# EMAILS for deer. It matters.



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey folks. If you have an opinion on deer hunting and opportunity, or lack thereof. Be sure to send an email to the division wildlife managers, RAC and board by Feb. 29.

The division will be using the public input they receive to make their buck to doe ratio recommendations in the next two months. This could have a huge impact on tag numbers and whether or not you get a tag.

From the open houses, we have noticed that there are a vocal minority that are pushing for B ratios as high as 40/100 and many that are pushing 25-30/100.

I spoke with several at the division and the bottom line is that if we were to manage for 30/100, we would lose well over 50,000 tags.

If you are ok with that, that is your prerogative and let it be known. If not, let that be known as well. The division is asking what the public would prefer, in combination or across the board: 15-17 or 18-20. Lower and higher suggestions are accepted as well. If you would like, send them unit by unit recommendations.

Several bios I talked to last night said that 10-12 is a biologically acceptable preference.

Go figure.

Here are some emails addresses to send your wishes to. You can copy and paste in the "To:" section of your email:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Done!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

fyi........

[email protected]

is wrong


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Done...

BTW I had to insert a ; instead of commas so if you are the same you can copy and paste this one:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

Just sent a very nice letter to them, and so have my brothers and dad!! I also emailed all my friends that hunt about this as well.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Done.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
A vocal minority??? Because there is no possible way that the majority would think different than you or the other "we have to hunt every year crowd"? 

The wording on that post pretty much sums up this battle. There are really no more than two vocal minorities. Yet they both claim to be the voice of the silent 70,000. 

Biologist claiming 10/12 bucks are the under the same roof that has destroyed the Fishlake elk herd and Parker Pronghorn herds. If the state actually dropped to 10/12 bucks and left tags general tags at 87,000 you would be issueing almost triple the amount of tags as you have actual bucks!!!! I'm sorry but that sounds like a pretty biologically irresponsible plan!!!


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

DONE!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

the vocal ones are always the minority aren't they?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

40:100 ratios aren't a minority opinion? I think it's a fair estimate. But, some may have contempt for the word "fair". 

Have a nice day, Cody.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Tree,
> A vocal minority??? Because there is no possible way that the majority would think different than you or the other "we have to hunt every year crowd"?


I would think 40:100 would be the irresponsible plan... I'm sure they are the vocal minority. C'mon, do we really want all the units to be 40:100 or even 30:100 (not to mention focusing on the bucks doesn't give true growth to the herd).

I'm glad the UWC is asking everyone (go back and read the post) to submit input. Hopefully some of those 70,000 will send emails (which was the intent of the original post). :O•-:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
The games we play my friend, the games we play!!! 

Judd,
Tree knows why I posted, the idea to ask hunters to send in their response was a good idea. I wonder where he got the idea??? Also explain the biological irresponsiblity of 40/100??? That sure seems closer to what Mother Nature would have rather than 10/100??? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Several bios I talked to last night said that 10-12 is a biologically acceptable preference.


You could probably also find some bios that have a greatly differing opinion.

It puzzles me when I keep hearing "biologically" when it comes to what the ratio should be. To me I would think the "biological" ratio should be closer to where it naturally would be without man hunting them. I assume fawns come out around 50% male/50% female so the natural BD rate would be somewhere between 1:2 to 1:1. I think we see that in areas where there is no hunting. If we want to manage the deer herd like a herd of cattle or a deer farm just being worried about pregnancy rates then ya, maybe the lower ratio would work(in the short term at least). Long term we may see unintended consequences by going against what nature intended it to be. Maybe the does aren't getting enough romance from the few mature bucks and it makes them unhappy. Happy does make better milk, right?  Poor example, but point is we don't know for sure how lower than natural BD ratios will effect the species short and long term. Some can do studies and write papers and pass it off as science, but remember our understanding of science does evolve with better knowledge. I do believe and understand the resources are for our use, so I'm in favor of us using them. Main point: both sides of this coin are SOCIAL issues and preferences not "biological" in my opinion. I just happen to like the higher ratios because I like to* see* and hunt *more* mature bucks. If that effects how long I have to wait to hunt or the cost of the tag, so be it.

Yes, I emailed my *preferences* to the bios.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

flinger said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Several bios I talked to last night said that 10-12 is a biologically acceptable preference.
> ...


Agreed. There is a threshold of biological irresponsibility, that's what I would refer to. This whole thing is social.

Get your opinion in, no matter what it is. High, low or in between.

Have a nice day, Cody.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Tree, I appreciate you incouraging people to give THEIR opinions. At times the UWN gets to be a screaming match for people when one doesn't share the same opinions. I applaud you asking people to speak up wether they agree with you or not.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Sorry, but you missed the following RAC chairs: Floyd Briggs,NE [email protected]; Fred Oswald,Central [email protected]; Derris Jones,SE [email protected]; Robert Byrnes,Northern [email protected].

Also: Central RAC member Tim Fehr: [email protected] (He has a filter and you have to ask his permission to email him.)


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

suave300 said:


> fyi........
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> is wrong


It's actually [email protected] which is on the list.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Tree,

Thanks for the update and putting a list together. I've sent mine off. Hopefully some good comes of it. Let the psycho hunters attend the meetings. Maybe people with lives can be heard through e-mail.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

provider said:


> Tree,
> 
> Thanks for the update and putting a list together. I've sent mine off. Hopefully some good comes of it. Let the psycho hunters attend the meetings. Maybe people with lives can be heard through e-mail.


Most of the people there last night were UWC members and myself included. :O•-: 
I commented to the Biologist that I would rather hunt a nine day season every two or three years than a 3 day hunt every year and he completly agreed that a lot of people feel the same way.
I was a little frustrated with the appearance of so many UWC members butting in and making comments against the comments from other people(myself included) that didn't go with their beliefs. I thought it was real funny when Nambaster was telling the Biologist that it would be better for the herds, if the buck to doe ratio was a lot lower than 15-17 or 18-20 ranges that are being talked about and the Biologist (Tom) said that's not always true and it is not working on the West Desert herds but Nambaster keep trying to argue his point, but,but,but we need more oppertunity. :lol:
If you guys want to open the floodgates on the units East of I-15, that's fine with me but the West Desert herds and bucks need help and relief from all the pressure(from hunters and predators)..


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Ridge,
Intresting post, thanks for sharing!!!!!


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I was there last night as well. It was a good time. The biologist bent over backwards to inform me and also loved seeing i brought the family. My little girl even recieved a bunch of wildlife pictures from the head of the dedicated hunter program. The only member of the UWC i knew was Jason but i don't know his handle on here. I didn't get to socialize because of another engagment, i wish i could have. I need to get better at faces and names and internet names


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> provider said:
> 
> 
> > . I thought it was real funny when Nambaster was telling the Biologist that it would be better for the herds, if the buck to doe ratio was a lot lower than 15-17 or 18-20 ranges that are being talked about and the Biologist (Tom) said that's not always true and it is not working on the West Desert herds but Nambaster keep trying to argue his point, but,but,but we need more oppertunity. :lol:
> > If you guys want to open the floodgates on the units East of I-15, that's fine with me but the West Desert herds and bucks need help and relief from all the pressure(from hunters and predators)..


Well, he must have listened to you and the division. I saw his email to the division and it had a fairly hefty buck to doe ratio on the west desert.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> Most of the people there last night were UWC members and myself included. :O•-:
> I commented to the Biologist that I would rather hunt a nine day season every two or three years than a 3 day hunt every year and he completly agreed that a lot of people feel the same way.
> I was a little frustrated with the appearance of so many UWC members butting in and making comments against the comments from other people(myself included) that didn't go with their beliefs. I thought it was real funny when Nambaster was telling the Biologist that it would be better for the herds, if the buck to doe ratio was a lot lower than 15-17 or 18-20 ranges that are being talked about and the Biologist (Tom) said that's not always true and it is not working on the West Desert herds but Nambaster keep trying to argue his point, but,but,but we need more oppertunity. :lol:
> If you guys want to open the floodgates on the units East of I-15, that's fine with me but the West Desert herds and bucks need help and relief from all the pressure(from hunters and predators)..


Ridge,

I'm real glad to have finally met you, wish I could have stayed longer to chat with you. I'll touch bases with you soon. Sorry you felt the UWC guys were butting in, I'm certain it wasn't their intent to do so. As far as how many UWC members were there, it's all relative in the scheme of things. Down south at a couple of meetings, the UWC guys were out numbered by as much as 5/6 to one by other org(s) :shock:

Anyway, I'm glad you were able to make your points to the bio's there, and I wish more folks would take the time to go to these events as you did, though I understand how hectic life can be for many.

Maybe Muley73 will tell me "interesting post, and thanks for sharing" too! :mrgreen:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > provider said:
> ...


Who's e-mail to the DWR did you see? I'm lost. 
Stillhunter, it was good to see so many familar faces there. I think it's a great idea to have UWC heads out to these meeting and gathering info. about where the public stands.
I have a lot of respect for you guys putting as much time as you do towards your cause.
It's going to get real interesting in the next month or so.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Still,
Post something intresting and I sure will.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Still,
> Post something intresting and I sure will.


 :O•-:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Tree,
> A vocal minority??? Because there is no possible way that the majority would think different than you or the other "we have to hunt every year crowd"?
> 
> The wording on that post pretty much sums up this battle. There are really no more than two vocal minorities. Yet they both claim to be the voice of the silent 70,000.


Division surveys suggest there are majority opinions on the matter.....and I know you what you would likely say to that but remember SFW themselves have acknowledged those numbers in their recent tour de Utah and the surveys have said the same since the 70's.



Muley73 said:


> Judd,
> Tree knows why I posted, the idea to ask hunters to send in their response was a good idea. I wonder where he got the idea???


Muley,

For the record we UWC sent out an email to their membership over a week ago calling on them to email their opinions.......so UWC thanks you for the compliment although I'm sure that wasn't likely your intention. This wasn't an idea we just hatched last night.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

flinger said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Several bios I talked to last night said that 10-12 is a biologically acceptable preference.
> ...


Flinger good post. The buck to doe ratios we are discussing and the ranges we are discussing has virtually no biological impact. It's all a social thing and why input is so critical. I can understand your views on the subject 100%.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

bull,
I know when the idea was hatched and that is fine. From the reports I have heard the numbers coming in are intresting. 

Let me throw this scenario out just for kicks. 

The feed back ends up stating that the Southern Units would like to see a higher than 18-25 ratio. The central and Northern Units show they are ok with 10-12 ratio. So tags are given and the DWR trys to please the sportsmen. The Wasatch, Cache, Nebo, Ogden, Stanbury units ect, ect, get over run with hunters. Ratios drop even lower...on the public land in those areas. Lets remember that there is a lot of private on this units. The private will continue to yeild decent numbers for the unit when they are counted in the winter. So even though the numbers stay decent most of those bucks will never be huntable on public land. So your actual buck to doe on the public land more than likely will less than what the DWR will report. 

Does the UWC then support tag cuts in those units, or do they support pushing more hunters onto the units that are at 18-25 bucks? Remember this is a social issue and to beging with hunters in the Southern, Southeastern and Northeastern have asked for higher ratios. They have supported that in RAC meetings, WB meetings and Open Houses. They are the psychos with free time... I guess... according to Provider. Does the UWC support those sportsmen or do they fight to continue to keep the bulk of their membership with a tag in pocket every year????

One more scenario to ponder.

DWRs current deer count is 293,000 deer. If you take away the deer that reside on private and unhuntable land you actually probably only have 250,000 or less deer. 10 buck per 100 does would give you a total of 25,000 huntable bucks. Yet if we continued to issue the same number of tags which is 87,000...I believe? We would only need to have a 30% success rate to shoot almost every buck in the herd. WOW, that is a pretty scary thought!!!!! Just a scenario Im sure we would never really do that.....would we??? 

I am sure you will have a great answer for me, Im looking forward to it. But I hope every person that reads this will set back and think a little bit about what may happen on the unit that they love to hunt. 10-12 bucks per hundered doe is not a really high number. Heck many dont believe the overall or buck numbers the DWR claims now. Think about how bad it would look if numbers dropped. If you are ok with your hunting area being overrun with hunters year in and year out, then by all means put a low number down. There should be little doubt that the DWR will sell tags to match your request. But for me I guess I would rather error on the side of caution.



Respectfully,
Cody Christensen


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Hmmm...

I remember when I was just a little kid, there were a couple of guys who would run up the mountain on Wednesday. On their way, they'd block the drain pipe for a roadside spring and turn the water down a steep section of that single track dirt road. By Friday when most other hunters tried to get on the mountain, the first outfit without 4WD would spin out, blocking the road and keeping a good number of hunters out of the area. After a couple years of this, some folks did what was necessary to catch them in the act and beat the living tar out of them.

Then about 10 years ago, I was helping a guy find his LE bull on the Manti. We spotted a monster just before dark and met some other hunters on our way out. The next morning, we headed out on the ATV trail only to find a big pine across the trail, too big to move without a chainsaw. It took some heavy talking to get my buddy back into the hunt - he wanted to spend the day tracking those guys down instead.

Times have changed, I guess. "Social issue" is a cute euphemism. The reality is somewhat less noble because it's one thing to say, "I'm willing to stay home..." and entirely something else to say, "I want to keep you home..." Comparable when instead of saying "I don't hunt." antis say, "I don't want anyone else to hunt, either."

So I know where I stand, here.

And here was me thinking Utah is a Republican state. :lol:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> I know when the idea was hatched and that is fine. From the reports I have heard the numbers coming in are intresting.
> 
> Let me throw this scenario out just for kicks.
> ...


Cody, I'd like to shake your hand sometime and say thanks for all you and your dad have done. I really respect your line of thinking.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> I remember when I was just a little kid, there were a couple of guys who would run up the mountain on Wednesday. On their way, they'd block the drain pipe for a roadside spring and turn the water down a steep section of that single track dirt road. By Friday when most other hunters tried to get on the mountain, the first outfit without 4WD would spin out, blocking the road and keeping a good number of hunters out of the area. After a couple years of this, some folks did what was necessary to catch them in the act and beat the living tar out of them.
> 
> ...


Finn, have you lost your mind? I used to respect some of your comments but it seems like anymore, you do nothing more than bash and use poor analogys. Maybe you should use your last story and pass it along to the WB, that should help your cause.
PS, keep up the good work with the youth but stay out of politics.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Oh Fin buddy you do live in a Republican state. That's why the DWR is funded the way they are. Pay to play. If the DWR was not funded by license sales it would be interesting to see how things would be???

I said make your choice, be just be careful what you wish for, you might just get it? Just dont cry when the results aren't what you hoped for. 

BTW I guess I don't see the correlation between my scenarios and you law breaking poor ethics scenarios?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> 
> Let me throw this scenario out just for kicks.


Cody,

The scenarios that you throw out are not possible. Let me explain.

I think it's very important that hunters understand that no matter what the buck to doe ratio objectives are there are calculations that take place to determine the number of hunters there should be in a region/unit. All the "opportunity vs. trophy" discussions happen when the objectives are set but when it's time to determine tags numbers it's all business and nothing more than mathmatical calculations. This only changes when special interest groups with an agenda show up at RAC and WB meetings. The idea is to have just enough hunters to maintain the desired buck to doe ratios. If the ratios drop below objectives then tags are cut. If ratios rise above objectives then tags are increased.

It's a simple formula that is used on every unit in the state that is managed to a buck to doe ratio. The same formula is used whether the objective is 12 or 40. The DWR will not open the flood gates on any unit and then shift hunters to another unit if ratios drop regardless of the objectives. The division doesn't "shift" hunters. This is simply just not how it works and the scenarios you threw out are simply not possible. The same calculations will be used to determine the correct number of hunters to have on a unit and we all know that the WB makes the final decision.

Is it possible that buck to doe ratios can drop below objectives? Absolutely! It happens but the same triggers are in place to restore those ratios to target no matter the target.

All we are discussing is a number that best serves Utah hunters in the way of creating the right balance of opportunity and antlers on GENERAL units and we all know that's all this discussion boils down to. We are not talking about "hunting every year", we are not talking about issuing so many tags that we shoot almost every buck in the herd. We are just talking about a number to manage to, nothing more. If we aren't properly managing to what ever that number is determined to be I, and UWC, will be among the first to cry foul whether the number is 12 or 25.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Finn, have you lost your mind? I used to respect some of your comments...


Dang it...just when I was starting to feel good about myself, too.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> I know when the idea was hatched and that is fine. From the reports I have heard the numbers coming in are intresting.
> 
> Let me throw this scenario out just for kicks.
> ...


10/100, really? You're throwing that red herring out there, as if that's a number that is being pushed?

Just so we are clear. UWC recommendations look like a mix, though it be weighted to the lower side, of 15-17 and 18-20.

Bringing the top end down from 25 to 20 was the first goal and the second was to be comprehensive about management objectives. Yes, there is absolutely a segment that want higher buck to doe ratios. We and everyone else involved on our end gets that.

To the absolute contrary, we get what Finn was eluding to with his horribly, nastified, grossly over-stated analogy which he should be ashamed and scorned for in the 2010 18-25 blanket management. Manage the whole state according to the wishes of some. Those some were and still are absolutely ok with forcing their ideals on everyone.

Lastly, and I know it was a scenario for "kicks". But I think there is more weight to it, at least in the eyes of some, when it is eluded to that if units fall within a specific region, the tenants of that region should have control and say over management there. It's the exact same scenario as Del Brady leading the charge on NE sportsmen wanting deer tags on the bookcliffs cut. Why on earth would these folks have any more weight than anyone else? Are they that ignorant to think that people from the basin are the only ones who apply for, draw and hunt the bookcliffs? Are they even half of that number? 25%? 10%? Closer to ten is probably accurate. But they have the gaul and ignorance to think that because they live close to the books that they somehow should be the end all in its management? Pay no attention to 80% of residents living along the front, they just pay taxes and are the majority. They got they heads up they ass.

Great idea. Let's start doing that. Residents of Centerville and Farmington can be in charge of Farmington Bay regulations. (That'll keep those inbred, small town swamp people from scaring their women and children when they pick up their mountain Dew and Copenhagen on the way to the swamp while people are simply pumping their gas to get to church.Eeeeww.) Residents of Salt Lake can be in charge of the WF extended. (I'm sure they will be happy to regulate "outsider" hunting) Residents of Delta can regulate the snow goose hunt (No need for them Northern city folk to come down and shoot "their" geese and swipe up their women to fill them full of their liberal devilish ways.) On the bright side, residents around Richfield, Glenmoore and Marysvale can be at their day jobs, indoctrinating our children in the classroom, about the dangers of those outsiders and how we fought the battle for seclusion and sovereignty and won!

It'll be fun for sportsmen to drive down hwy 89 and get stares from residents just like they were driving through Colorado City on a Sunday afternoon. It's like a little mini-vacation!

This is of course all hyperbole, but be careful what think is fact may end up being a facade and all you'll be left with is anger and the opportunity to hunt, even in the independent nation that exists below the Payson/Dixon line..


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Great post Tree....


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

Right on Tree!!!

Email sent.


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

I'd just like to say that I have no idea what buck/doe ratios should be. I'm not a biologist, nor am I going to pretend to be. Also, I live in the NE region and have nearly all my life. And in all my 33 years I have been to the book cliffs 3 times. All in the last year driving the tow truck for work to pick up broken down trucks. I did see a lot of deer down there. But what I saw were massive 2 and 3 points. Why aren't there management buck tags for this area? From what I hear, that's all that's down there. And from my limited experience that's all I've seen. Yes there are still big bucks, but there are a lot of bucks that should be culled. At least that's what I'm getting from people I talk to. And if it were all about the "mighty trophy" then this should be the way to go.

I'm not a hunter for the all mighty trophy. I've hunted as much as I could my whole life. I got my first buck ever a few years ago. A "measly" 19" wide 3x4. I would love to shoot a two point. Jerky tastes good. I'd even shoot a spike. I don't think I need to hunt every year, but I do think that the years I do I should be able to find bucks, regardless of their antler size.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm not really sure what we should be emailing these people for?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
Lol!!! You know the North and Central population mass usually gets their way over the scary swamp people. However the locals will usually have a better knowledge of the status of the deer herds in their areas. I'm just saying be careful what you wish for when you are marking down numbers. Guess we will see how the cookie crumbles????? 

10-12 ratio was a number that came out of your mouth, I was just throwing out that it is a scary number when you look at the big picture. 30-40 is a scary number if you want to hunt every year, I'll concede to that. But numbers like 10/100 and losing the deer herd is a lot scarier to me. I know I know bucks don't have fawns, but I'm almost postive they are needed in the process???

Bull,
I sure hope that happens when units fall below objective. Never say never. Again I guess I'd rather error on the side of caution. It makes me smile when you claim I don't understand. The real issues is I understand all too well how this game of smoke and mirrors works!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Tree,
> Lol!!! You know the North and Central population mass usually gets their way over the scary swamp people. However the locals will usually have a better knowledge of the status of the deer herds in their areas. I'm just saying be careful what you wish for when you are marking down numbers. Guess we will see how the cookie crumbles?????
> 
> 10-12 ratio was a number that came out of your mouth, I was just throwing out that it is a scary number when you look at the big picture. 30-40 is a scary number if you want to hunt every year, I'll concede to that. But numbers like 10/100 and losing the deer herd is a lot scarier to me. I know I know bucks don't have fawns, but I'm almost postive they are needed in the process???


I'm glad you laughed, that was partly my intention. We all get a bit bent out of shape at each other with our differing opinions and agendas, but we're all just human beings looking to be happy.

There's a balance and I think it takes quite a bit of jostling to get there. The jostling has to start somewhere, whether it be 10/100 or 50/100. I personally think 10 is too low, especially to keep hunters happy. (It came out of someone else's mouth, I just relayed it) I'd like to see 15-17 statewide on general units, but I too concede. I concede to some that want higher ratios, so my philosophy in relation to the entire state is that we should be about 70% 15-17 and 30% 18-20. Of course I don't take LE units into account, which can also be put under the high buck to doe ratio crowd's umbrella.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Interestingly one representative replied to me and said I was part of a "growing" number of people against higher buck to doe ratios? I doubt our numbers are "growing", I think we are being forced to speak up or watch the general hunt turn into a limited entry hunt.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

provider said:


> Interestingly one representative replied to me and said I was part of a "growing" number of people against higher buck to doe ratios? I doubt our numbers are "growing", I think we are being forced to speak up or watch the general hunt turn into a limited entry hunt.


Very good point.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

provider said:


> Interestingly one representative replied to me and said I was part of a "growing" number of people against higher buck to doe ratios? I doubt our numbers are "growing", I think we are being forced to speak up or watch the general hunt turn into a limited entry hunt.


I think our numbers are growing! At a very calm, pleasant meeting I attended in Moab in behalf of UWC, there were 3 RMEF reps and 1 SFW rep there and all of them (and the DWR people) voted to accept UWC's recommended unit B/D ratios in the SE Region as presented. And the only discussion that differed from the figures was a discussion about LOWERING the ratios. The SFW rep even said the 25 B/D ratio was an LE ratio and shouldn't be considered for a general unit.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Would someone mind posting up UWC recommended B/D ratios for the state? I'm interested to see where a couple units are placed. Thanks.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Northern Region
Box Elder - 18-20
Cache - 15-17
Ogden - 15-17
Morg-S Rich/E Cyn/Chalk Crk - 18-20

Central Region
Cent Mtn,Nebo - 15-17
Wasatch Mtn,West - 18-20
Oquirrh-Stans - 15-17
W Desert,Tintic - 15-17
W Desert,West - 15-17

NE Region
Kamas - 18-20
N Slope - 18-20
S Slope,Yellowstn - 15-17
S Slope,Vernal/Bon - 15-17
Wasatch Mtn,CurrentCrk/Avin - 15-17

SE Region
Cent Mtn,Manti/San Rafael - 15-17
Nine Mile - 18-20
La Sal - 15-17
San Juan - 15-17

Southern Region
Beaver - 18-20
Oak Crk - 18-20
Pahvant - 15-17
Monroe - 15-17
Mt Dutton - 15-17
Panguitch Lk - 15-17
Pine Vlly - 18-20
Plat,Boulder/Kaipar - 15-17
Plat,Fishlake - 15-17
Plat,Thous Lks - 18-20
SW Desert - 15-17
Zion - !8-20


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Elk,

Your post "calms" me. I fully expected SFW to be pushing higher. Can I go back to hibernation now?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Provider,
Thanks for the input. Us psychos will take it from here, while you worry about important stuff. :lol:


----------



## rdoggsilva (Apr 6, 2011)

Done


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm sure some units have satisfactory buck doe ratio socially as well as biologically. But other units certainly need some help. Henry's Pausn Vernon ect. :mrgreen: 

But an all out war on deer is not the answer to our problems. It's about time the Don and the WB put an end to it with option 2.

I've gotten to the point (it was a long journey) I'd rather see some deer (bucks) and not hunt them but once every 3 yrs. Then hunt every yr and only see a hanful of baby bucks and see only one mature buck every 3 yrs.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

And that's absolutely a prerogative you are entitled to.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Did I mention my opinion is reserved only to the Monroe unit. The rest of the state can do as they wish for all I care.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I sent an email. My recommendation was for 15-17 in all units except a few that I mentioned specifically. 15-17 is a lot of bucks for a post-hunt count. That probably equates to around 25-30 before the hunt starts. If you can't find a buck with those numbers you're either not seeing many deer or you're not getting off the road. And if you're not seeing deer, changing the ratio isn't going to help.


----------



## HunterDavid (Sep 10, 2007)

Interestingly, I sent an email out yesterday to the list provided. In the last 36 hours, I have had two reponses from Craig Van Tassell and Richard Hirst, thanking me for the email. Don't know if my opinion will matter, but it made me feel like the two of them will at least take it into consideration.  

HunterDavid


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

same here. I appreciated the return responses.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Done!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Did I mention my opinion is reserved only to the Monroe unit. The rest of the state can do as they wish for all I care.


FWIW, The Monroe unit only has a 12/100 ratio and is only at 64% population objective, so I recommended that they reduce the tags or shut it down. You're welcome! 

(Yeh, I know, just more for the lions! :lol: )

Edited: Along with West Desert (Tintic and West) at 9/100 ratio and 78% population objective.

AND increase permits for Zion with it's 23/100 ratio and 110 % pop obj.
AND include in the Wasatch Front Extended Area ALL of the East Canyon sub-unit (both sides of the mountain) with it's 32/100 ratio and 130% pop obj.

After all, fair is fair, right?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I have felt that it has been irresponsible management on part of the DWR to have a deer hunt on Monroe for the last 10 yrs. So my vote is to shut it down. And change it to an open bull unit.  


Incredible that the Monroe deer herd is in such bad shape. With all the habitat restoration that has gone on there. Maybe they just need to spend 10 million more on that unit and it will pay off then. :roll: 

But USU is getting some real valuable info about cougar predation on elk. So I'm sure its been worth while. :roll: I just wish they got it from another unit.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

sent mine in for 18-20 for general units. But I really don't want to hunt a unit below 20 bucks per hundred but that's just me. If the playing field was level meaning they didn't have lifetime license holders and dedicated hunters grabbing the tags I would have said 20-25. The life time license tags imho are BS. I never new they existed when i was growing up or I would have bought them. My kids never new they existed and they will never have the same chance as someone else. To me they are the same thing as social security. Ill never be able to draw a check but I have to pay into it. I also believe the lifetime license guys are very vocal minority SFW is catering to but that's just my opinion.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> I also believe the lifetime license guys are very vocal minority SFW is catering to but that's just my opinion.


Could you please explain your opinion here not sure I get why they would. o-||


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> sent mine in for 18-20 for general units. But I really don't want to hunt a unit below 20 bucks per hundred but that's just me. If the playing field was level meaning they didn't have lifetime license holders and dedicated hunters grabbing the tags I would have said 20-25. The life time license tags imho are BS. I never new they existed when i was growing up or I would have bought them. My kids never new they existed and they will never have the same chance as someone else. To me they are the same thing as social security. Ill never be able to draw a check but I have to pay into it. I also believe the lifetime license guys are very vocal minority SFW is catering to but that's just my opinion.


You're still in good shape with your viewpoint! Box Elder is at 20/100, Morgan-S Rich/East Canyon/Chalk Creek is at 32/100, Kamas is at 21/100, Nine Mile is at 23/100, Fillmore Oak Creek is at 32/100, Plateau Thousand Lakes is at 21/100 and Zion is at 23/100. And that's not counting the LE units or CWMU's. See, there's still units to fit everyone's desires and/or needs!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I agree with the comments about lifetime tags. I think they should be abolished, money even refunded for them and everybody put on a more level playing field. I actually heard one holder of a lifetime tag claim that they should be transferable to his children. They should not even exist in Utah. It was a bad idea back then and even worse now.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

So what is it that you don't like about the lifetime tags? There are only around 3500 of them out there and quite a few of the holders also are into the dedicated hunter program. The lifetime tag holders did their part for wildlife back when there were really no other programs for it. We each invested $500.00 into the division for the good of wildlife when everyone else was just buying a $32.00 tag. At least that is what it was when I bught mine. As for people not knowing about the lifetime license, it was mentioned in every guide bood that the division published from the day that it started back in the early 80's until it was discontinued in the mid 90's. 

I got a idea how about we do away with the draw system and go back to a first come first served. If you have to work the day or can't get down to a division office when the tags go on sale, too bad for you.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I think lifetime licenses are fairly insignificant at this point and will continue to be less of a factor until they are gone. Many LL holders don't even get a deer tag.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I don't like them for the same reason that was posted above. There are several people that give just as much of there time and money to the environment and hunting that never had, and never will have, the same opportunity to get one for themselves just because they are were not old enough. There are others that have moved to the state since 1994 (when the tag was discontinued) and have been more involved in the community, hunting and improving the great outdoors than many lifetime residents and they will never have the same opportunity either.

Like I said it was bad idea then and a worse one now. What would happen in the event that something so bad happened to our herds that hunting had to be shut down in full? If even for just a few years? Would the life time tag holders throw their hands in the air and say that a legal right was taken away? I would bet money on it.

I just don't like it, it was a short sighted opportunity that should have never been allowed IMO. 

All of that said, I do not fault those that took advantage of it.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

As for being too young to get a lifetime license, you or anyone else could of bought you one the day that you were born. There were no age restrictions except for where there were age restrictions such as hunting small game or a deer tag. Also your scenario of if hunting had to be shut down completely, then there would be no tags available so that argument doesn't work either

It just sounds like a lot of sour grapes just because you don't have one.


----------



## wbcougster (Mar 12, 2010)

done and I have received a few responses back from the recipients stating they feel the same way. Said they have received a fair number of email. Nice job all. Keep it up.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I think it is great so many people are getting involved and sending emails. I am interested in knowing if they are getting a big response from places like the UWN, or if they are getting a big response relative to the number of actual hunters.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Perceive it how you choose. If you want to call it sour grapes that is fine. I am not angry about them and other than this thread I have never lobbied against them other than to tell friends that I have never agreed with them. I didn't agree with them when they were available and I don't now. I knew back then that they would be discontinued at some point in time. I didn't buy one then and I wouldn't buy one now if they were available.

The fact that the opportunity to get such a license was taken away in 1994 did in fact put an age limit on them. Whether you want to believe that or not is up to you.

I didn't say that there would be tags available if hunting were shut down. I said that the lifetime holders would feel as if a legal right was taken away.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

There have been a ton of emails! That's a great!! I have read and responded to each and every one I've recieved.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I've heard back from a lot of those I emailed. The overwhelming majority even agreed with me.


----------

