# Wildlife Board Work Session March 31 - Interesting Discussions Coming



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

The agenda for an upcoming wildlife board work session is online:

https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2022-03-31-board-session-agenda.pdf

Some highlights:

"Targeted Yearling Hunts"

"Technology Committee - What topics should the committee tackle first? Could include hunting big game with all three weapon types, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc."

"Elk Hunting Strategy - Highlight major issues the committee will be asked to discuss (e.g. ensuring private landowners in any bull units can hunt elk on their property)"

"Point System - What would look like if we merged LE and GS points" and "Issues with going away all points given the investment of so many hunters for decades"

"Price Increase"

Sucks to be an 8 - 5 working stiff on days like that. I may need to call in sick...


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Holy balls this is going to get ugly…

yearling deer hunts? They’ve gotta be joke.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> Holy balls this is going to get ugly…
> 
> yearling deer hunts? They’ve gotta be joke.


Say goodbye to the deer population if that goes through. Price increase to hunt what???? Game that has declined in numbers? IMO paying $50 to chase a two point buck is a joke. I'll be optimistic and hope for the best, but prepare to have a hunting item liquidation sale. The grandkids may be receiving their gun inheritance early.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

On the yearling deer hunt, I don't see anything different that what most hunters do right now. They shoot the first legal animal that they see, then there is the doe hunts. 

The technology discussion could get interesting.

Tag price, like everything prices go up. The hit the non residents a couple of years ago and the writing was on the wall to increase resident tag cost.

Combining the points, now that may get real interesting.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

It's the end of the world as we know it....and I FEEL FINE!!!!!! That's what I keep telling myself.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Clarq said:


> Sucks to be an 8 - 5 working stiff on days like that. I may need to call in sick...


It's a work session. I don't believe there is any public comment or public participation in a work session, unless I am mistaken. That said, it will be on YouTube and you can watch it any time you'd like. Live, or later...it won't matter which way you watch.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I'll be watching the yearling buck hunt recommendation to see what the scientific background is behind it. I don't necessarily hate it if it creates an easy tag to draw and doesn't harm the herds.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

My points are an investment in their system, and I’ve been investing since 2004 when I could apply. If you want to do away with any of my points, there’s some pretty serious interest that’ll be associated with it. $1,000/point.

it seems as if they are wanting to model the deer hunts after the current elk plan we have. Yearling hunts for the peasants, trophy hunts on a very limited basis for the public to draw, throughout every unit in the state.

this is getting to be a joke. How the phuck does any of this increase DEER populations? 

the technology committee could be scary too, depending on who they put on it.

the “ensuring” private land owners can hunt bull elk on the property in general units seems like the are alluding to a draw process in the works for the general elk hunt.

love how there’s no public comments allowed for this meeting. Still think your voice or opinion matters? I’d blow up the WB and RAC members email if you have an opinion.

side rant, if they do away with all points, they need to start fresh. Erase all OIL and LE waiting periods, and let everyone apply for everything, in a full random draw, where all 5 of your choices are looked at before they go to the next eligible applicants. Keep your deer hunts as a general (whatever that means now) where there’s no wait period before you can reapply the next time, but everything else has a wait period, but no more OIL waits. Wait 5 years and you can apply again. If you draw 2 moose tags in your life, good for you. We also need to double the price for all tags, upfront when you apply. Can’t afford it? That’s too bad. 

this is a mess and it’s not going to get better. Mostly because a bunch of whiny 45 year old guys decided to take up hunting but it isn’t ‘fair’ that they don’t have enough points to draw a decent LE tag because they haven’t been invested in the game their whole life.

Wyoming or Montana are looking more and more appealing with every WB meeting we have


----------



## 2pntkiller (10 mo ago)

I'm with moose, double the price of tags and you have to pay up front. That'll cut out a bunch of applicants that don't even end up going.. and buy my points from me if it's going to a dedicated random draw system. Instead of killing baby bucks that have potential to be mature bucks bring back the 3point or bigger rule and let them have a chance to grow!! To see a grown man packing out a spike deer on opening day of the rifle hunt is just shameful in my eyes and ive seen it numerous times... 16 and under can get a buck of there choice size over 16 follows the 3 point or bigger rule. But hey our opinions and thoughts don't really matter anymore so why even throw them out there.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> love how there’s no public comments allowed for this meeting. Still think your voice or opinion matters? I’d blow up the WB and RAC members email if you have an opinion.


Work sessions are common in the public meetings arena. There is nothing wrong with them going into a working session to gather information so that they can be educated on topics when they have to actually vote on it. Board meetings already take most of the day, if you included these working session topics as part of the general meeting then you'd be talking about 24+ hour meetings and then you'd complain that the meetings are too long.

Working sessions are the alternative to them doing all this behind closed doors. Which would you prefer? People really ought to get educated on how all this works before getting their panties in a bunch. You know better than this, moose. Be better.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

sounds like they know there is a problem with the deer herd not sure how to fix it but don't want to take away opportunity.


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

Moose said it best, "Mostly because a bunch of whiny 45 year old guys decided to take up hunting but it isn’t ‘fair’ that they don’t have enough points to draw a decent LE tag because they haven’t been invested in the game their whole life."

Unfortunate really, but that is facts.


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

The price increase is coming, and honestly I'm fine with it as long as they do good things with the money. "Inflation" and corporate greed has increased the cost for state division employee salaries, project supplies and labor, lining the pockets of SFW so they can continue to run our expo and not take it somewhere else, etc are all things they need cover the cost for.

I'd happily pay the tag fee upfront. I just did in New Mexico yesterday. It won't deter those that really want to hunt, but it will deter some of the indoorsy people who picked up hunting during covid. Make it a priority and cost isn't a barrier for a resident tag.

I'm really concerned about what they are planning to talk about. Some of the things listed are really wild that they would even be a topic. "Combining Preference and Bonus Points." "Getting rid of the shooting requirement for Hunters Safety." "Could include hunting big game with all three weapon types, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc."

My son just passed his hunters safety test in January. During the shooting test, one of the kids next to him flashed his muzzle from my head to my ankles and back up on the firing line as I was standing 15ft behind my son. A full grown man didn't know how to load his 10/22 and couldn't even hit the elk on the target at 50 ft. Get rid of that and I'd never apply for an any weapon tag again. It's already scary enough with guys firing off volleys at deer that are 150 yds away.

The tech committee one that has me concerned. Any decision they make will set precedent, and muzzy scope restrictions are the first thing they will implement. If you've been watching and listening, it's coming, just need to iron the details out. But what does "Hunting big game with all three weapon types" mean? Are they getting rid of 3 season elk tags? Dedicated Hunter? Getting rid of a weapons hunt? The precedent set by that committee will have people ok with the decision to limit your opportunity for public resources.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I think the answer to your questions on "what does it mean?" is nobody knows, not even the Wildlife Board. That's why they are having the working session. A working session, in all aspects of public meetings, is when ideas and brainstorming happens. The members of the board are not legally allowed to discuss ideas outside of public meetings with the rest of the board. I'd suggest anything and everything is on the table at these. That is when they whittle away at ideas and narrow options for official meetings when voting will take place.

If you have concerns or ideas, I suggest you share them in a place other than on this forum. Reach out to the board members. Reach out to these committees. Present your ideas to them. Working sessions are very much about throwing a bowl of spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks. That is their very intent.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

2pntkiller said:


> To see a grown man packing out a spike deer on opening day of the rifle hunt is just shameful in my eyes and ive seen it numerous times....


Almost as shameful as naming yourself 2pntkiller and then looking down on someone for shooting what they want with their tag. You should have named yourself highhorse 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Yearlings taste the best.

I love how quick people are to hate on an idea like yearling hunts because they think it will hurt the heards. Than the same people are against limiting optics on a muzzle loader because that will hurt their ability to kill a stud buck.

What is it, don't want to hurt the heards or don't want to lose the opportunity to kill a big buck? 🤔


----------



## MuleDeer123 (Dec 20, 2021)

On the yearling deer hunts. Some of these things just further complicate a system that is already too complicated. I don't support 3 point or better rules, and I don't support this spike or two point rule. The General/LE deer breakdown is enough. We don't need to further dilute things to specific pools and complicated schemes.

The Muzzleloader scope thing? Also so trivial. Just leave it alone at this point, it's not impacting the actual status of any deer herd in the state. We don't need this many rule changes year in and year out.

As for the point system, again, I think for the most part it should be left alone. They are limited resources, and there will in turn be some form of limited opportunity. The current breakdown of the Utah system is honestly one of the better ones in my honest opinion. It balances those with the most points/random opportunity the best it can. There's just simply only so many animals and tags that will ever be available.

As for a price increase, I'm actually perfectly fine with that. I want the DWR to be able to do an adequate job of managing and investing in the states wildlife and it's future and I have no issue paying more to invest in wildlife and wild places. Lord knows everything else costs more, wish my salary would go up with some of these things though haha.

When it comes to hunters safety, I do think the process could be streamlined, and in-day field day requirement removed. I especially think this is true for Fur-harvest education requirements. A fur-harvester course should be required, but the field days (which are very hard to find at times) requirements should be removed.


----------



## ns450f (Aug 28, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> I think the answer to your questions on "what does it mean?" is nobody knows, not even the Wildlife Board. That's why they are having the working session. A working session, in all aspects of public meetings, is when ideas and brainstorming happens. The members of the board are not legally allowed to discuss ideas outside of public meetings with the rest of the board. I'd suggest anything and everything is on the table at these. That is when they whittle away at ideas and narrow options for official meetings when voting will take place.
> 
> If you have concerns or ideas, I suggest you share them in a place other than on this forum. Reach out to the board members. Reach out to these committees. Present your ideas to them. Working sessions are very much about throwing a bowl of spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks. That is their very intent.


I have been thinking of trying to become more involved in this process. How does one get in touch with the board members and committee to voice an opinion?


----------



## MuleDeer123 (Dec 20, 2021)

2pntkiller said:


> I'm with moose, double the price of tags and you have to pay up front. That'll cut out a bunch of applicants that don't even end up going.. and buy my points from me if it's going to a dedicated random draw system. Instead of killing baby bucks that have potential to be mature bucks bring back the 3point or bigger rule and let them have a chance to grow!! To see a grown man packing out a spike deer on opening day of the rifle hunt is just shameful in my eyes and ive seen it numerous times... 16 and under can get a buck of there choice size over 16 follows the 3 point or bigger rule. But hey our opinions and thoughts don't really matter anymore so why even throw them out there.


There's nothing shameful about tagging whatever legal animal anyone who is hunting wants. The 3 point or better rule is a farce and does nothing meaningful for management. If you want more bucks, we need to strive for more deer and healthier herds of deer. Some of these little social issues like antler restrictions are such a waste of time in the grand scheme of the future of something like Mule Deer, they are quite honestly such a waste of time and effort and yet they seem to be what gets the majority of effort poured into rehashing them over and over.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

*Yearlings taste the best.*
Nope! That beef in the freezer will taste better when the DWR jacks chit up and looses hunting numbers. I wont participate in the activity if the permits increase $10. I'll buy beef and be money ahead and have more meat than a stinky 70 pound Muley gives you.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> Work sessions are common in the public meetings arena. There is nothing wrong with them going into a working session to gather information so that they can be educated on topics when they have to actually vote on it. Board meetings already take most of the day, if you included these working session topics as part of the general meeting then you'd be talking about 24+ hour meetings and then you'd complain that the meetings are too long.
> 
> Working sessions are the alternative to them doing all this behind closed doors. Which would you prefer? People really ought to get educated on how all this works before getting their panties in a bunch. You know better than this, moose. Be better.


What id prefer is that they Don’t even entertain these kinds of ideas, when the deer herds are in the conditions they currently are and they didn’t make it to this point. But It’s not like the public has any say anyways. Even when they claim we do. That’s been made evidently very clear over the last few years. You’re right. How silly of me.

these ideas are things that should be brought up when animals are thriving and doing exceptionally well. We are the exact opposite of that at the moment and we are talking about targeting 2 points specifically. It’s completely disgusting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> What id prefer is that they Don’t even entertain these kinds of ideas, when the deer herds are in the conditions they currently are and they didn’t make it to this point. But It’s not like the public has any say anyways. Even when they claim we do. That’s been made evidently very clear over the last few years. You’re right. How silly of me.
> 
> these ideas are things that should be brought up when animals are thriving and doing exceptionally well. We are the exact opposite of that at the moment and we are talking about targeting 2 points specifically. It’s completely disgusting.


So you only want them to consider ideas and brainstorming that you agree with? That is the only appropriate use of the board's time? 

But what if your ideas don't align with mine? And what if I only want them to consider the ideas I agree with? Now we are in a bit of a pickle. Hence, why they take ALL ideas and flesh them out in a working session rather than a board meeting where they have to listen to all the whiney public who only wants their own ideas discussed.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ns450f said:


> I have been thinking of trying to become more involved in this process. How does one get in touch with the board members and committee to voice an opinion?







__





Wildlife Board members


Names and contact information of current members of the Utah Wildlife Board.




wildlife.utah.gov





Here is some contact information for the board members.


----------



## 2pntkiller (10 mo ago)

3arabians said:


> Almost as shameful as naming yourself 2pntkiller and then looking down on someone for shooting what they want with their tag. You should have named yourself highhorse
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In all fairness ive never shot a buck under a 3x3 it was just a user name not a lifestyle...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

2pntkiller said:


> In all fairness ive never shot a buck under a 3x3 it was just a user name not a lifestyle...


Congratulations! You must be very impressed.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

justismi28 said:


> But what does "Hunting big game with all three weapon types" mean? Are they getting rid of ... Dedicated Hunter?


One can only hope so. I'd love to have an archery hunt without all you rifle hunters that decided it would be fun to hunt archery.....

....where do you think the 100 yard archery shot came from? 🤷‍♂️ 





This is my favorite thread.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> But It’s not like the public has any say anyways. Even when they claim we do. That’s been made evidently very clear over the last few years. You’re right. How silly of me.
> 
> these ideas are things that should be brought up when animals are thriving and doing exceptionally well. We are the exact opposite of that at the moment and we are talking about targeting 2 points specifically. It’s completely disgusting.


Comments like this are so laughable...the public has no say, why? Because you are ticked off that they didn't do exactly what you think they should do with trail cams? I would argue that they listened almost exactly to my perspective! The comments I have made over the years seem to be listened to and often followed. I can think of several specific examples beyond trail cams if you want them...

And, how does targeting specifically 2-points hurt the deer herd? The funny thing is that I hear many hunters say that with a struggling unit that we should simply shut it down to hunting to "help the herd." I am just trying to figure out how not killing bucks has anything to do with "helping the herd" when the issue is with recruitment of fawns...

...from a biological standpoint, I don't see any of our units so low in buck numbers that they are biologically at risk. So, explain to me how targeting specifically yearling bucks is going to hurt the herds.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> So you only want them to consider ideas and brainstorming that you agree with? That is the only appropriate use of the board's time?
> 
> But what if your ideas don't align with mine? And what if I only want them to consider the ideas I agree with? Now we are in a bit of a pickle. Hence, why they take ALL ideas and flesh them out in a working session rather than a board meeting where they have to listen to all the whiney public who only wants their own ideas discussed.


A week ago we sat and watched a phuk show of a WB meeting where the board didn’t even want to be at, and listen to peoples sad stories about how taking cams away won’t change a thing. They upheld their vote to stay with a camera restriction, which I’m all good with. The idea behind this, is to give the animals an upper hand or at least a chance, since we are too effective, numbers are decreasing and we need to do what we can as hunters, to help them get back to a healthy population. Fast forward a week and there are proposals put forth by the DWR and BYU where they think putting specific pressure on young deer is a good idea. Tell me how targeting spikes and 2 points is beneficial to anyone, deer included. How does that increase DEER numbers? That’s the whole idea behind these new restrictions, isn’t it? 

then, they start throwing out ideas about taking away, combining or erasing points, from people who have PAID for them, to hold Their spot in line for a very coveted tag, setting them back to zero. I don’t know what kind of legal action can be taken by doing this against the state for taking money from us for a spot in an online waiting game, but me and thousands of other pizzed off hunters will definitely find out.

those among the other things are absolutely a slap in the face to all hunters in utah right now. If you’re not mad about the idea of these issues even being brought to the table, you either aren’t very invested in utah hunting, wildlife or the preservation of what we have (at the moment) or you just don’t care. These ideas are disgusting. Especially the timing of it.

just when I was starting to side with the DWR on the point of view and thinking they aren’t the bad guys in all of this and actually care about the wildlife, they drop this chit on us and im back to #FtDWR, #F$FW and #FtWB. We can even throw in a #FtMDF too. They are gonna want to skip over my comment card on that board meeting. Handing me a mic over this won’t be a good idea for anyone.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

PBH said:


> One can only hope so. I'd love to have an archery hunt without all you rifle hunters that decided it would be fun to hunt archery.....
> 
> ....where do you think the 100 yard archery shot came from? 🤷‍♂️
> 
> ...


I can shoot 100+ with fixed pins and hit what I’m shooting at. So can lots of other guys. If you want to limit archers, you need to restrict it to long bows.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> A week ago we sat and watched a phuk show of a WB meeting where the board didn’t even want to be at, and listen to peoples sad stories about how taking cams away won’t change a thing. They upheld their vote to stay with a camera restriction, which I’m all good with. The idea behind this, is to give the animals an upper hand or at least a chance, since we are too effective, numbers are decreasing and we need to do what we can as hunters, to help them get back to a healthy population. Fast forward a week and there are proposals put forth by the DWR and BYU where they think putting specific pressure on young deer is a good idea. Tell me how targeting spikes and 2 points is beneficial to anyone, deer included. How does that increase DEER numbers? That’s the whole idea behind these new restrictions, isn’t it?
> 
> then, they start throwing out ideas about taking away, combining or erasing points, from people who have PAID for them, to hold Their spot in line for a very coveted tag, setting them back to zero. I don’t know what kind of legal action can be taken by doing this against the state for taking money from us for a spot in an online waiting game, but me and thousands of other pizzed off hunters will definitely find out.
> 
> ...


I have a suggestion...go hunt in other states. Stop hunting in Utah. Things here just suck way too bad for you.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Killing babies? Ditching points? 

Sounds like those folks deserve a raise!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

"Targeted Yearling Hunts"
- I mean, good luck on educating the public on a yearling. Unless they want full blown spotted fawn hunts? Seems.. intense.

"Technology Committee - What topics should the committee tackle first? Could include hunting big game with all three weapon types, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc."
- Dedicated is a TINY part of the pool. I have gone back and forth on scoped ML, a rule which THEY passed btw, in the end it doesn't matter. Sure I hate these gunwerks bozo's shooting 600 yards but it is what it is. I have made my piece.

"Elk Hunting Strategy - Highlight major issues the committee will be asked to discuss (e.g. ensuring private landowners in any bull units can hunt elk on their property)"
-If you own private property - wait in line like the rest of us. As someone with land, I still don't believe owning public land entitles you to a public resource like game more than the next person. You need antlerless depredation? Cool..

"Point System - What would look like if we merged LE and GS points" and "Issues with going away all points given the investment of so many hunters for decades"
-LMAO. This one will be hilarious. You want to hunt Box Elder or the Henry's? Pick one lmao.

"Price Increase"
-Want to make money? How about you take 100% of the expo proceeds? Stop giving other people free Money while taking more from us. I thought those $300k deer tag pissing contests were helping out?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> I have a suggestion...go hunt in other states. Stop hunting in Utah. Things here just suck way too bad for you.


Ironically it is in fact easier for me to get a rifle tag in other states lmao.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Work sessions are common in the public meetings arena. There is nothing wrong with them going into a working session to gather information so that they can be educated on topics when they have to actually vote on it. Board meetings already take most of the day, if you included these working session topics as part of the general meeting then you'd be talking about 24+ hour meetings and then you'd complain that the meetings are too long.
> 
> Working sessions are the alternative to them doing all this behind closed doors. Which would you prefer? People really ought to get educated on how all this works before getting their panties in a bunch. You know better than this, moose. Be better.


Those “work” sessions and committees are stacked to the gills with special interest groups (SFW) each guy wearing a different hat and men that can afford to hunt anywhere in the world. It is not a representation of the average Utah hunter and the best interest of said hunter rarely comes out on top. 

To think or imply otherwise is naive. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

wyoming2utah said:


> I have a suggestion...go hunt in other states. Stop hunting in Utah. Things here just suck way too bad for you.


A lot of people on this forum do hunt other states. But this is my home. This is where my son will grow up to hunt as a resident when he first becomes an adult. If we don't take action to reach out and talk through the issues, the future isn't great for him. Hunting Utah with family is my first priority when it comes to hunting PTO right now. 

When people voice a thought or opinion on a forum, there is an assumption that it is the only place they've voiced them. Many of us are being as active as we can in the avenues that are open to us.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Every 2pt shot and taken home is 1 more mature buck left on the mountain for others. If every single tag holder in Utah successfully killed a mature buck... I dont think there would be any left actually.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> If you’re not mad about the idea of these issues even being brought to the table, you either aren’t very invested in utah hunting, wildlife or the preservation of what we have (at the moment) or you just don’t care.


With all due respect, I think there are more options about why someone would not be mad over this working session than just the two you presented above. Another possibility could be that I understand what a working session is! You used the word "proposals" by the DWR. None of these are a proposal by the DWR. These are all ideas for brainstorming and getting more information to determine if they should become proposals or not. I realize that not everyone works in areas where you actually have to problem solve, but for those of us that regularly do, it isn't offensive to hear ideas, even if they are bad ideas. This is how good ideas come to the forefront. 

Like I said, that is the very reason for a working session. I think you need to take a step back and understand what this is. You're way too hot and bothered about a meeting that is designed to hear lots of different possible ideas, good and bad, just as a matter of standard procedure. No, I'm not mad that they are doing this working session. I'm actually happy they are doing it. Some of the items on here are terrible ideas, in my opinion, but I'm not afraid of discussion about bad ideas. Give a good idea to replace it, that's how I see it. But then again, I understand what the purpose of a working session in public meetings is.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

silentstalker said:


> Those “work” sessions and committees are stacked to the gills with special interest groups (SFW) each guy wearing a different hat and men that can afford to hunt anywhere in the world. It is not a representation of the average Utah hunter and the best interest of said hunter rarely comes out on top.
> 
> To think or imply otherwise is naive.
> 
> ...


Show me on the agenda where SFW has a presentation. Maybe I missed it?

I don't think you should be throwing terms like "naive" out towards others on this one right now.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Past personal history with work sessions and committee work. 

You can count on it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

silentstalker said:


> Those “work” sessions and committees are stacked to the gills with special interest groups (SFW) each guy wearing a different hat and men that can afford to hunt anywhere in the world. It is not a representation of the average Utah hunter and the best interest of said hunter rarely comes out on top.
> 
> To think or imply otherwise is naive.
> 
> ...


Uhhh...that's what the Wildlife Board and RACs are. They are designed to represent special interest groups and not just hunters. To think or imply otherwise is blatantly false. The whole process is designed to allow all different special interest groups--including non-hunters a seat at the table.


justismi28 said:


> A lot of people on this forum do hunt other states. But this is my home. This is where my son will grow up to hunt as a resident when he first becomes an adult. If we don't take action to reach out and talk through the issues, the future isn't great for him. Hunting Utah with family is my first priority when it comes to hunting PTO right now.
> 
> When people voice a thought or opinion on a forum, there is an assumption that it is the only place they've voiced them. Many of us are being as active as we can in the avenues that are open to us.


Great! Just don't expect that the WB or RACs or the UDWR must follow every one of your suggestions...because others might feel differently.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Should make for an interesting discussion. Definitely some ideas there that I don't agree with, but I hope it leads to some meaningful dialogue.

I don't like the idea of targeting yearling deer, especially if it means we follow the pattern of our elk management plan. I'm not interested in seeing the state become LE for mature bucks. I hope the antler restrictions idea gets thrown out early too. There is plenty of research showing that they provide no long term benefit to the buck numbers and will likely lead to more bucks being shot and abandoned.

I'm interested to see what kind of traction combining general and LE pool systems for deer gets. I've actually promoted this idea. Utah is the only western state I'm aware of that has two separate drawing systems for mule deer. The lifetime license holders seem to be the biggest hurdle to me on this one. And there has been enough talk about going to a completely random draw that I'll be interested to see how that plays out.

Buckle up for the technology committee. Lot's of stuff that people are passionate about to discuss there. The comments are to vague for the most part for me to grasp what they will be looking at.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> "Targeted Yearling Hunts"
> - I mean, good luck on educating the public on a yearling. Unless they want full blown spotted fawn hunts? Seems.. intense.
> 
> "Technology Committee - What topics should the committee tackle first? Could include hunting big game with all three weapon types, scopes on muzzleloaders, etc."
> ...


To be entirely honest one does not have to look very far to see where everyone of these ideas have already been brought up on this and other discussion groups.

And for those with ideas or concerns, while they won't be taking public comments during the workshop one can certainly contact board members by email and share your thoughts with them. My guess is if you are a bit respectful you might even get a reply.
I'm pretty sure that they would welcome well thought out ideas and points of view from others If people want to go off in a rant I doubt your concerns will will get past the opening remark.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I love killing spotted calves/fawns whenever possible. And the best part? If you increase harvest on young of the year and yearling animals, you can generally increase overall harvest without negatively impacting overall population. There are quite a few studies out there that support this. Fascinating stuff, really. This is a way to increase opportunity, which IMO should be encouraged.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

[


Dahlmer said:


> I'm interested to see what kind of traction combining general and LE pool systems for deer gets. I've actually promoted this idea. Utah is the only western state I'm aware of that has two separate drawing systems for mule deer. The lifetime license holders seem to be the biggest hurdle to me on this one. And there has been enough talk about going to a completely random draw that I'll be interested to see how that plays out.


I have too, with tweaks. It would more effectively separate the "trophy" guys from the opportunity folks. The solution for the lifetime license holders would be to keep the "premium" and "limited entry" designations on those units and stipulate that a LL guy could not claim one of those for his annual tag, but would have to draw it like the rest of us. 

As for the rest; ditto on it being interesting! However, it sounds like guys are already looking for their torches and pitchforks.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> To be entirely honest one does not have to look very far to see where everyone of these ideas have already been brought up on this and other discussion groups.


The only idea on this agenda that I have not heard discussed and debated online in great detail is the yearling deer hunt. Every other thing on the agenda here you can find threads that mention on this very forum over the last few years. Nobody should be shocked by any of it, even if you disagree with it. These are not new.



middlefork said:


> And for those with ideas or concerns, while they won't be taking public comments during the workshop one can certainly contact board members by email and share your thoughts with them. My guess is if you are a bit respectful you might even get a reply.
> I'm pretty sure that they would welcome well thought out ideas and points of view from others If people want to go off in a rant I doubt your concerns will will get past the opening remark.


This is something that gets lost on people. The day and age of keyboard courage is alive and well! It's thriving, actually. These are not paid positions or jobs on the wildlife board, and if you attack them then I don't blame them for ignoring you. Show some common decency and basic human respect in your interactions with them and you may find that they reply in kind. Who knows, maybe you might even learn something? I know, I know...most don't care about learning anything new.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

At one point I thought it would be great if the tag cost doubled and the money to apply for the tags be paid at time of applying. Not anymore. This is just a way of solidifying that hunting is fort the wealthier people. We're all residents of the State and no different from each other no matter how much money our accounts have in them. Aren't the animals we hunt belong to everyone? So why set rules and prices that only the wealthier hunting public can afford at the time of applying. IMO this is stepping backwards, not forward.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If they want anti technology, do this:

Bow: Traditional or 50lb max compound.
Muzzleloader: full bore conical, exposed ignition, iron sights.
Rifle: 4x max scope.

Done. It will pizz off all hunting groups equally, and thus be fair

We'll have enough deer in a couple years to bring back the 280,000 tags (/sarcasm)

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I'll admit that the thought of a "technology committee" has given me serious pause since it was first mentioned. Hopefully they will have some good justification for what ever they discuss and propose.

But all the discussions listed on the agenda appear to be controversial in many ways. It should be interesting to see what seems to gain traction.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

I’m all for knocking back technology to increase opportunity as long as all three weapon types are knocked back equally, not just muzzleloaders.
Also, this needs to happen sooner than later.


----------



## TmTmTl (Apr 27, 2019)

DallanC said:


> Every 2pt shot and taken home is 1 more mature buck left on the mountain for others. If every single tag holder in Utah successfully killed a mature buck... I dont think there would be any left actually.
> 
> -DallanC


Uhm did you happen to venture out in the hills after the general rifle deer hunt last year? Seems like most everybody and their dogs killed most of the "Mature"(3.5yr old and older) bucks anyway! Wasn't much left for the late muzzleloader deer hunters, in fact it was pretty terrible! If it weren't for the yearling spikes and two points we would have seen a whole lot less bucks that made it through all the hunts.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MrShane said:


> I’m all for knocking back technology to increase opportunity as long as all three weapon types are knocked back equally, not just muzzleloaders.
> Also, this needs to happen sooner than later.


I can agree with this thought. But sadly I think it falls into the same past failed ideas. Other than the young deer proposal I see nothing that indicates more opportunity. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

TmTmTl said:


> Uhm did you happen to venture out in the hills after the general rifle deer hunt last year? Seems like most everybody and their dogs killed most of the "Mature"(3.5yr old and older) bucks anyway! Wasn't much left for the late muzzleloader deer hunters, in fact it was pretty terrible! If it weren't for the yearling spikes and two points we would have seen a whole lot less bucks that made it through all the hunts.


Forgive me if I don't understand your frustration. Did you not know they have been hunted for 2 1/2 months before the hunt started? Or did you think that the rut would make them so stupid they would be like shooting ducks in a barrel?
Did you get out on the winter range to see if there were any you may have missed?

I'm not advocating that mule deer are doing good. Don't get me wrong. But sometimes expectations can be misleading. Spikes and two points have been the bread and butter for hunters as long as I've been hunting. As much as I have contributed to not killing deer because I like to decide what to shoot and maybe I'm just not as good a hunter as others it seems nothing is quite good enough to "save the herd".


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Uhhh...that's what the Wildlife Board and RACs are. They are designed to represent special interest groups and not just hunters. To think or imply otherwise is blatantly false. The whole process is designed to allow all different special interest groups--including non-hunters a seat at the table.
> 
> 
> Great! Just don't expect that the WB or RACs or the UDWR must follow every one of your suggestions...because others might feel differently.


You missed the point of my post. I’m speaking to the committees. Regardless of the seat they take, the majority of the reps on the committees seem to end up being strong members of a certain 3 letter group that has a strangle hold on this state. The deck is stacked and the vote goes their way. They do not represent the average sportsman. 

The RAC and WB system is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. 

And no vanilla I am not just a keyboard warrior. I have seen this personally occur for a very long time. Your condescending tone to anyone who disputes the validity of the process is not really called for. It’s ok to disagree on these things without acting like you’re above everyone else. 

I know better than to get in these discussions. I need to get outside and off these forums. It’s spring and there are bears and turkeys to chase. 

Carry on. I’m out for a bit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I find it…ironic…that you say I’m being condescending right after calling me naive. That’s pretty golden!

And if you’ve paid attention, I’m not real fond of the system and how it’s been dominated by the same three letter word you don’t like. I haven’t been shy about those feelings on this forum. I’m commenting on THIS thread about THIS issue. And it’s not really my fault if people don’t know what working sessions are for public bodies subject to the open meetings act. Good luck turkey hunting!


----------



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

I dislike each and every one of these proposed discussions.


----------



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

johnnycake said:


> I love killing spotted calves/fawns whenever possible. And the best part? If you increase harvest on young of the year and yearling animals, you can generally increase overall harvest without negatively impacting overall population. There are quite a few studies out there that support this. Fascinating stuff, really. This is a way to increase opportunity, which IMO should be encouraged.


I understand why this is, and yet it seems pretty counterproductive to propose both combing GE/LE tags, and then creating a new spike/two point deer draw. Idk, if that’s what someone wants to shoot that’s fine, but we don’t need a separate tag/season for everything. Let’s break it down to 2 point, 3 point, 4 point, and 4 point + tags. This is getting a bit ridiculous at this point. Manage habitat and grow more deer.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I understand why this is, and yet it seems pretty counterproductive to propose both combing GE/LE tags, and then creating a new spike/two point deer draw. Idk, if that’s what someone wants to shoot that’s fine, but we don’t need a separate tag/season for everything. Let’s break it down to 2 point, 3 point, 4 point, and 4 point + tags. This is getting a bit ridiculous at this point. Manage habitat and grow more deer.


It makes sense to me why the workshop would be looking at both of these, casting a wide net and whatnot. But I would be shocked if either, let alone both, get any traction and become a proposal to the WB


----------



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

taxidermist said:


> At one point I thought it would be great if the tag cost doubled and the money to apply for the tags be paid at time of applying. Not anymore. This is just a way of solidifying that hunting is fort the wealthier people. We're all residents of the State and no different from each other no matter how much money our accounts have in them. Aren't the animals we hunt belong to everyone? So why set rules and prices that only the wealthier hunting public can afford at the time of applying. IMO this is stepping backwards, not forward.


I can stomach some fee increases, because I understand it. Having a pay up front change would be beyond stupid, and makes applying more difficult for the average Joe. All of these ideas, disincentivize people getting involved, not incentivizes them. Someone was just bored or something coming up with some of this nonsense. Focus on things that matter please.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

TmTmTl said:


> Uhm did you happen to venture out in the hills after the general rifle deer hunt last year? Seems like most everybody and their dogs killed most of the "Mature"(3.5yr old and older) bucks anyway! Wasn't much left for the late muzzleloader deer hunters, in fact it was pretty terrible! If it weren't for the yearling spikes and two points we would have seen a whole lot less bucks that made it through all the hunts.


IDK where you were hunting or what you were smoking but this past year was one of the lowest harvest years I've ever seen in my area. I talked to alot of guys who were skunked on both ML and Rifle seasons. Deer were migrating to winter grounds much earlier than I've ever seen. My wife missed the biggest buck of her life the last evening of the final day. He certainly fathered alot of babies. 

We've been up and looked at winter ranges and seen lots of mature deer over the winter. They are in different spots than normal due to the odd lack of snow forcing them down.

-DallanC


----------



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

DallanC said:


> IDK where you were hunting or what you were smoking but this past year was one of the lowest harvest years I've ever seen in my area. I talked to alot of guys who were skunked on both ML and Rifle seasons. Deer were migrating to winter grounds much earlier than I've ever seen. My wife missed the biggest buck of her life the last evening of the final day. He certainly fathered alot of babies.
> 
> We've been up and looked at winter ranges and seen lots of mature deer over the winter. They are in different spots than normal due to the odd lack of snow forcing them down.
> 
> -DallanC


There are simply less deer due to a lot of weather factors over the past 3-5 years. I was actually pleasantly surprised by some of the bucks I saw through the rut and wintering ranges this year. Noting eye popping by any means, but plenty of bucks and some okay ones. People go out for a week or two deer hunting and convince themselves they know what lurks in their favorite spot. They don’t. I’ll agree there are less deer than there were 5-6 years ago overall. Buck numbers are doing just fine IMO, now do I wish deer numbers overall were better than what I’ve been seeing? 100%. But our current weather cycle has been brutal the last 5 years on a lot of wildlife (especially upland game/Turkey from what I’ve seen). So far, this current weather cycle from last fall until now is looking fairly good. Hoping for some good rain headed into spring and summer.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> With all due respect, I think there are more options about why someone would not be mad over this working session than just the two you presented above. Another possibility could be that I understand what a working session is! You used the word "proposals" by the DWR. None of these are a proposal by the DWR. These are all ideas for brainstorming and getting more information to determine if they should become proposals or not. I realize that not everyone works in areas where you actually have to problem solve, but for those of us that regularly do, it isn't offensive to hear ideas, even if they are bad ideas. This is how good ideas come to the forefront.
> 
> Like I said, that is the very reason for a working session. I think you need to take a step back and understand what this is. You're way too hot and bothered about a meeting that is designed to hear lots of different possible ideas, good and bad, just as a matter of standard procedure. No, I'm not mad that they are doing this working session. I'm actually happy they are doing it. Some of the items on here are terrible ideas, in my opinion, but I'm not afraid of discussion about bad ideas. Give a good idea to replace it, that's how I see it. But then again, I understand what the purpose of a working session in public meetings is.


Forgive me for being a little hot on the topic, we are only 1/4 into 2022 and we’ve been through more chit and drama than we were in 2011 when $FW promised we’d have more deer than we’d know what to do with, managing them on a unit by unit basis. (What a scam that was). we’ve already lost the ability to utilize trail cams during the hunt. put a wait period on swan hunters who kill a trumpeter swan when they legally possess a SWAN tag. They tried to completely restructure the general elk tag OTC buying with implementing a draw for them outside of the elk plan review time period, giving us a glance into the future on what’s headed our way next year. You’ve got RACs not staying in their lane and pushing and voting on topics that aren’t on the discussion agenda. We have guiding and finders fees in the crosshairs by law makers. Scopes and other effective ”technology” being looked at, In an attempt to save more deer, then they turn around and start proposing yearling deer hunts and combining/eliminating points that many have their entire lives invested into. Public work session or not, these topics are a slap in the face to the average hunters and should have never been considered until animal populations start to trend upwards. I’ve seen enough of these public discussions turn into a real monster over the years to know that there is a very real possibility these ideas will be our new management strategy.

I’m all for limiting technology. I’ll trade the general any weapon deer hunt rifle for an open sight shotgun hunt if need be. I’ll throw my slider sight from my bow in the garbage and use a fixed pin sight. You can have my muzzleloader scope as well. But standing up there saying it’s all in the name of fairness, Giving the animals a chance, then turning around a week later and start talking about specifically focusing pressure on the dumbest age bracket of an already vulnerable species, is wrong. And it makes you ask other questions regarding their moves and motions in the first place. Are they for the best interest of the animals and public? It certainly doesn’t Appear so right now.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

DallanC said:


> IDK where you were hunting or what you were smoking but this past year was one of the lowest harvest years I've ever seen in my area. I talked to alot of guys who were skunked on both ML and Rifle seasons. Deer were migrating to winter grounds much earlier than I've ever seen. My wife missed the biggest buck of her life the last evening of the final day. He certainly fathered alot of babies.
> 
> We've been up and looked at winter ranges and seen lots of mature deer over the winter. They are in different spots than normal due to the odd lack of snow forcing them down.
> 
> -DallanC


If it doesn’t exist within the fences and locked gates of the bighorn ranch, it must be that way throughout the entire unit…. Right?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Moose, the frustration is understood and in many respects, shared. I think I’ve been clear my disapproval for the system and how it too often is hijacked in the face of public hunters in Utah. Heck, I applied for the latest vacancies on the WB because of this very thing.

More regulations are coming. This is the sad story of the human existence. We have a need to push as hard and as fast as we can, and when “the powers that be” feel we’ve gone too far, the rules start coming. Goes well beyond hunting. But we certainly have pushed hunting far and fast!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> If it doesn’t exist within the fences and locked gates of the bighorn ranch, it must be that way throughout the entire unit…. Right?


Beats me, I've never set a foot on the Bighorn. I haven't even hunted deer in that unit since we went to Micro Units.

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

DallanC said:


> Beats me, I've never set a foot on the Bighorn. I haven't even hunted deer in that unit since we went to Micro Units.
> 
> -DallanC


I was being sarcastic 😉


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

How does knocking back all technology support fair chase?

Do slower arrows (50lb max draw) help a cleaner, more fair harvest? 

Does zooming less create more accurate shots? 

Does eliminating exposed or yardmarked turrets make a more accurate shot, that is more fair to the animal?

The belief is that these changes would impact range of shots - they would not. Sounds to me the archery changes would be designed more to deter applicants, than to help animals. There may be a point that limiting compounds makes sense - but very few guys buy/can pull an 80lb bow regardless. Human nature limits them anyways. Is there proof that trad bows are more successful in the harvest of the animal? Does that recruit youth and women?

I have my feelings on ML as well, but others have made clear that was never designed as a primitive hunt. So, why force it as one?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> Sounds to me the archery changes would be designed more to deter applicants, than to help animals.


I strongly suspect this can be said about *every* proposed change the "technology committee" is looking at.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Clarq said:


> The agenda for an upcoming wildlife board work session is online:
> 
> https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2022-03-31-board-session-agenda.pdf
> 
> ...


Obvious Typos:
"What would *it* look like if we merged LE and GS points"
"Issues with *d*oing away *with* all points given the investment of so many hunters for decades"


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I find it…ironic…that you say I’m being condescending right after calling me naive. That’s pretty golden!
> 
> And if you’ve paid attention, I’m not real fond of the system and how it’s been dominated by the same three letter word you don’t like. I haven’t been shy about those feelings on this forum. I’m commenting on THIS thread about THIS issue. And it’s not really my fault if people don’t know what working sessions are for public bodies subject to the open meetings act. Good luck turkey hunting!


I apologize vanilla. Sometimes “read more often than not” my passion gets away from me. It’s why I have for the most part quit posting until these hot button topics got me back into it. It’s no excuse…

I didn’t feel at the time that I was calling you naive but more speaking generally. I can see now how I came across and I am sorry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

MooseMeat said:


> we’ve already lost the ability to utilize trail cams during the hunt. put a wait period on swan hunters who kill a trumpeter swan when they legally possess a SWAN tag.


Utah right to take lead on trial cam restrictions! If someone kills wrong species they deserve to face legal action.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> Utah right to take lead on trial cam restrictions! If someone kills wrong species they deserve to face legal action.


WTF is a “trial” cam? 🙄


Show me in the regs where it says it’s illegal to kill a trumpeter swan. Show me where it states that tundras are the only swans legal to kill. I’ll wait.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

I’ve left enough mature bucks on the mountain for everyone on this forum . You are welcome😉


----------



## Pokesmole (Oct 29, 2016)

7mm Reloaded said:


> I’ve left enough mature bucks on the mountain for everyone on this forum . You are welcome😉


Best possible reply. I’m right there with you. Even with all sorts of technology.. I still don’t kill the big ones that should be easy. Since they’re on my trail camera and I’m hunting them with a scoped muzzleloader or 70 lb bow with a slider sight.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

MuleDeer123 said:


> As for a price increase, I'm actually perfectly fine with that. I want the DWR to be able to do an adequate job of managing and investing in the states wildlife and it's future and I have no issue paying more to invest in wildlife and wild places. Lord knows everything else costs more, wish my salary would go up with some of these things though haha.


I find complaints about price increases ironic given that some of the people complaining are the same ones that will drop $3000 on a gun, spend $25,000 on an off-road hunting vehicle, drop another $2000 on binoculars or spotting scope or both, etc.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> *Yearlings taste the best.*
> Nope! That beef in the freezer will taste better when the DWR jacks chit up and looses hunting numbers. I wont participate in the activity if the permits increase $10. I'll buy beef and be money ahead and have more meat than a stinky 70 pound Muley gives you.


If anyone is arguing that eating big game is saving money, that's a failing argument in 99% of the cases. Might have been true 30 years ago, but not today.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

BradN said:


> If anyone is arguing that eating big game is saving money, that's a failing argument in 99% of the cases. Might have been true 30 years ago, but not today.


Eh I dunno anymore with the way things are going. After Brandon gets done driving this train into the ground, killing your own food might be cheaper


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

BradN said:


> I find complaints about price increases ironic given that some of the people complaining are the same ones that will drop $3000 on a gun, spend $25,000 on an off-road hunting vehicle, drop another $2000 on binoculars or spotting scope or both, etc.


Except that most people aren't actually doing that. 


I look at this like any other political budgets - until you are efficient with the spend and resources at hand, you don't need more. The DWR has, what we can prove, millions and millions worth of tags every year. They chose not to capitalize on those funds with donated tags (expo), so why increase our cost until they are getting the most out of the resources they have?

I feel the same with taxes. We suck at spending money. Get better at that and then talk to me about needing more.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

[QUOTE="2pntkiller, post: 2 To see a grown man packing out a spike deer on opening day of the rifle hunt is just shameful in my eyes
Is a 2 point on the second day acceptable to you ?😂


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

I see a lot of jumping to conclusions based on some very vague discussion items. Who knows what proposals may ultimately be forwarded for consideration by this working group. 

I am very interested to see what the data on survival rates and collared tracking suggests. There has been some pretty eye opening stuff that has been learned and clarified in the past few years from studies done in Wyoming. Better understanding of when and how mule deer are using various landscapes could be hugely beneficial in getting more bang out of conservation dollars. Finding ways to consistently improve and maintain fecundity would resolve the long standing issues facing deer herds in the west. 

The reality is Utah is not on an island with struggling mule deer herds. It is a issue in every state that has meaningful mule deer populations. At least were not suggesting policy that targets older age class bucks in response to CWD like Colorado has currently implemented and Wyoming is considering doing as well. Biological issues are incredibly complicated and nuanced. Any single factor solution is likely to fail miserably. 

In regard to discussion of technology, method of take, fair chase, etc, these are all difficult conversations that need to happen. Most of them have little if any biological basis behind them. Rather they fall under the social umbrella of game management. Trail cams and baiting aren't being limited or banned because they have any biological impact. They are being banned because of negative social implications, some of which extend beyond the hunting community. It's not the average Joe that is running a handful of cameras that's drawing attention, it's the few individuals and those who are monetizing wildlife that are running hundreds of cams year round. The sale of pictures and gps coordinates to the highest bidder gravitates uncomfortably close to high fence operations for a lot of people, especially with a pile of apples front and center in the picture. These discussions are long overdue.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> -At least were not suggesting policy that targets older age class bucks in response to CWD like Colorado has currently implemented and Wyoming is considering doing as well.
> -Trail cams and baiting aren't being limited or banned because they have any biological impact.


I tend agree with most of what you posted. 2 things stand out though-
-Utah was considering something like what CO is doing. Then it was pointed out that Utah already carries lower buck numbers than the numbers CO was trying to get to with their war on mature deer.
-Baiting did/does have negative biological effects- congregating animals, changing use of the land, disease transmission, etc.. Who wants to see herds of desert bighorn sheep eating out of the same apple piles?

This meeting has the potential to change the game in many ways. Topics making it to this meeting are pushed by someone- mostly the Board asking to be informed in certain areas and some from the UDWR pushing the needle to either stave off an idea or present an idea they want to see discussed. 
The yearling buck hunt has been hashed out many times in various meetings. There has, at times, been a push by various interests to manage our Mule Deer similar to elk- spike hunts and LE bulls hunts. It has been shot down every time so far.....


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> -Baiting did/does have negative biological effects- congregating animals, changing use of the land, disease transmission, etc.. Who wants to see herds of desert bighorn sheep eating out of the same apple piles?


I agree completely. Artificially congregating most species is unhealthy for the overall herd.



Packout said:


> The yearling buck hunt has been hashed out many times in various meetings. There has, at times, been a push by various interests to manage our Mule Deer similar to elk- spike hunts and LE bulls hunts. It has been shot down every time so far.....


Let's hope the shoot it down again. This policy protects the wrong end of the age spectrum and will ultimately lead to less opportunity.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Packout said:


> -Baiting did/does have negative biological effects- congregating animals, changing use of the land, disease transmission, etc.. Who wants to see herds of desert bighorn sheep eating out of the same apple piles?


I guess that would all depend on who’s making money from feeding the wildlife. Sure the public can’t feed/bait wildlife. But put on your brown pants, strap a couple horses to a sleigh and charge the public for a ride through a herd of elk that are fed daily, that’s totally fine.

then there’s the winter DWR turkey feeds. And DWR deer feeds. And DWR elk feeds. Those are ok. But the apples from the public are bad. Salt from AG, that’s totally fine. Salt from the public, how dare you think of such an idea! Yeah congregating wildlife sure is bad if the public has anything to do with it… I wonder if man made guzzlers contribute to non-natural congregation of wildlife, like sheep for instance, in extremely dry areas? 🤔


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

BradN said:


> I find complaints about price increases ironic given that some of the people complaining are the same ones that will drop $3000 on a gun, spend $25,000 on an off-road hunting vehicle, drop another $2000 on binoculars or spotting scope or both, etc.


That sounds good on a particular argument, however, I’ve shot cow elk on an OTC $50 tag, using a 2002 Chevy Malibu that got 28 mpgs, wearing old jeans, steel toe boots from work and a free t shirt, no binos or range finder, a Walmart mossberg .30-06, core-lokt ammo, a free construction orange vest and a Walmart buck knife to do the dirty work. That combined is no more than $2000 and I paid $1,000 for the car.

I think there’s more guys doing it on the cheaper side of the spectrum than the expensive side. Just because they have on Sitka or kuiu camo when they walk by on the trail, doesn’t mean they are packing swaro glass on their chest and have a gunwerks rifle on their shoulder. Especially in today’s world if things keep trending the way they are, guys are going to have to start making some tough decisions. Do I really need a new bow or does my daughter need dance lessons more? Should I buy that new binos or should I put decent tires on the wife’s car for the winter?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> I guess that would all depend on who’s making money from feeding the wildlife. Sure the public can’t feed/bait wildlife. But put on your brown pants, strap a couple horses to a sleigh and charge the public for a ride through a herd of elk that are fed daily, that’s totally fine.
> 
> then there’s the winter DWR turkey feeds. And DWR deer feeds. And DWR elk feeds. Those are ok. But the apples from the public are bad. Salt from AG, that’s totally fine. Salt from the public, how dare you think of such an idea! Yeah congregating wildlife sure is bad if the public has anything to do with it… I wonder if man made guzzlers contribute to non-natural congregation of wildlife, like sheep for instance, in extremely dry areas? 🤔


Other than most of what you speak takes place outside hunting season I applaud your logic. However for now that ship has sailed.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

What will really count is not the discussion but the tone of what is being discussed. When it goes from discussion to action is where the comments will be most useful.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MooseMeat said:


> I guess that would all depend on who’s making money from feeding the wildlife. Sure the public can’t feed/bait wildlife. But put on your brown pants, strap a couple horses to a sleigh and charge the public for a ride through a herd of elk that are fed daily, that’s totally fine.
> 
> then there’s the winter DWR turkey feeds. And DWR deer feeds. And DWR elk feeds. Those are ok. But the apples from the public are bad. Salt from AG, that’s totally fine. Salt from the public, how dare you think of such an idea! Yeah congregating wildlife sure is bad if the public has anything to do with it… I wonder if man made guzzlers contribute to non-natural congregation of wildlife, like sheep for instance, in extremely dry areas? 🤔


Controlled vs Non Controlled. 

Controlled feed, controlled location, controlled season, targeted species, etc... As for guzzlers, yes typically getting animals water in targeted areas with no water is important. Yeah maybe there is risk of disease (again, despite the controlled elements we know about) but usually for water that's necessary it's worth it. For billy bobs apples, corn, and BS - it's not. 

Weird that you can't see the difference.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> Other than most of what you speak takes place outside hunting season I applaud your logic. However for now that ship has sailed.


Livestock producers dumping salt takes places through all hunting seasons…


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

RandomElk16 said:


> Controlled vs Non Controlled.
> 
> Controlled feed, controlled location, controlled season, targeted species, etc... As for guzzlers, yes typically getting animals water in targeted areas with no water is important. Yeah maybe there is risk of disease (again, despite the controlled elements we know about) but usually for water that's necessary it's worth it. For billy bobs apples, corn, and BS - it's not.
> 
> Weird that you can't see the difference.


Have you seen the amount of salt dumped on public lands by livestock producers? That is far from “controlled”. Im not so much worried about the apples or corn. Corn isn’t very effective on baiting Muleys and elk to a consistent enough pattern where someone could hunt off it. Apples are, but how many guys are really using apples to the amount or frequency it would be effective? 1%? And how many of them are outfitters…? 🤔

weird that you think the use of salt is ‘ok’ for one user type but the other is not. Salt is salt last I checked. If they were truly worried about disease transmission, they would just outlaw salt by all users. The cattle or sheep won’t die without it for 5 months. I’m certain they would be just fine and get the necessary minerals from natural deposits in the area, just like the deer and elk are expected to.

i don’t care about bait one way or the other. You can still put it out in the summer, you just can’t hunt over it in the fall. I’m just giving petty examples that it’s ‘ok’ to do things for one reason, but it’s not ok to do it for another reason, depending on who you are. If the reasons they gave for not doing it were truly in the best interest of the wildlife, then it would be outlawed completely, no exceptions. It’s just funny how hypocritical we are, depending on circumstances and who’s involved.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> What will really count is not the discussion but the tone of what is being discussed. When it goes from discussion to action is where the comments will be most useful.


Comments or input from the public has no weight. The decisions made for these topics are made before the public WB meeting even starts. Go back and watch all the previous meetings they’ve had. I’ve never seen a public comment persuade any of the board members to change their opinion on something in the heat of the moment.

if they really cared about the publics input, they’d give them longer than 3 days to submit their input online. For example, the first of the RAC meetings for 2022 permit numbers is April 5th. In the business world, it’s now Tuesday March 22 2022, and the materials and information has yet to be published online for the public to review, consider, research and give their feedback on. They don’t care. It’s all just a formality in the “process” that by law they have to follow.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

MooseMeat said:


> WTF is a “trial” cam? 🙄
> 
> 
> Show me in the regs where it says it’s illegal to kill a trumpeter swan. Show me where it states that tundras are the only swans legal to kill. I’ll wait.


So you killed a trumpeter! At least it wasn't a pelican. That would be really bad. 

I understand your *trial* cam doesn't work to identify waterfowl in flight, but spend time learning to identify species and you'll be ok.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> So you killed a trumpeter! At least it wasn't a pelican. That would be really bad.
> 
> I understand your *trial* cam doesn't work to identify waterfowl in flight, but spend time learning to identify species and you'll be ok.


Why would it be bad? Pelicans could use some herd thinning. Smarts really isn’t your thing is it? I said show me where it says it’s illegal to kill them. Not a guide on how to identify the species.

and just to irk you, I’ve shot 2 trumpeters. 1 on purpose (I still have to talk to my bishop about it), the 2nd was a juvy and made no noise as it came sailing into the spread. It was solo and I had nothing to compare it to, body size wise, to know it wasn’t a tundra. I didn’t even know it was a trumpeter until I checked it in and the bill measured larger than what an adult tundra would measure. I’ve seen a 3rd one killed over my decoys, again, silent, bombed into the decoys and died. It was a mature bird and knew immediately once it was picked up that it was a trumpeter. Beautiful bird.

im still waiting for you to cite the code that says trumpeters are illegal to shoot.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> Livestock producers dumping salt takes places through all hunting seasons…


No they don't but keep thinking that. They have no more interest is wasting money than you do.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> WTF is a “trial” cam? 🙄
> 
> 
> Show me in the regs where it says it’s illegal to kill a trumpeter swan. Show me where it states that tundras are the only swans legal to kill. I’ll wait.


They have them all over the court rooms.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> No they don't but keep thinking that. They have no more interest is wasting money than you do.


Uh… yeah they do. I personally see it every. Single. Year.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I think I'm going to drop 35K on a new side x side, 8K on a kunwerks rifle, 4K on a sworo glass, and maybe I'll sell the Cummins for a newer model, and then get a new 110K Toy Hauler. That has to be the reason I'm not killing 200" class bucks every year.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Moose, you clearly have an axe to grind with the DWR. You love to paint with broad brushstrokes rather than considering not every issue is black and white. 

What you see at the RAC meetings generally does not reflect the public input the RAC receives. Nor does what you see in the board meetings. I have written the board multiple times and have always received a response from them. During the latest public comment hearing we saw one board member change his vote based on feedback he was receiving. Clearly it wasn't from the comments made during the hearing which was heavily biased against his vote. The system is perfect, but at least it offers a venue for public comment and input. Given some of the ideas that have been floated on various wildlife message boards and social media, I kind of glad they have multiple voices providing input. Usually, their decisions align pretty closely with the recommendations provided by the biologists. I don't see that as an issue.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Dahlmer said:


> Moose, you clearly have an axe to grind with the DWR. You love to paint with broad brushstrokes rather than considering not every issue is black and white.
> 
> What you see at the RAC meetings generally does not reflect the public input the RAC receives. Nor does what you see in the board meetings. I have written the board multiple times and have always received a response from them. During the latest public comment hearing we saw one board member change his vote based on feedback he was receiving. Clearly it wasn't from the comments made during the hearing which was heavily biased against his vote. The system is perfect, but at least it offers a venue for public comment and input. Given some of the ideas that have been floated on various wildlife message boards and social media, I kind of glad they have multiple voices providing input. Usually, their decisions align pretty closely with the recommendations provided by the biologists. I don't see that as an issue.


I really don’t have an axe to grind with the DWR. They are the fall guy in this entire system, and for that I sympathize with them (that tasted terrible coming out of my mouth BTW). I use to point fingers at the DWR until I realized how all of this works. My axe to grind is with the WB mostly. Their decisions don’t align with the recommendations a lot of times. And many of the end results of those decisions, were rooted from the RACs who don’t stay in their lane and discuss the topics at hand. They start pushing personal agendas, which gain traction for various reasons, many non-biological, then see themselves before the WB and BAM! new laws and regs that don’t align with the DWR original proposals. coincidentally, many of these WB members and RACs have ties with special interest groups and users. Sure it’s not a job where they collect a salary from. But they are being compensated one way or the other. For example, Take a look at who’s always “exempt” from these new laws we are seeing. Then take a look at who from the WB is personally invested in that user group.

i won’t change your mind. But I’m open to having mine changed when I see something which can prove or disprove my original thoughts. It happens daily. But I’ve seen enough for me to believe it’s all smoke and mirrors. Like I stated earlier. It’s business day March 22 2022 at this point in time. Do you see any materials or proposals for the April 28 WB meeting for the public to review, discuss and give their input on? Remember the first RAC meeting is scheduled for April 5. as a member of the public, I don’t see them either. However I’m sure all RAC members have those documents and information. And I’m certain it’s already been discussed in their own meetings we aren’t privy to.

the Farmington wildlife building where the meetings are held, is nothing but a stage. And the actors follow the script that’s been rehearsed several times with the director before the live show.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I don’t know how the DWR collects accurate data when they don’t give their current strategies time to work.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> However I’m sure all RAC members have those documents and information. And I’m certain it’s already been discussed in their own meetings we aren’t privy to.


Well, I am a RAC member and I have not seen the April info yet. I do agree, the info should be given out earlier for everyone to get an idea of what is recommended. Usually, the info is up on the site before we are emailed the RAC Packet. I have never been in a back room meeting for RAC members to discuss the items ahead of time. 
When the information does come out, anyone is welcome to contact me with thoughts on the presentations. Call, email, or stop by and we can talk- I always try to be available.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> That sounds good on a particular argument, however, I’ve shot cow elk on an OTC $50 tag, using a 2002 Chevy Malibu that got 28 mpgs, wearing old jeans, steel toe boots from work and a free t shirt, no binos or range finder, a Walmart mossberg .30-06, core-lokt ammo, a free construction orange vest and a Walmart buck knife to do the dirty work. That combined is no more than $2000 and I paid $1,000 for the car.
> 
> I think there’s more guys doing it on the cheaper side of the spectrum than the expensive side. Just because they have on Sitka or kuiu camo when they walk by on the trail, doesn’t mean they are packing swaro glass on their chest and have a gunwerks rifle on their shoulder. Especially in today’s world if things keep trending the way they are, guys are going to have to start making some tough decisions. Do I really need a new bow or does my daughter need dance lessons more? Should I buy that new binos or should I put decent tires on the wife’s car for the winter?


I hope what you're saying is true about more guys on the cheaper side of the spectrum. I love that you shot that cow elk with the equipment you did. I think my post is more about pining for simpler times, family hunts, hunting more primitively even if it's with a Walmart .06. Thanks for sharing your perspective.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Except that most people aren't actually doing that.
> 
> 
> I look at this like any other political budgets - until you are efficient with the spend and resources at hand, you don't need more. The DWR has, what we can prove, millions and millions worth of tags every year. They chose not to capitalize on those funds with donated tags (expo), so why increase our cost until they are getting the most out of the resources they have?
> ...


Your argument about use of resources is fair.

My argument about hunter spending was obvious hyperbole, but there are plenty of hunters spending a lot of money on equipment. To me, it sounds a bit hollow to complain about a $10 hike when hunting has become a hobby, sometimes an expensive hobby, not a necessity.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Packout said:


> Well, I am a RAC member and I have not seen the April info yet. I do agree, the info should be given out earlier for everyone to get an idea of what is recommended. Usually, the info is up on the site before we are emailed the RAC Packet. I have never been in a back room meeting for RAC members to discuss the items ahead of time.
> When the information does come out, anyone is welcome to contact me with thoughts on the presentations. Call, email, or stop by and we can talk- I always try to be available.


I appreciate your reply and willingness to be available. I wonder if maybe since you represent the public at large, and not a government agency or special interest group, is why you aren’t in the “loop” that may or may not exist. I’ve seen these back room meetings take place when $FW was in its infancy, with interested parties who later became WB members, RACs and even more. Some of them are still in these positions representing the public and user groups. I wasn’t really aware of what was going on at the time, but looking back I’ve got a much clearer picture of what was taking place. If it was happening back then, I’m sure things haven’t changed.

i’ll bow out on my conspiracy theories. It’s just disappointing that they say they want the public to be involved and that they have a voice. But when there is a chance, it’s a very limited window for the public to do so before they make big decisions that seem to ignore what the data and voices are saying. Maybe start with taking that to the powers that be. The public needs longer time to review materials, proposals, presentations and data before they can give their opinion. Posting the info then 2 days later closing the public comment period isn’t giving them a fair chance for their voice to be heard.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> Comments or input from the public has no weight. The decisions made for these topics are made before the public WB meeting even starts. Go back and watch all the previous meetings they’ve had. I’ve never seen a public comment persuade any of the board members to change their opinion on something in the heat of the moment.
> 
> if they really cared about the publics input, they’d give them longer than 3 days to submit their input online. For example, the first of the RAC meetings for 2022 permit numbers is April 5th. In the business world, it’s now Tuesday March 22 2022, and the materials and information has yet to be published online for the public to review, consider, research and give their feedback on. They don’t care. It’s all just a formality in the “process” that by law they have to follow.


I beg to differ with you! I've seen several of my comments or questions come to fruition. Some of them have taken a while and/or have come from conversations other than the meetings themselves, but they are now part of the system or policy.
-HAMS hunts used to be HAM hunts until I asked at a Southern RAC if the DWR had thought about including shotguns in the those short range hunts. I was told that they hadn't and there was no reason why they couldn't be included. And now they are.
-I brought a friend (George) who is blind to a Wildlife Board meeting and asked him to tell them what he told me about not being able to pull the trigger on a deer hunt. He didn't feel like it was "his" deer. We were told to meet with the DWR lawyer after the meeting and the lawyer had looked up the laws and found that George COULD pull the trigger with a laser projecting sight and a sighted companion spotter. (The process requires some paperwork, but at least George and any other blind person can shoot their own deer, elk, etc.)
-At another WB meeting I asked about additional Extended Archery hunts in areas other than the Wasatch Front and Uintah Basin. Especially where they have so many depredation doe hunts. After the meeting John Bair and Karpowitz told me they were going to investigate the idea and make some recommendations to the DWR. They did and we now have 2 of them near me, one within walking distance from my home as well as others around the state. (That one took
quite awhile.)
-I killed a cow moose on a legal hunt on a State Park and during a Wildlife Board Meeting lunchtime, I went to the State Parks Department down the hall on another matter, but asked the secretary up front about their then current policy of hunting on state park property. The secretary then paged one of the staff who had some influence ( I don't know his position and can't remember his name.). But I asked why they didn't allow hunting in more of the State Parks. He said he would look into it. And now we can hunt in more of the State Parks. (That one also took a while.)

I certainly can't claim total credit for the above (or some of the other stuff I've talked about at those meetings) because I don't know who else may have said something, but at least I know I did and that they listened to me.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

FWIW, IMHO, Piles of apples isn't baiting, it's feeding! Until that difference is made and defined and "feeding" is banned while "baiting" is regulated by amount, number of sites, placement of sites, registration, possible fees and identification, those who are "feeding" the animals are not responsible for ruining it for the rest of us. Our "all or nothing" response to the "feeding" is responsible and we end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> FWIW, IMHO, Piles of apples isn't baiting, it's feeding! Until that difference is made and defined and "feeding" is banned while "baiting" is regulated by amount, number of sites, placement of sites, registration, possible fees and identification, those who are "feeding" the animals are not responsible for ruining it for the rest of us. Our "all or nothing" response to the "feeding" is responsible and we end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.


I disagree. Any effort to use food, salt, etc for the purpose of attracting animals is baiting. Feeding would be the exception...for instance Hardware Ranch, and should be conducted under the direction of the DWR.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

If I plan to kill over it, it is baiting.
If I just want to observe wildlife, it is feeding.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

MooseMeat said:


> Why would it be bad? Pelicans could use some herd thinning. Smarts really isn’t your thing is it? I said show me where it says it’s illegal to kill them. Not a guide on how to identify the species.
> 
> and just to irk you, I’ve shot 2 trumpeters. 1 on purpose (I still have to talk to my bishop about it), the 2nd was a juvy and made no noise as it came sailing into the spread. It was solo and I had nothing to compare it to, body size wise, to know it wasn’t a tundra. I didn’t even know it was a trumpeter until I checked it in and the bill measured larger than what an adult tundra would measure. I’ve seen a 3rd one killed over my decoys, again, silent, bombed into the decoys and died. It was a mature bird and knew immediately once it was picked up that it was a trumpeter. Beautiful bird.
> 
> im still waiting for you to cite the code that says trumpeters are illegal to shoot.







__





Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service


The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S.




www.fws.gov




No season = Protected

Disgusting you intentionally killed a trumpeter and are unapologetic about your inability to identify what you are shooting. Season closure which you helped trigger also prevents others from continuing to hunt.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

OriginalOscar said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All migratory waterfowl = PROTECTED

Haha It’s a SWAN season, where both species (and more!) are legal to be taken by a tag holder. Fun fact: some swan species don’t even require a tag to be killed in utah, and can be hunted year round without any bag limits! 😳 your lack of knowledge pertaining to this is embarrassing. And your inability to make a logical arguments is amusing.

yeah I’m sure I contributed to it. In 2017, there was what, 4 checked in? 25% of the total trumpeter harvest that year was me! The accidental one that occurred in 2015, which id bet many “opportunist” swan hunters out there would have taken, there was like 2 checked in. 50% I was responsible for this time! 🤭 how dare I! 🙄

another fun fact for you: in addition to seasonal quotas put in place by wildlife agencies, there are also daily quotas put in place that you must abide by while waterfowl hunting. Like no more than 1 pintail, no more than 2 hen mallards, no more than 2 wood ducks, etc…. Each day you go hunting! Why is that? Is it because certain populations of ducks, like swans, might not be as abundant for whatever reason, and because of that, their amount of take (quota) is limited to a certain number per day, per hunter? I’ve never seen anyone get an azz chewing for choosing to fill their 1 daily pintail quota on a mature drake when the opportunity presents itself. But then again, guys like you do exist, so I suppose it is possible.

meeting quotas isn’t always a bad thing. They are there for a reason, and are another form of wildlife management. Don’t believe everything KSL tries to sell you on. Remember, the people writing those articles struggle using the correct pictures of ungulates native to North America for their cover photos when talking about deer and elk.

here you’ll see where the state acknowledges that trumpeter swans are legal on a state and federal level, with a quota of now 20 birds, compared to the original agreement of 10. If numbers were struggling or declining, you’d think they’d reduce the quota amount and not issue any additional swan tags offered in the draw (now 2,750 from the original 2,000). Or even open up more areas to hunt, which are known hotspots for trumpeter harvests to occur, that were shut down in the past because of that issue. But that topic is for another day. If you need help with reading comprehension on the reading material below, try pulling your head out of your @$$, wipe the chit off your glasses and read it then. Maybe that’ll help.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> -Baiting did/does have negative biological effects- congregating animals, changing use of the land, disease transmission, etc.. Who wants to see herds of desert bighorn sheep eating out of the same apple piles?


A couple of comments were made here regarding baiting and feeding effects on ungulates. The article below came through a professional news feed I get. 




https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/16/wyoming-elk-chronic-wasting-disease/?wpisrc=nl_sb_smartbrief


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MrShane said:


> If I plan to kill over it, it is baiting.
> If I just want to observe wildlife, it is feeding.


OK, I'll concede to your definitions. They sound reasonable. I just view it differently than you do just because of the volume. Those piles of apples would completely fill the bellies of a whole herd of deer and they probably wouldn't eat anything else. On the other hand, my 20 or so scattered apples near a guzzler they are already using does nothing more than hold them for a few minutes to provide for a clear, clean, standing, level broadside shot at an unalerted deer which is an ideal humane shot. However, the all or nothing regulation designed to get rid of those piles of apples also gets rid of my ideal humane shot and I think it unnecessarily goes beyond it's purpose and that's unfortunate. Baiting could still be legal as long as it was regulated, like it's done in some other states.

Regardless of whether or not baiting is allowed, one thing that puzzles me is why all the other ways we try to attract/entice/congregate wildlife are not viewed with the same disrespect that is laid on baiting. Urine, decoys, rattling and calling are all intended to bring in animals that hunters want to kill, but those tactics and skills are actually applauded, not frowned upon. Why is that? All I've ever heard about the difference is that baiting is "unethical", "lame", "unfair", "stupid", "not fair chase", etc. All the other reasons for banning it could apply to the other tactics as well.

All I will say about it at this point is, don't be too surprised when they get around to your chosen way of hunting! This all or nothing attitude cuts a wide swath.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Careful, there are states that prohibit the use of urine and scents too when hunting big game.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

elkfromabove said:


> OK, I'll concede to your definitions. They sound reasonable. I just view it differently than you do just because of the volume. Those piles of apples would completely fill the bellies of a whole herd of deer and they probably wouldn't eat anything else. On the other hand, my 20 or so scattered apples near a guzzler they are already using does nothing more than hold them for a few minutes to provide for a clear, clean, standing, level broadside shot at an unalerted deer which is an ideal humane shot. However, the all or nothing regulation designed to get rid of those piles of apples also gets rid of my ideal humane shot and I think it unnecessarily goes beyond it's purpose and that's unfortunate. Baiting could still be legal as long as it was regulated, like it's done in some other states.
> 
> Regardless of whether or not baiting is allowed, one thing that puzzles me is why all the other ways we try to attract/entice/congregate wildlife are not viewed with the same disrespect that is laid on baiting. Urine, decoys, rattling and calling are all intended to bring in animals that hunters want to kill, but those tactics and skills are actually applauded, not frowned upon. Why is that? All I've ever heard about the difference is that baiting is "unethical", "lame", "unfair", "stupid", "not fair chase", etc. All the other reasons for banning it could apply to the other tactics as well.
> 
> All I will say about it at this point is, don't be too surprised when they get around to your chosen way of hunting! This all or nothing attitude cuts a wide swath.


Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against baiting and sad to see it banned.
I was just trying to make a simple definition for the practice.
I agree it could have been allowed with some type of regulation.
I am not sad to see cameras get banned. I hated seeing Chinese plastic being attached year after year to so many trees.
If you own the tree it is one thing, but should have never been allowed on a publicly owned tree.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> All I've ever heard about the difference is that baiting is "unethical", "lame", "unfair", "stupid", "not fair chase", etc. All the other reasons for banning it could apply to the other tactics as well.


Ok...I'll chime in. There is another problem with baiting besides all of the subjective viewpoints you listed above. I know a guy whose hunting group has now killed multiple bears from tree stands and blinds over bait sites. Every time a bear has come in, they have killed the bear in "self-defense" then contacted the DWR to explain the incident and every time they walked away with no repercussions. I have a really hard time with that. The only reason those bears were perceived as a threat was because they were drawn to the site by bait--apples. Their choice, to me, is not only unethical but warrant of a poaching conviction, but they get away with it because of the perceived threat.

The problem with baiting deer and elk is that it sometimes brings in other animals that are not the intended quarry. And, sometimes, the baiting has a negative effect on these other animals. I am pretty sure this is part of the reason for the baiting law.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

wyoming2utah said:


> Ok...I'll chime in. There is another problem with baiting besides all of the subjective viewpoints you listed above. I know a guy whose hunting group has now killed multiple bears from tree stands and blinds over bait sites. Every time a bear has come in, they have killed the bear in "self-defense" then contacted the DWR to explain the incident and every time they walked away with no repercussions. I have a really hard time with that. The only reason those bears were perceived as a threat was because they were drawn to the site by bait--apples. Their choice, to me, is not only unethical but warrant of a poaching conviction, but they get away with it because of the perceived threat.
> 
> The problem with baiting deer and elk is that it sometimes brings in other animals that are not the intended quarry. And, sometimes, the baiting has a negative effect on these other animals. I am pretty sure this is part of the reason for the baiting law.


I don’t blame them at all for trying to help our deer herd by eliminating some fawn killers.


----------



## ShedyGaGa (Oct 12, 2019)

I think it is important to appreciate our past hunting experiences knowing that we are on a road to further destruction of our ability to control what little we have left. May we all maintain our minds and ability to recall the “good old days” as long as we live.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> Careful, there are states that prohibit the use of urine and scents too when hunting big game.


Ya! Utah is one of them. I've heard of guys using urine at Strawberry to attract Kokanee and being sighted for it....


----------

