those individuals is different. Though limited my interactions with these individuals would make me believe they don't fall into your definition of a person that would serve well on the WB. Great guys I'm sure, but ideas not what are in the best intrest of our herds. IMHO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> That is the problem. Not to attack either person you support, but my view on those individuals is different. Though limited my interactions with these individuals would make me believe they don't fall into your definition of a person that would serve well on the WB. Great guys I'm sure, but ideas not what are in the best intrest of our herds. IMHO.


Please explain! Is it because they listen to SCIENCE? Or is it because they don't fall for 'ideas' that have been PROVEN multiple times to be failed ideas? Maybe its that they are willing to look at actual data, and draw conclusions based on the data instead of theories or flat out misleading data? IMHO, what you are being guilty of is making your stand on who you support based on who agrees with you, which is a HUGE mistake. I don't always agree with these two men, nor do I imagine such a person exists that I will agree with 100% of the time. But, I have respect for people who look at the issues, not who made the proposals and making a concerted effort to see the entire picture rather than just looking at how they want things to be.

I am curious what either of these two has said/posted that has caused you to question their integrity/knowledge/character/principles/passion? You can respond here or via PM, but I DO expect an answer.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
That is pure assumption to say that is why I don't support them. Like I said I agree that personal attacks should not take place. So I chose NOT to answer your question over the forum. Like I said am sure they are great guys and may very well do all the things you said. But again my opinion would differ on some of your criteria based on conversations I have had and read. 

You do your thing and I'll do mine. That's what keeps thing rolling!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I didn't assume ANYTHING, pay attention! I asked several questions, nothing else. If you want to clarify, go for it. If you want to make such comments and then not be willing to defend/explain them, what does that say about you? I am even willing to hear your reason(s) over the lunch we discussed a month or so ago. How about it?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro, 
It looked like to me you were answering your own questions. I'm still good for lunch. I'm in Disney World for the rest of the week, but I'll be down for the expo. Swing in and let's chat.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am NOT going to attend the expo! Maybe we could get together at the ISE show.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow! Thanks, Bart. That means a lot to me, and especially coming from you. And I'm honored to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Mike - couldn't be a better candidate than him. After talking to a few people, I've decided to go for it. Seems to be the best of several options I've got right now. I think I got a couple of endorsements tonight and I'm looking for others.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> Wow! Thanks, Bart. That means a lot to me, and especially coming from you. And I'm honored to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Mike - couldn't be a better candidate than him. After talking to a few people, I've decided to go for it. Seems to be the best of several options I've got right now. I think I got a couple of endorsements tonight and I'm looking for others.


Anything we can do to help?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

+1,000,000 for Finnegan or Packout. These two men would be great for the job because they don't follow SFW idea's. Their votes cannot be bought with money. They listen to everyone's point of view and then make a good decision based on biology. I don't see these two men ever trying to make things better for themselves. They always want what is best for deer herd first. They understand the issues better than most.

They also see the stupidity that SFW and other special interest groups bring to the table.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Though limited my interactions with these individuals would make me believe they don't fall into your definition of a person that would serve well on the WB. Great guys I'm sure, but ideas not what are in the best intrest of our herds. IMHO.


Yes please explain. If your going to post things like this then be prepared to explain why you feel this way.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Like I stated above. Comments I have read and heard would not lead to my support. Not going into details as that not my agenda. You guys are more than intitled to support whom ever you choose. Again I'm sure both these guys at passionate and great guys, I just don't agree with you that they would be best for the job based on my knowledge. I'm just a single sportsman that likes to read the forums. My opinion is just that an opinion I have formed from personal knowledge. I think there are other individuals far more open minded and better suited for the job. Here's a couple I'd love to see in that position.

Jim Hyatt (not sure if that is how his last name is spelled)
Todd Black

I'm sure some would not agree. That is fine again just my opinion.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> If ANYONE other than these two are appointed I will be disappointed but not surprised.


I hope if someone other than the two you mentioned are appointed that you will at least give them the benefit of the doubt, though...especially if you don't know them. I hope you realize that different choices may not be bad and other people could do a good job.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Research man, RESEARCH!
> 
> Again you can find a study that will support just about any point of view on about any issue, if you look enough.


Research man, research. Show me a study done on public land that shows that antler point restrictions work for mule deer. I bet you won't find one!

Also, one of the other major reasons Utah's DWR is against antler point restrictions is because they know that you cannot focus all of the hunting pressure on one group of bucks and expect to find more of that size. They know that if all the hunting pressure is focused on bucks bigger than 3-points, for example, that the majority of the bucks are going to be less than 3-points.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I believe his "research" comment was aimed at me, in choosing to put in for the Old Woman CWMU. Ironically... the person who recommended this unit to me is one of the names being talked about here for a WB position 


-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I believe his "research" comment was aimed at me, in choosing to put in for the Old Woman CWMU. Ironically... the person who recommended this unit to me is one of the names being talked about here for a WB position


yeah, I realized that. But, he implied that you needed to do some research in making your decision. I am saying that he needs to do some more research on antler point restrictions.

Also, FWIW, my best friend recently harvested a decent 4-point buck on a CWMU near DL&L (I don't know which). He received the tag as a gift from his father-in-law who paid $5,000 for it. My friend was very disappointed with the hunt...after nearly a week of solid hunting, he took the only mature deer he saw. I know he isn't too keen on CWMUs anymore...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with Pro, I would fully support Finn and Packout if these guys were to put their names in for the WB, these guys are very knowledgeable and want to do what is best for wildlife and not follow their own personal agendas.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I have seen many antler restriction studies. Like I have said in the past. If you look long enough you can usually find a study to support any said of every issue. I'm not say antler restriction is a fix all by any means. However I have seen the effects first hand and there are benifits along with the draw backs. I really believe that issue has become a posion taboo in Utah and will be really hard pressed to ever get traction regarless of who's on the WB. Other ideas can be used that I think will garner mire support overall. 
 

Dallen,
What exactly did your source tell you about the Old Woman? I would be really really interested on how the conversation went? I sure have not seen many deer at all on that unit when hunting there? :shock: 

Man for a group that hates the "system". You all seem eager to get a dog in the fight! o-||


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I have seen many antler restriction studies. Like I have said in the past. If you look long enough you can usually find a study to support any said of every issue. I'm not say antler restriction is a fix all by any means. However I have seen the effects first hand and there are benifits along with the draw backs. I really believe that issue has become a posion taboo in Utah and will be really hard pressed to ever get traction regarless of who's on the WB. Other ideas can be used that I think will garner mire support overall.


Ok...so, I am challenging you...find one on mule deer and on public land and post a copy! I bet you can't do it...also, FWIW, I have seen the negative effects firsthand...here in and in other states.

This subject is a "poison taboo in Utah" and other states because it has NEVER worked.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Research man, RESEARCH!
> ...


It might as well be 3pt. or better on the Paunsaugunt and the Henry's.
Except for the management hunts , and those 3 by's are 4 to 6+ year old bucks.
AND I GARENTEE you less than 3% of the harvest are yearling bucks...

And lets see,,,The Book Cliffs, Vernon, Oak Creek, Dolores Triangle, San Juan,
and many of the better CWMU's all target 3 point or BETTER bucks....
And these WITHOUT question are the very best deer units in the state..

They ARE hunter limited, But very few tag holders shoot young bucks. In fact,
most go empty on these units before even thinking of shooting a two point..

I would say we have,,
self imposed antler restrictions on all these units!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


Key word "self" imposed antler restrictions. There is nothing stopping someone from shooting a yearling buck, they have just waited so long they are not going to waste their time and money on a yearling. Apples to oranges my friend.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

And the big difference is that those units have significantly fewer tags than any general unit...that is the key difference. Fewer tags means more older age-classed bucks. It has NOTHING to do with antler restrictions self-imposed or not. I guarantee you that if every person who had a Paunsagaunt LE deer tag decided to kill a two-point for several years in a row, you would still have a ton of mature bucks running around. It has NOTHING to do with the age-class of the deer being harvested, but the number being harvested.

The problem with your line of thinking is that you want to make general season units trophy class units...to me that is a contradiction and an oxymoron. General season units by definition and nature are NOT designed to be quality units. They are made to maximize opportunity at the expense of quality. Guys like you want to force feed the entire hunting public your desire of killing only quality animals....the sad thing is that your opportunity to hunt quality animals still exists on EVERY general season unit, yet you want to take opportunity away from the average joe who doesn't care about the size of deer he shoots.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Not true,,,,I'm just making the point that L/E & CWMU's were antler restricted it would
MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in the deer herds on those units .....
AND THATS EXACTLY why antler restrictions can work, It would be a great tool to boost 
buck to doe ratios on struggling units. I would much rather use A/R than 3 or 5 day hunts..

And with the new unit management, I'm all for leaving most of the units for a "general"
opportunity type hunt.............


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Every hunter wants to hunt every year. This I believe. The scary part is there is a group out there that would still feel that way if the herds dropped to 20,000 statewide. Actually I believe every hunter would still "want " to hunt every year. Hunters will not self regulate on general units. Never have never will. If they did we could issue a lot more tags.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


Define "best".

Of course we self impose antler restrictions on permits that take half a lifetime to draw. So are you more or less pushing for the whole state to managed like this? It sure seems that way. Just think, you could get the self imposition implemented on a state level if you were accepted to the WB and we could all hunt trophy bucks every 10 years. I can't wait! But I guess I'll have to........

Out with the old, in with the same.

Maybe Keele Johnson has some relatives that will apply and get a position, then we could all get it knuckle deep. Hell, if we're going that route, let's just pick some random parolee from the state prison.



> Every hunter wants to hunt every year. This I believe. The scary part is there is a group out there that would still feel that way if the herds dropped to 20,000 statewide. Actually I believe every hunter would still "want " to hunt every year. Hunters will not self regulate on general units. Never have never will. If they did we could issue a lot more tags.


Do you have contact info for this group? They could use a bit of education.

The more I read, I think you just may be a very confused individual.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > If ANYONE other than these two are appointed I will be disappointed but not surprised.
> ...


I will indeed give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but I will still be disappointed that neither of these two good men are able to fight the good fight. Let me say, that I am extremely skeptical of any others as I believe ONE group has far too much sway in who gets appointed. If it is someone this ONE group endorses, I will have no doubt the person(s) will be part of the problem and not a part of the cure.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Every hunter wants to hunt every year. This I believe. The scary part is there is a group out there that would still feel that way if the herds dropped to 20,000 statewide. Actually I believe every hunter would still "want " to hunt every year. Hunters will not self regulate on general units. Never have never will. If they did we could issue a lot more tags.


Back the truck up! I seem to recall where YOU and your dad kept asking why permit sales plummeted a couple of decades WITHOUT a mandated reduction of permits. To me this would be a clear case of hunters "self-regulating" on general units. Especially since the entire state was GENERAL. Why you have more faith in a few, and no faith in the many is perplexing to me. That is the same mindset of those who voted for the current regime in Washington D.C.. I do NOT need someone telling me where to hunt. If I can't figure things out on my own, then I deserve to go home without punching my tag. Why anyone over the age of 10 thinks they need the Wildlife Board, the DWR, a special interest group, to tell them to hunt a different canyon/mountain/area, is a mystery to me. If I go to an area that is swarming with people/hunters, or is lacking animals to pursue, I all by myself MOVE. I don't look around for a DNR truck, or call up Don Peay and ask what I should do. Also, I don't like chasing spike/cow elk so I DON'T, this IS self-regulation by an avid bow hunter. I can offer up a few more examples of hunter self-regulation if you feel more is needed.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Not true,,,,I'm just making the point that L/E & CWMU's were antler restricted it would
> MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in the deer herds on those units .....
> AND THATS EXACTLY why antler restrictions can work, It would be a great tool to boost
> buck to doe ratios on struggling units. I would much rather use A/R than 3 or 5 day hunts..
> ...


BUT your point isn't valid because as Jahan pointed out your comparing apples to oranges.

So you want to target the older class bucks in the herd to boost the buck to doe ratios leaving the younger bucks to breed the does, and then open it back up to wipe out the younger bucks?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I have seen many antler restriction studies. Like I have said in the past. If you look long enough you can usually find a study to support any said of every issue. I'm not say antler restriction is a fix all by any means. However I have seen the effects first hand and there are benifits along with the draw backs. I really believe that issue has become a posion taboo in Utah and will be really hard pressed to ever get traction regarless of who's on the WB. Other ideas can be used that I think will garner mire support overall.


Have you found any links yet?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro 
You may self regulate sure. Many will. However if you opened the state to over the counter either sex there is a group out there that would wipe out every public general area unit. That is the group that make up huge percentage of the hunters that are screaming they want to hunt every year. So why the change of heart on the vile system we have now? Weeks ago you wanted to change the whole system, now you want say in who is the system?

Tree
I don't listen to enough Jerry to see things as clear as yourself, this is true.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You may self regulate sure. Many will. However if you opened the state to over the counter either sex there is a group out there that would wipe out every public general area unit. That is the group that make up huge percentage of the hunters that are screaming they want to hunt every year.


This isn't true :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: BUT there is a group that wants to limit hunting so only the elite get to hunt elk/deer. Don Peay wishes he could sell EVERY mature elk tag to the highest bidder. He wants to see 100% harvest rates which isn't hunting it's like going on a farm.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Coyote,
How are you sure of this? I have seen it happen on the Fishlake with elk herd. It is no more false than to say hunters will self regulate. Believing otherwise will lead to the continued loss of our herds.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

WHY are you posting an example of opening the state up to over the counter tags to either sex when NO ONE is suggesting it? Are you blowing this out of proportion again?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote,
> How are you sure of this? I have seen it happen on the Fishlake with elk herd. It is no more false than to say hunters will self regulate. Believing otherwise will lead to the continued loss of our herds.


This elk slaughter wasn't intentional.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro
> You may self regulate sure. Many will. However if you opened the state to over the counter either sex there is a group out there that would wipe out every public general area unit. That is the group that make up huge percentage of the hunters that are screaming they want to hunt every year. So why the change of heart on the vile system we have now? Weeks ago you wanted to change the whole system, now you want say in who is the system?
> 
> Tree
> I don't listen to enough Jerry to see things as clear as yourself, this is true.


Profound, as always. :roll:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Holy crap! I just about passed out. You do understand! You are 100% correct and that is exactly my entire point from the start on most of my posts since joining this site! 

It was not the intention, and yet IT STILL HAPPENED! Why? Because the DWR expected hunters to self regulate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hands down the very best post I have read on this site!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It was not the intention, and yet IT STILL HAPPENED! Why? Because the DWR expected hunters to self regulate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Hands down the very best post I have read on this site!


Yeah that's it......The DWR wanted to see hunters self regulating. It was a mistake that shouldn't have happened ,but if I do recall the elk herd did rebound back pretty fast.

I'm glad that you're on the forum because you're just as entertaining as your old man. -_O- -_O- -_O- I also like to read you blowing things out of proportion like the old man also.

He had me in tears, and I almost fell out of my wheelchair listening to him. I would have had to yell out to treehugger and Jahan that were sitting in front of me that I've fallen and I can't get up jk  Breathe, breathe. :mrgreen:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Who is Muley73?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Just a voice my friend.

Coyote, 
Laugh it up I'm fine with that. Last time I checked the old man was seeing option 2 passed while you laughed yourself on the floor. Keep the fight alive on this site, it seems to be working so far.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote,
> Laugh it up I'm fine with that. Last time I checked the old man was seeing option 2 passed while you laughed yourself on the floor. Keep the fight alive on this site, it seems to be working so far.


I never said he was a bad person. He just made me laugh. Option 2 can be undone this year, Cody.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro
> You may self regulate sure. Many will. However if you opened the state to over the counter either sex there is a group out there that would wipe out every public general area unit. That is the group that make up huge percentage of the hunters that are screaming they want to hunt every year. So why the change of heart on the vile system we have now? Weeks ago you wanted to change the whole system, now you want say in who is the system?


Come on man! Who makes up this 'group' of which you speak of? Are they a danger to all of society, or just wildlife? I want to hunt EVERY year, what HUNTER doesn't? What causes many, myself included heartburn is being denied the ability to hunt every year for the SOLE purpose of making it easier for a select few to put a 'trophy' on the wall, and NOT for biological reasons.

As for my 'change of heart', I haven't had one. I am just not foolish enough to demand all or nothing on day one. Changing, or getting rid of the system altogether, takes time. So, while the process to getting there HAS been put in motion, I am of the opinion of minimizing the damage being wrought by the Wildlife Board as being an obvious and responsible course of action.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

9 pages and 86 replies. And not one mention of the Iron Bear being the man for the job? I am appalled. I guess you all need a little more convincing. :mrgreen: 

A bit naive to not realize potential successors have been in line for yrs. These decisions were made long ago.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
You know my support is not for a trophy on every wall. Or even any wall for that matter. Just difference of opinion on our struggling herds.

Justin, 
You really would not know if my old man is a good guy or evil. Really does not matter. I've told you in the past. I truly don't believe option 2 will be put in place when the smoke clears. I don't think much of anything will change. But I guess I don't really laugh at someones passion especially after seeing their agenda passed. If you get your way, hats off my friend, good work. I'm sure I'll be on here crying that you are killing my kids future of Utah deer hunting.

Dallan,
Still would love to hear about your conversation about applying for the Old Woman? Did you change your avatar to Homer after burning points on that unit....DOH!!!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> But I guess I don't really laugh at someones passion especially after seeing their agenda passed


Cody, again, I wasn't meaning it in a bad way. It was just funny thats all.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> You know my support is not for a trophy on every wall. Or even any wall for that matter. Just difference of opinion on our struggling herds.
> 
> Justin,
> ...


You know, I was thinking along these lines on my drive home from work. The truth of the matter is that there are several of us, with differing opinions on these matters, but in the end, not many of us know each other on a personal level. I don't make any assumptions about the integrity of someone, solely on a differing points of view.

We throw jabs here and there. mostly in good fun and the spirit of competition. Occasionally, things go too far and rarely is there even a good intended outcome. Especially, in this case Cody's father, who isn't here to defend himself.

Cody, if you or your old man are down Salt Lake way, give a holler. I'd love to get to know the two of you, and that way you can do more than speculate that I'm a pot smoking, liberal ******* that wants to destroy the deer herd at the hands of opportunity.  :mrgreen: But seriously, there's a line and I think we all do ourselves a disfavor by assuming we know everything about one another based on a few internet experiences and related issues that we happen to fall on different sides of.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear, I was about to send in a recommendation, but martyrdom has no place in public service. :mrgreen:


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Well put Tree.... You pot smoking, deer herd hating, hippie freek


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Cody,
I guess I'll quench your thirst for knowledge concerning his Old Woman Plateau CWMU experience and on what his decision was based. I hunted there in 1998 with my FIL, who shot a low 160s 4x4. The next year my wife burned 0 or 1 point and drew an OWP tag, ended up shooting her second buck-- a 23 inch buck with 4 inch eye-guards, but she had to bring our 4 month old son in tow so we didn't give it much of a go. In 1999, my 14 y.o. and 18 y.o. BILs had tags on the OWP and shot their first bucks, a yearling 2x3 and a 20" 4x4. I believe it was the following year that my FIL had another tag. I hunted with him down there for 2 days and we saw half a dozen bucks, passed on a 140-150 type buck and didn't end up shooting. My FIL also had a spike elk tag on the OWP (in 2000 or 2001 I think) and on that hunt we saw a 170 type buck and a 26-28" type crab clawed mature buck. We had seen and shot decent bucks, so it seemed like an alright place for someone with no/low points. 

Then Dallan's wife had the tag (not sure what year, but 2001 or 2002 comes to mind) and they struggled, as did others. Anyway, I told him to give it a try (I don't think she spent many points on the tag). My bad I guess. I havn't been on the ranch in a decade, but in talking with John it sounds like the OWP CWMU deer are struggling- just like the rest of the state. So there you have it-- Kind of nice to go back through the memories. I really like the photo of my wife holding our boy and her OWP buck-- great shot, great time.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Thanks Packout, sounds like you guys did really well. I have spent time hunting elk there and deer have been tough to come by. However that has all been post 2000. I believe the CWMUs can offer some really good hunts but others can be rough, better odds but you do gamble sometimes. Thanks again for the info. It made sense of the situation. 

Dallan, 
I have had some really great experiences on CWMUs and some that left me really disappointed in the game and managers. Hope if you decide to put in for one again it works out better. Thanks for the PM.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Yea I sent a pm as my point wasn't to bash OWP. 

My point was to refute Goofy's assertation that everyone on CWMU's only shoot mature deer. OWP was a rough hunt but it ended successfully with her shooting the biggest deer we could find. There just weren't big mature deer running around so we were happy with the younger deer she did take. Unlike others I guess, its not the inches or age of the deer that we measure a successful hunt by.

I just feel Goofy is out of touch with the "average" hunter. He's self admitted to only hunting Utah Gen deer twice in 14 years.


-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I understand that not all CWMUs are equal. However I hunt nothing but public general for the past 23 yrs. I have drawn two Paunsy tags and one CWMU. I believe Goofy is in touch with the average Joe, because that is all I am.

Tree, I appreciate the offer. I'll try and look you up. I too agree that we need to work together for our future.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen many antler restriction studies. Like I have said in the past. If you look long enough you can usually find a study to support any said of every issue.
> ...


Still waiting....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Dude, I'm at Disney World with the fam. My search time is a little limited. I'm barely finding time for incoherent comments let alone anything with substance.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Since you are out of town, I took the liberty to do the research Wyo2 is requesting. I couldn't find anything........... :mrgreen: o-||


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

OK..I will give you a short break. But, WTH are you doing posting on the hunting forum? Enjoy the vacation and the family!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Thanks Tree. I agree that it will be tough to find much on public areas. We seem to mess those areas up the most regarless of the state. I have seen studies that support it but the are along the lines of age class. Antler restriction to me is the common mans only option of regulating age class on public land. I really do not believe that it only puts pressure on one age class. You are really only protecting one age class of deer for one year. I believe there are other options that will work, however I agree with Goofy that short term on units it could be a great tool to help increase buck doe without taking oppurtunity.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Long lines WY!!!!! But I hear ya.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess that takes us back to social-isms. What should the buck to doe ratio be? 

Earlier you mentioned self regulating. I tend to believe that self regulation has been very successful. If deer were struggling due to breeding issues, I'd say otherwise. We are nowhere near critical B/D ratios statewide and there are only a few units that are approaching what is accepted as "critical" and one of them is a unit that's had 0 cougar harvest for many years. (Assuming Iron Bear didn't go Gary Busy in his spare time.)

IMO, the board needs the following and maybe goofy even falls under this category:

-At least one biologist and individuals with a propensity to listen to biologists, not the other "ist", that starts with a capital 'lobby'.

-Revamped structure that let's them maintain decision making authority, while creating a check and balance generated by more than the governors office or state government. It shouldn't be that difficult and they shouldn't have ultimate control, it's just too risky.

-Policy governing members and restricting what may be accepted as gifts etc. Their governing rules should be no different than any other high profile government position. 

-A well thought out structure that requires biological and sociological studies before major changes are made. No more shotgun, knee jerk approaches. Do the work and we'll accept the results.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> We are nowhere near critical B/D ratios statewide and there are only a few units that are approaching what is accepted as "critical" and one of them is a unit that's had 0 cougar harvest for many years.


I am assuming that the unit you are referring to is Monroe (If I am wrong, disregard). Just an FYI...since 1998, an average of 6 lions have been harvested by sportsmen. Although tags have been significantly reduced, there were always some tags. Also, some lions were killed by wildlife services and other lions were documented as dieing by other causes.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> It might as well be 3pt. or better on the Paunsaugunt and the Henry's.
> Except for the management hunts , and those 3 by's are 4 to 6+ year old bucks.
> AND I GARENTEE you less than 3% of the harvest are yearling bucks...
> 
> ...


Goofy you can't be serious!??! Comparing the pressure deer get on an LE unit to a general unit is like comparing apples to golf balls. The only reason self imposed antler restrics work on LE units is because we kill so few deer. In fact I would argue that the net effect of hunting on LE units is almost non-existant. If we were to kill the number of bucks on LE units that are killed on general units then all the studies everyone is trying to point out to you come into effect. Managing a unit for opportunity is a whole different ball game from managing for trophy bucks.

You seriously can't believe what you are saying on this subject can you??


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Coyote,
> How are you sure of this? I have seen it happen on the Fishlake with elk herd. It is no more false than to say hunters will self regulate. Believing otherwise will lead to the continued loss of our herds.


I assuming you are speaking to coyote's comment about the agenda of a particular group and where that agenda is taking us. Let me give you my points on why I am sure of this:

1 - In December of of 2010 a policy was passed that removed 13,000 tags from Utah deer hunting for NO BIOLOGICAL benefit. This leave only a social benefit. The only possible social benefit there could be is to follow the LE model in that having less hunters means bigger bucks. see my second point below for more. Majority did not support this

2 - In December of 2010 a policy was passed that increased the minimum buck to doe ratio AND change the way those units are "recovered" when they fall below that. No one has made any secret that the intention here is to improve the "quality" of a hunt. i.e. this means more and bigger bucks. Again this does NOT provide any biological benefit to the herd, it is a social issue only. Majority did not support this.

Those two items are scary. No biolocial benefit, social issue onl that the majority didn't support. Even if you support the changes tell me how in a logical mind this does not REEK of special interests ignoring the majority with no recourse for the masses?

Want more:

3 - How about the fact that Don openly tells everyone on MM that his goal is 100% success on hunts? Do you have any idea what conditions have to exist to meet that goal?

4- How about emails from Don to the state saying how we've ruined the Pavhant and age elk objectives need to be raised. Do you know what happens to the number of tagswhat age objectives are raised?

5 - Or how about swirling rumors that the morale at the DWR is horribly low because they feel no one lets them do their job and they are accused of sitting behind a computer and doing nothing all day.

You can shoose to argue with me simply because I am disagreeing with you OR you can look at the facts and reevaluate.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

I know of one person that posts on this site, that is in the process of filling out the forms right now. He will do a great job for the deer and the hunters, if he gets selected


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> IMO, the board needs the following and maybe goofy even falls under this category:
> 
> -At least one biologist and individuals with a propensity to listen to biologists, not the other "ist", that starts with a capital 'lobby'.
> 
> ...


+1, This is the core of the issue. While I'm sure that many if not all of our members being "nominated" are fine persons and may do a good job, if the underlying structure is broken, then we probably can expect the same results over the next few years.

I would maintain the first place to start would be to have the DWR head become a FULL voting member. I would also maintain that the DWR section head for the issue being discussed should also be allowed a vote. This would automatically provide a voice (and a vote) to what the biologists are saying and give the DWR some power in actually making policy that would serve as a check and balance for the civilian members. Likewise, if the DWR was totally off base, the civilians would still be able to override them.

"Their governing rules should be no different than any other high profile government position" This cannot be emphasized enough! It is absurd that it hasn't always been so.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Do Antler Point Restrictions work?
This entry was posted by admin on Friday, 9 May, 2008 at 
Whether antler point restrictions work or not depends on what you think the objective is. If the objective is for hunters to see more mature bucks while hunting, then it works. If the objective is to increase buck harvest or to improve herd genetics, then maybe it doesn't.

http://muledeerfanatic.com/2008/05/09/d ... ions-work/

Here's one done on white tails in Texas recently,,,,,,Not mules, but interesting.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wi ... trictions/

South Dakota mules & white tail both...

http://www.gf.nd.gov/multimedia/ndoutdo ... -sides.pdf


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Still waiting....we are talking public land and mule deer. The third link is NOT a study and actually refutes that APRs work for mule deer (interestingly, I have posted this link many times myself).


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Pennsylvania seams to believe they are working....

http://www.lhup.edu/smarvel/Seminar/FAL ... s_2/PA.htm


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Missouri says "they work"..

http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2008/09/experi ... n?page=0,2


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Pennsylvania seams to believe they are working....
> 
> http://www.lhup.edu/smarvel/Seminar/FAL ... s_2/PA.htm


I would not call that working, their herd is dimishing!

http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=3156



> PA: *Deer Harvest Down 8 Percent, Lowest in 23 Years*By Justin McDaniel Published: 3/23/2010
> 
> The Pennsylvania Game Commission reported on Monday that hunters harvested an estimated 308,920 deer in the state's 2009-10 seasons, which is an 8 percent decline from the 335,850 deer harvested in 2008-09.
> 
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hmmmm....I didn't realize that missouri or pennsylvania had mule deer. My bad.... :roll:

Again, I am waiting for a study done on* mule deer* and on public land...for 9 millionth time, APR regulations on mule deer have NEVER worked.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Did you bother to read any of the links? I'm casting WB position vote for someone with at least average comprehension skills. You others can jump in bed with someone who's first goal is to be right.

From the ND article you presented:

Many state wildlife agencies have tried some or all of 
these schemes with varying degrees ofsuccess.In 
Tennessee,the Wildlife Resources Agency established a 
deer management program based on antler restrictions 
ofa minimum four points on a side,at a large state 
wildlife management area.*The area is only open to 
archery hunting*,and in the first few years ofthe restric- 
tions the harvest of2.5-year-old bucks nearly doubled, 
from 70 in 1997 to 120 in 2002. 
Hunter participation also increased over that time, 
while overall buck harvest decreased about 50 percent. 
The bottom line,at least there,seems to be that more 
hunters were willing to sacrifice overall harvest opportu- 
nity in exchange for a better chance to bag a larger buck.

Several western states,however,had different experi- 
ences with antler restriction zones,especially during rifle 
seasons when deer are often shot at when they are far 
away or running and antler points or spread is not easily 
determined.California,Oregon,Nevada,Utah,Colorado 
and Montana all tried and dropped antler point restric- 
tions in the last couple ofdecades because *studies 
revealed that illegal kill was from 40 to 100 percent ofthe 
legal kill. 
In other words,for every 100 legal bucks taken,anoth- 
er 40 to 100 were killed and abandoned because they 
didn't meet the minimum standards. *
Some western states still have some type oftrophy or 
quality management zones,but the preferred method is 
limiting the number ofbuck licenses,without antler 
restrictions.

Goofy, I'm not sure where you are going with this. Antler restrictions at best, increase buck numbers. WE DON"T HAVE A BUCK SHORTAGE! They also reduce the number and increase pressure on bucks that are 2.5+. Works great on whitetail herds that number in the millions and have buck to doe ratios that look more like Utah's elk herds.

Here's a snapshot analogy of the last 2 or so pages:

Poster #1: Goofy, do you know a good recipe for cabbage soup?

Goofy: The answer is 3 spark plugs and 1 hour of of American Idol.

Poster #1: I'm not sure I understand, what are the ingredients?

Goofy: I like the number 9 and the smell of the sidewalk in a summer rain.

Poster #1: I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever even cooked cabbage soup?

Goofy: I killed 67 elk in my sleep last night.

Poster #1: Does anyone have any liquor handy?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tree,,,here's my point.

On units that are short season hunts ,,BECOUSE of low buck to doe ratios,
I think antler restrictions would be a far better tool to increase these ratios
ans NOT use restricted season dates that just move hunters to other units..

And yes I read them, And yes there are some negative results from A/R..

But they do show to increase the Buck to doe ratios,,
Which is the point of Utah having units with shortened seasons,, that I think sucks..


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> On units that are short season hunts ,,BECOUSE of low buck to doe ratios,
> 
> But they do show to increase the Buck to doe ratios,,


uhhhh...NO, they do NOT!
"The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife admitted futility of antler rules in the state's 1987 big game regulations.A breif anouncement stated that after 12 years of a four-point-and -larger regulation in South Steens Mountains, the legal harvest had plummeted 50 percent *and buck ratios had declined 30 percent.*

"Point restrictions have always been a disaster," said Len Carpenter, wildlife research leader for Colarado Division of Wildlife.Regulating harvest with 4 point restrictions is a fallacy; it has never worked anywhere in the West.''

Rudy Drobnick recently retired as wildlife program coordinator for Utah Division of Wildlife Resourses said 3 point or better rules cause a gradual increase of small-antlered deer due to selective removal of large-antlered deer.

Antler shape, size, number of the points and total configuration is genetically controlled, and only secondarily influenced by age, nutrition, weather and disease. "In Utah, if we had continued to harvest the largest-antlered bucks because of three-point-or-better requirement, the smaller-antlered bucks would have been protected and would increase in population. "Only one in 50,000 to 100,000 bucks will ever become a candidate for Boone &Crockett. Normally, the B&C buck would have been a yearling with two or three points. By yearling, I mean a buck that is 16-18 months old are mature. A yearling has the potential to carry four points with the proper genetic predisposition.

He said that professional and personal attitudes must change for Western states to maintain large-antlered mule deer.

Wyoming has had it share of point restriction, and have not pleased Harry Harju, the supervisor of biological services with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

"Greys River was one of your so called trophy deer areas until we placed a four-point-or-better deer season on it for eight years. "During that eight-year period, hunter success dropped from 60 percent to 18 percent. The outfitters in that area wanted to hunt the big bucks up high, so an earlier season with point restrictions was implemented. During the later season, the number of does and small bucks harvested remained virtually the same for the entire eight years.

"*Not only did the number of trophy animals decline, but the average size of their racks did as well.* If your goal is to discourage hunters, we have found that a four-point-or better restriction will cut the numbers in half. Fish and Game departments cannot afford to lose any more political support from hunters; we need them. But as far as point restrictions with the end being quality hunting, the public has been sold a bill of goods."

*In short, point restrictions do not promote better fawn production, nor do they produce a surplus of larger animals. Instead, they increase hunting pressure on the older age class of animals and quite possible ruin the gene pool in the process. With such weighty evidence that point restrictons are useless, why do they persist?*"

From an article written by Albert Yendes


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy, I agree and so do the the biologists from the division, that shortened seasons aren't the answer. Tag restrictions and reduced buck harvest on units that are below B/D objective are the answer. Shortened seasons don't reduce harvest enough to make a dent. As your ND study suggested, antler restrictions are bad medicine in the west and a 40% accidental shooting of restricted animals statewide would stand to be more detrimental than anything.

How many times you gonna rebuild the engine on a sled because the track won't turn before you check the clutch and belt? The engine has been rebuilt and it wasn't the problem. Let's move on to other possibilities before winter is over.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Which is the point of Utah having units with shortened seasons,, that I think sucks..


Interestingly, though, this is a product of the SFW boys....not the DWR. The DWR has shown time and again that shortened seasons do NOT decrease the number of bucks killed; only tag reductions will do this.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Goofy, I agree and so do the the biologists from the division, that shortened seasons aren't the answer. Tag restrictions and reduced buck harvest on units that are below B/D objective are the answer. Shortened seasons don't reduce harvest enough to make a dent. As your ND study suggested, antler restrictions are bad medicine in the west and a 40% accidental shooting of restricted animals statewide would stand to be more detrimental than anything.
> 
> How many times you gonna rebuild the engine on a sled because the track won't turn before you check the clutch and belt? The engine has been rebuilt and it wasn't the problem. Let's move on to other possibilities before winter is over.


That would be the gear box,,,  I know, I've blow'n a few.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Which is the point of Utah having units with shortened seasons,, that I think sucks..
> ...


I believe that puts us dead on option 2,,,,Unit management, reduced tags.

So that's how we fix those units??

Imagine that...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow, that certainly strays from deductive reasoning, or reason altogether.

Maybe slower typing and phonetics will do the trick; 

The ho'l stay't is not be-lo ub-jek-tiv, 3 yoo-nits ar. op-shun too is a stay't wyd plan and ree-doooses tags in thee uth-r twe-ntee siks yoo-nits that hav hell-thee buk to doe ra-shee-owes.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

Dustin...Dustin!!! Where are you?? I need you to translate something for me!!


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Sooo, Goofy is a confirmed, nominated candidate for the WB? Is that correct, and he was nominated by the "Guides Association", is that correct? OK, could someone please post his name so we, members of this forum and also readers of this forum, can register our approval or disapproval to the nominating committee/Gov's office. I believe that members of this forum have a very good insight into Goofy's views and beliefs and if we really want to take part in this process, we need to contact these people and give them our views and opinions on candidate Goofy...he is now a public figure...what is his name?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

BP,,You have a PM..


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

NHS, you have a PM.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

Roger that Tree. You will have a PM at 1500 hrs.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

At 1500 I usually have a BM. Does that have anything to do with Goofy's nomination?


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Wow, that certainly strays from deductive reasoning, or reason altogether.
> 
> Maybe slower typing and phonetics will do the trick;
> 
> The ho'l stay't is not be-lo ub-jek-tiv, 3 yoo-nits ar. op-shun too is a stay't wyd plan and ree-doooses tags in thee uth-r twe-ntee siks yoo-nits that hav hell-thee buk to doe ra-shee-owes.


I NOMINATE Tree for the wildlife board and the bord huf ejucatshon!

Seriously Tree, have you given it any consideration?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy, Antler Restrictions doesnt work, Goofy antler restrictions doesn't work, Goofy, antler restrictions doesn't work

*Write this down 100 times*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy since you haven't hunted deer for 14 years then lets talk elk because your more of an elk guy.

Goofy, image if we had 4 point or better antler restrictions on elk to increase the bull ratio and also more mature bulls in the herd. We would shoot out the mature bulls and what we would have left is raghorns. This won't increase the bull herd because any bull that begins to branch it's 4 point on either side is on the ground. 

So basically you have fewer mature bulls and the ratio of bulls doesn't increase.

Before you use Colorado as a success story then also keep in mind they have a ton more elk than Utah does.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

This thread's going all over the place! :lol: 

Okay...shortened seasons. There are many ways to manipulate hunters and hunting pressure. Reducing tag allotments is a dumb way to do it. A smarter way, (just one of several), was included in the 2008 management plan. That plan included automatic shortened seasons for units with B/D ratios below 15/100. But the idea behind that trigger was NOT that a shortened season reduced buck harvest. The idea was that a shortened season flagged a unit as an area with relatively few bucks and therefore discouraged hunters from hunting on that unit. THAT is what reduces buck harvest. I've personally witnessed it to be the case and the numbers support what I've witnessed. (South Nebo) But notice, no actual reduction in permits was needed to provide the necessary reduction in harvest on those units.

Unfortunately, the Board took the trigger to mean that a shortened season would reduce harvest. So they shortened the season statewide and in doing so, removed any discouragement on units below objective. Unfortunate that they didn't give the 2008 management plan any chance to show results. Unfortunate that they discourage hunting.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> This thread's going all over the place! :lol:
> 
> Okay...shortened seasons. There are many ways to manipulate hunters and hunting pressure. Reducing tag allotments is a dumb way to do it. A smarter way, (just one of several), was included in the 2008 management plan. That plan included automatic shortened seasons for units with B/D ratios below 15/100. But the idea behind that trigger was NOT that a shortened season reduced buck harvest. The idea was that a shortened season flagged a unit as an area with relatively few bucks and therefore discouraged hunters from hunting on that unit. THAT is what reduces buck harvest. I've personally witnessed it to be the case and the numbers support what I've witnessed. (South Nebo) But notice, no actual reduction in permits was needed to provide the necessary reduction in harvest on those units.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Board took the trigger to mean that a shortened season would reduce harvest. So they shortened the season statewide and in doing so, removed any discouragement on units below objective. Unfortunate that they didn't give the 2008 management plan any chance to show results. Unfortunate that they discourage hunting.


Yeah they tried that on the lasal mts. for more years then nebo. It didnt do anything to discourage people from hunting that mountain. It had a 5 day hunt for years and still had just as many people hunting it as you would any where els in the state. People are still going to hunt where they want regardless of length of hunt.


----------

