# Southern RAC....WTH?!?!?!



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I just want to say that I am embarrassed by what I witnessed from most of the RAC members in the Southern Region tonight. While there are a couple who get that biology actually matters, everything I heard the RAC members, not the public, haggle over tonight, was their own agenda bullcrap! The plan that 22 individuals crafted for the *STATEWIDE* mule deer management plan did not need to address individual unit issues but was a framework for inclusion of the individual unit plans that will be crafted once the habitat analysis is completed for each and counts are done. Then, those units by unit plans will be crafted and then go through the public process before being implemented into the state plan. Mr. Shannon said that repeatedly tonight. Instead, the chair and a couple of boneheads members, decided that they needed to vote to include unit specific language like, how close you can camp by a water hole (the division area director even stated that is not appropriate to be in the plan as they do not have authority or jurisdiction on public land camping). Another duh moment, the chair said he talked to lots of hunters in the field and at local coffee shops and restaurants and they all said that their biggest concerns were overcrowding, quantity and quality of the bucks they were seeing (I don't know, get off the road because some of us are too busy in the trees and ridges to be sitting at a coffee shop in town). I talked to a lot of hunters who weren't hunting because they didn't get a tag. So, he wanted to send the *STATEWIDE* plan back to the committee in a year. Does it get better? Sure thing....and my favorite:

Without a single comment from the public, one of the RAC geniuses proposed an amendment to the plan to raise all southern region units to the 18-20 B/D ratio plan. That means, on the Panguitch Lake Unit, that 15% of the tags that were issued last year will be cut. This on a unit that is already facing critical winter range issues while being 3200 mouths over objective!!!!!!!! There was no biology, there was not an ounce of sane discussion and zero public input or I would have bent their ears five ways to Sunday! So, before I end my rant and apologize for where I live, all the stupid amendments passed. I'm sure I missed some of them, too. Oh and the public mostly supported the management plan as proposed.

Sorry. Rant over.


----------



## tander123 (Sep 21, 2007)

All I can say is from the sound of your report, the sharpest tools in the shed got left there.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Why not give out a couple thousand Panguitch Lake Unit late season doe tags? That would increase buck/doe ratios and also increase hunting opportunity. While helping out the overloaded winter range.
Maybe it's just a little too simple of a thought.:?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

So they want to bring back statewide archery?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

The biologists originally had wanted 500 - 600 does removed from the Parowan Front winter range YEARLY. I asked the question, and they answered on the spot with multiple groups in attendance. Yes, there have been and still are habitat improvement projects along the range and with the translocations there have been around 500 animals taken off that range over the last two years but those improvements will get trampled into nothing by an ever increasing population. They wanted to decrease the population by that many per year! The unit is at least 3200 over objective and the 3 year average b/d ratio is 19/100 because of the increase of population. I forget the percentage of the Panguitch Lake deer population that winter on the front but its the bulk of the herd for that unit and a few might make their way south from the Beaver unit as well. There are around five other winter ranges for the unit but none near over capacity of the Parowan Front range. 

Regardless, current buck to doe ratios were established through public input and input from biologists. There was ZERO reason for changing them other than some moron on the RAC (nothing the guy said was coherently understandable except the SFW bunch that dominates the board got all hot and bothered about the chance to raise the b/d ratios again). Not one question to the biologists or Shannon as to the effect it would have biologically on the populations. None. So, essentially, 480 hunters will now be reduced from the Panguitch Lake hunts alone, thus offsetting any progress made by the translocation and doe hunts. Good work, boneheads! Okay, I'm done. Hopefully someone can make sense of the circus we witnessed tonight. I left before the points rule change was brought up. I'm sure that went just as brilliantly as the mule deer plan did.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Bowdacious said:


> So they want to bring back statewide archery?


No, what they want to do is get the STATEWIDE Mule Deer Committee back together in a year and revise the STATEWIDE 5 year plan to include: No camping within 1/2 mile of a waterhole during the deer season, adding a statement specifically about the coyote bounty program, reconsidering the overcrowding issue (we considered that already), reconsidering the quality and quantity of mature bucks issues (we considered those already) and turning each Southern Region unit into an 18 to 20 buck to doe ratio unit (we specifically left them as they were and didn't want that to change).

The nearest they got to returning statewide archery or reducing the numbers of deer was ignoring a proposal made by myself in behalf of UWC to get the DWR to consider increasing the number of Extended Archery hunts to include units that are over population objectives and/or over buck to doe ratios and I specifically mentioned Panguitch Lake and Zion. It was mentioned by the chair as a proposal, but it never came up again.

Basically, they want to cut opportunity/permits in order to hunt those big bucks in those canyons by themselves.

Also, a CWMU operator and the RAC chair specifically expressed their disappointment that the Mule Deer Committee didn't meet their expectations and didn't come up with what they considered major positive changes, though neither specified what those changes should have been and they think that we (The Mule Deer Committee) need to do a re-over and do it right this time.

Finally, the RAC didn't like the DWR Preference Point proposal and wanted to change the draw procedure to draw ALL first choices first using points, which you would lose if drawn, but all other choices are drawn without using or losing points, pure one chance lucky draw. At least, that's how I think it was proposed. (The proposal took so long to state correctly that it was confusing.)

Typically with the Southern RAC, we took over 5 hours. I got home at 11:30, 7 miles away.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

"chair said he talked to lots of hunters in the field and at local coffee shops and restaurants and they all said"

Sounds like you fellers have more coffee shops than Seattle. Did he write their concerns on a napkin?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sounds like they should just raise panguitch lakes objective by 3500 problem solved. 

Sounds like to me the objective is wrong. How could they be so far off? 

Is the weather that great in panguitch lake? Haha


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Sounds like they should just raise panguitch lakes objective by 3500 problem solved.


There's a brilliant idea (sarcasm)....and further reduce the quality of the winter range where most of the relies on its winter food!

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a loser, folks! I can't believe all the cougars and coyotes aren't killing all those deer already...!


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Last 2 years over 30 days on the Boulder unit No tag but hunting with My 24 yr old and 20 yr old Grandson and my 2 Sons that does not include scouting and fishing trips. And Never,, Not One Time have we been checked,, Stopped . Nothing. Never Been Ask about what we think of the directions they want to take..Guess we need to hit the Coffee Shops.to find some serious answers to R questions..10 years ago hunting Thousand Lake my wife and I had limited Archery Tags, spent 26 days on that mountain Not one time were we checked,,RAC meeting attended one. Ask a question and have them question your educational back ground.. AGREE WTF,


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Bucksnort1 said:


> Last 2 years over 30 days on the Boulder unit No tag but hunting with My 24 yr old and 20 yr old Grandson and my 2 Sons that does not include scouting and fishing trips. And Never,, Not One Time have we been checked,, Stopped . Nothing. Never Been Ask about what we think of the directions they want to take..Guess we need to hit the Coffee Shops.to find some serious answers to R questions..10 years ago hunting Thousand Lake my wife and I had limited Archery Tags, spent 26 days on that mountain Not one time were we checked,,RAC meeting attended one. Ask a question and have them question your educational back ground.. AGREE WTF,


Same experience here. In contrast I have never not been been checked by a fish and game officer while hunting in Colorado and have been checked by officers in Wyoming more often than not.

I have only once run into a fish cop in Utah and that was on a summer ride, not during the season.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> There's a brilliant idea (sarcasm)....and further reduce the quality of the winter range where most of the deer herd relies on its winter food! (From Lee; About 75-80% winter on the west side of the unit while 20% winters on the east side.)
> 
> Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a loser, folks! I can't believe all the cougars and coyotes aren't killing all those deer already...!


And don't forget also raising the buck to doe ratios to match the current ones, so that they don't have to increase permits.

And if you believe that their desire to increase the deer population to 425,400 is to increase the opportunity for the average hunter as they claim, you are sadly mistaken! These current promises are nothing more than the New and Improved, Latest and Greatest promises that simply replace the unfulfilled original Option #2 promises we got when Option #2 was promoted. They didn't keep their stated promises with the original version, so what makes you think they will keep the promises they're making now? In fact, Partners in Pine Valley, Friends of the Paunsaugunt, SFW, Alton CWMU and this RAC are already positioning themselves for the increase by trying to raise the buck to doe ratios, reducing "overcrowding", shortening seasons, increasing the number of Limited Entry units, and reconvening the Mule Deer Committee in year 1 of a 5 year plan in order manage deer their way. They didn't get what they wanted from the Mule Deer Committee the first time around so we may have to do it over again. However, any do-over may bite them in the butt, because UWC and some of the others will push harder the other way. We weren't entirely happy with the first go around either, but for very different reasons.

Let's see if the Wildlife Board will keep the promises they also made!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Not to put a damper on everybody getting worked up to a froth about the hilljacks in the Southern RAC, but what is the probability of these items getting passed, unchanged, by the Wildlife Board or even other RAC's? Honest question, I have no idea of the answer. 

My other thought is why even bother with the Mule Deer working group and 5 year plans at all if the regional RAC's can change the recommendations at their whim?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> There's a brilliant idea (sarcasm)....and further reduce the quality of the winter range where most of the relies on its winter food!
> 
> Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a loser, folks! I can't believe all the cougars and coyotes aren't killing all those deer already...!


You really do hate deer don't you.

Do you know the difference between capacity and objective? And how either are determined?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Catherder said:


> Not to put a damper on everybody getting worked up to a froth about the hilljacks in the Southern RAC, but what is the probability of these items getting passed, unchanged, by the Wildlife Board or even other RAC's? Honest question, I have no idea of the answer.
> 
> My other thought is why even bother with the Mule Deer working group and 5 year plans at all if the regional RAC's can change the recommendations at their whim?


 The other RAC meetings have already been held and, so far, nobody on this forum as reported on those, so I can't say how they voted, or would have voted if these issues were brought up. As far as the Wildlife Board passing these, who knows? They passed the loss of Statewide Archery when the Southern RAC was the ONLY RAC that passed it. AND there are some Board members who are leaving the board soon and will be replaced. (I'm not sure who or when.)

Regarding the Mule Deer Planning Committee's efforts to draft a 5 year plan (9 meetings/40 hours, for me 210 miles away), since the opponents of the older plan were able to change it midstream to their advantage, I guess they figure it's now a gimme!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> You really do hate deer don't you.
> 
> Do you know the difference between capacity and objective? And how either are determined?


Nevermind that the reason the doe hunts have been held on the parowan front is because the deer are OVER capacity and destroying their own winter range...right? Go back to Ignorance Land....do you know anything about that unit, IB...or, are you just as clueless about it as you are predator/prey relationships?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Bucksnort1 said:


> Last 2 years over 30 days on the Boulder unit N... And Never,, Not One Time have we been checked,, Stopped . Nothing. Never Been Ask about what we think of the directions they want to take..Guess we need to hit the Coffee Shops...10 years ago hunting Thousand Lake my wife and I had limited Archery Tags, spent 26 days on that mountain Not one time were we checked,,





Dahlmer said:


> Same experience here. In contrast I have never not been been checked by a fish and game officer while hunting in Colorado and have been checked by officers in Wyoming more often than not.
> I have only once run into a fish cop in Utah and that was on a summer ride, not during the season.


These comments confuse me in regard to the original topic of discussion in this thread. So, are the comments above in support of the SRAC? In support of reduced opportunity in the name of increasing b:d ratio? All because they didn't get checked on their hunt and asked how things are going? Is this bizzaro world?

One thing that keeps coming to mind in regards to "renegade" RAC members: The general public of Utah voted in favor of allowing the public more involvement into wildlife management. WE asked for this. WE got it. Now WE get to deal with it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Well at least we are united.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I missed the Northern RAC due to it being during the muzzleloader elk hunt. Seriously why would they schedule the RAC meeting during an open hunt? I would love to hear if things went the same way in the Northern RAC. There are people that my eyes could burn holes through that sit on the panel. Comments that are so stupid and ignorant come out of the mouths of some of those guys I wonder how they ever got elected to have a seat. 

It sure would be nice if we just had an online Survey with tags that are issued and handled input using a 3rd party rather than the RAC. I trust some of those RAC guys about as much as I trust a fox in a hen house.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

PBH said:


> These comments confuse me in regard to the original topic of discussion in this thread. So, are the comments above in support of the SRAC? In support of reduced opportunity in the name of increasing b:d ratio? All because they didn't get checked on their hunt and asked how things are going? Is this bizzaro world?


These comments are neither in support of nor in opposition to the proposal (which I appose), but rather tangets describing the lack of wildlife officers in the field in Utah. Perhaps poking fun at the idea that these RAC members are spending a great deal of time talking to hunters. They are talking to certain land owners, CWMU operators and special interest group personnel.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> These comments are neither in support of nor in opposition to the proposal ... but rather tangents describing the lack of wildlife officers in the field in Utah.


Oh. So, basically, they had nothing to do with the original topic of discussion? Thank you.

in regard to your tangent, I've had just the opposite experience while hunting and fishing in Utah. In fact, I can't seem to go anywhere without running into CO's and biologists.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

same goes for me PBH. I run into them all of the time. I can not count the times that I have been asked to show my license/tag.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Don't get me wrong. I would love to get checked.. 3 or decades ago I looked forward to it, Great guys... would come into are Bow camp. Have a sandwich and a soda pop, shoot the crap. give us some heads up. interact with are kids. play a round of horse shoes.check are tags. talk bout the future of Mule Deer..I'am sure if the DWR guys could do the same now, I think it would be more positive, than trying to find out where the most popular coffee shop is, Let the field officers and game biologist start running things, get rid of the the screw balls.... from what it sounds like don't know the butt hole from one in the ground. OH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS..This Happen to fit U??


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Maybe there is not enough hunters in the southern units to make worth their time.
there seem to be plenty in the northern units. :noidea:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem is that there are not enough officers to actually get around like they used to. I think that I was reading the other day that there are only 47 enforcement officers in the whole state and if that is true then they need a lot more. I do know that some of the ones that I have ran into out in the field the last few years don't have the slightest idea of what they are doing. I personally believe that they are office workers that pulled the short straw or it was their time in the truck to go out and make their presents known.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Jim Karpowitz said flat out if Opt2 was passed there would be a reduction in services. Go listen to that meeting.


-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

middlefork said:


> Maybe there is not enough hunters in the southern units to make worth their time.
> there seem to be plenty in the northern units. :noidea:


 Well, there are enough archery deer hunters in the Southern Region to create "overcrowding" for the last 7 years. Plus we probably have the highest number of poaching cases, so the CO's here are out and about all the time.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Bucksnort1 said:


> Great guys... would come into are Bow camp. Have a sandwich and a soda pop, shoot the crap. give us some heads up. interact with are kids. play a round of horse shoes.check are tags. talk bout the future of Mule Deer.


Personally, I'd rather have them out looking for bad guys, then shooting the breeze and playing horse shoes with the people that aren't doing anything wrong!

I guess this is what bugs me with these types of comments. If you aren't getting checked, then maybe you aren't doing anything wrong to warrant a check in the first place?? And, for whatever this is worth, just because you weren't approached and asked for your license doesn't mean you weren't checked. You may have been observed. Again, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then maybe shooting the breeze with you wasn't warranted.

One other comment regarding "getting checked". Have you ever considered that the group of guys that just showed up 100 yards away from you on the ice with the tent and fishing gear and atv and such...maybe they were CO's that set up close to you to watch you. Heck, they might have even come over and talked to you without revealing who they were! It happens more often than you might think.

But, that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about the RAC members -- NOT DWR law enforcement or other employees -- but RAC members that have screws loose and talk to "hunters" that hang out in rural community coffee shops and then try to make wildlife management recommendations based off those coffee shop discussions. This isn't a DWR law enforcement or lack thereof discussion. Our law enforcement guys do a good job. So do our biologists. Too bad we, as the general uneducated public, have to try to stick our noses into their business and tell them how to do their jobs. Or, rather, too bad special interest groups move in on top of everyone to push their own ($$$) agendas.

sorry for the rant.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> The problem is that there are not enough officers to actually get around like they used to.


Any of you guys ever look at what a UDWR law enforcement wage is? I can tell you: pathetic.

It's not just that we dont' have enough, it's that we can't compete with other law enforcement agencies (in state or out of state). As soon as you get someone with a little experience under their belt, they bolt to a different agency where they can afford to feed their families. The UDWR law enforcement program is just a training grounds for other agencies to pick from!

Utah has a long history of not giving UDWR employees raises. This is a legislative problem. I know a biologist that hadn't had a raise in about 12 years. Good thing for all of us that he LOVES his job, and he's good at it.

If we want quality people to do a quality job, we have to pay competitive wages. Go tell your local legislative representative that they need to pass legislation to approve raises for our State employees!!


----------



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

PBH said:


> Any of you guys ever look at what a UDWR law enforcement wage is? I can tell you: pathetic.
> 
> It's not just that we dont' have enough, it's that we can't compete with other law enforcement agencies (in state or out of state). As soon as you get someone with a little experience under their belt, they bolt to a different agency where they can afford to feed their families. The UDWR law enforcement program is just a training grounds for other agencies to pick from!
> 
> ...


You start out at $14 as a trainee and $18 as a CO, it's a pretty low wage considering you need 4 years worth of school, you get much more fairly compensated at other law enforcement agencies who require nothing but a high school diploma.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

PBH Dwr employees make a good wage in utah. They also have good benifits, good retirement, job security, and a vehicle they can drive into the ground.

You want to see pathetic try working blue collar job.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://agency.governmentjobs.com/utah/default.cfm?action=jobbulletin&JobID=985485

$16.29 an hour with a college degree starting out is not what I would consider a good wage. The benefits are okay. We are hiring guys out of high school for $14-$15 with comparable benefits. No truck but blue collar as you can get.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> PBH Dwr employees make a good wage in utah. They also have good benifits, good retirement, job security, and a vehicle they can drive into the ground.
> 
> You want to see pathetic try working blue collar job.


Sorry man but you are wrong. The retirement went bye bye it's now a run of the mill 401k after 2011. 16-17$ an hr with a degree is pathetic. Public safety is as blue collar as they come. I may be a little biased being in the field, but as LEO jobs are concerned they are bottom of the barrel for wages.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

DallanC said:


> Jim Karpowitz said flat out if Opt2 was passed there would be a reduction in services. Go listen to that meeting.
> 
> -DallanC


YUP and coming from him, that said a lot.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I have no fault with the LEO's in the Southern Region at ALL!!! I get checked even though I know them. EVERY YEAR! This year, one even responded to a call from a concerned cabin owner/neighbor that wasn't sure my elk was actually an elk when we brought it back to cut it up. I know they are working because I occasionally drive out by Schurtz Canyon where idiots have been poaching like crazy and run into them (LEO's). Its not the LEO's.....its the dufus idiots on the RAC down here that somehow weazle their way to that table and then say stupid things like:

"we need to get migration dealt with and make wildlife crossings on roadways a habitat thing and not a road thing. Take the UDOT completely out of it and just get it done." I about imploded. 

And I'm sorry, but every concern they had with the proposed STATEWIDE mule deer plan did NOT supported sending it back to a group of guys who I am certain will send the exact same thing back next year. Hopefully, after a few of us speak our minds at the WB meeting, it will be plenty clear that changing b/d ratios across the board without public input and without science supporting the need or lack there of is unacceptable. I will NEVER sit silently like I did last night. Our decent LEO's are going to have to walk me out of the building to shut me up if I see a rogue bunch do what they did in this particular RAC. Glad to know a few of them are done and will be replaced. Like PBH said, we asked for it, now we live with it but we don't have to like or take it either. 

Now seriously, I have a cow elk tag to fill in December. THAT at least is something to look forward to. :-?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Thanks for being there hopefully we can get these clowns put on a leash


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Another excellent tid bit from our RAC chair:

"as far as changes go, I think that this plan they are proposing is a little bit more set in stone then they are letting on so if changes need to be made, lets make them."

*HUH?!?!?!?!*

He was responding to another member's assertion that if they approved the plan, nothing could be changed down the road. Mr. Shannon repeatedly said that wasn't the case and two other RAC members reminded the entire SFW bunch that right in the middle of the current 5 year plan, they decided to change the whole damned state into 30 units. All the biologists asked that the plan be approved and that the work being done on a unit by unit basis be completed and that proper data come from a three year average to determine any changes, if any, that need to be made before formalizing a unit by unit plan within the statewide plan. Three hours of crap should have taken no more than an hour and a half.

Oh, and what in the hell is wrong with drawing a tag, be it first, second or twentieth choice and loosing your points for the opportunity to hunt?!?!?!?! All you trophy lovers complain about points creep and they give an honest solution but instead, NOT MY POINTS!!!!! That was painfully obvious from the survey as well, a majority wanted to see bigger bucks and more of them and said they would accept restrictions in order to achieve that goal, then, when options for restrictions that biologically could result in what they wanted were proposed in the survey, a majority said, "RESTRICT THAT GUY, NOT ME." Really?!?!?!?! I think the division people are doing a great job, its the generally stupid public that has grown so apathetic that they don't care to do anything but cry out loud. I'm done, barring specific issues concerning the RAC......


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> I think the division people are doing a great job, its the generally stupid public that has grown so apathetic that they don't care to do anything but cry out loud. I'm done, barring specific issues concerning the RAC......


It seems your the one leading the charge when it comes to crying out loud!

klbzdad,
I do respect your willingness to get involved with many of our wildlife issues but it just seems all too often that you enter these RAC meetings looking for a fight and expecting to find one, even if your the one that needs to start it.
I've known you long enough on these forums to realize that you instantly reject any input from anyone caught shaking hands with a SFW member.
I wished you would be more willing to speak up in these meetings and be willing to talk to these people one on one long before any of these discussions happen before the night of the RAC meetings.
That's what many of the other people are doing to get these ideas put in their heads.
I can see one positive coming out of unit 28 going to 18-20 ratio.
It then could be included in with the proposed late season LE muzzleloader hunts.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Most people I've heard from are trilled with the quality of deer hunting over the last few yrs. I think a majority agree we are heading in the right direction. 

I envy Zion, Pine creek and panguitch. All over objective great hunter reports even with the same weather as the rest of the state. Id say they were doing something right.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Nevermind that the reason the doe hunts have been held on the parowan front is because the deer are OVER capacity and destroying their own winter range...right? Go back to Ignorance Land....do you know anything about that unit, IB...or, are you just as clueless about it as you are predator/prey relationships?


You got me. I have no personal experience in that unit or Zion or Pine. Just know them on paper. A few things I know about the units.

1. Liberal cougar harvest. 
2. Higher than average B/D ratios 
3. Even at their lowest still at or above objective. 
4. A lot of deer. 
5. All the same things that many point to as reasons the rest of the states deer herds aren't doing as well. Like weather habitat capacity development poachers atvs elk conifers global warming selenium deficiencies road kill.

But they do have organization and have fought to improve policy for themselves. A few other units are at or above capacity up north. Those units have a bunch of private land that also don't drive b/d ratios to the brink. And have either for livestock or game sustained and significant predator control. Morgan chalk creek.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> You got me. I have no personal experience in that unit or Zion or Pine. Just know them on paper. A few things I know about the units.
> 
> 1. Liberal cougar harvest.
> 2. Higher than average B/D ratios
> ...


 So, if that is the case with those three units, (you're correct), why aren't they now willing to keep their commitments to increase opportunity when we reach those objectives per their Option #2 proposal? Issue more permits including doe permits. Make them Extended Archery Areas. Add later hunts. Bring back depredation hunts. Change the weapon ratios. Open up some roads that drop into Zion (Deep Creek). Split the seasons. Etc.

Instead we get the opposite, because it's wasn't really opportunity they were after with Option #2, it was "quality" hunts for a few "hard core" (Peay's words) hunters. Apparently, the rest of us aren't worthy of those hunts because we don't have hunting high enough on our list of priorities.

Besides what you have seen at RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings and forum threads and social media, there are other indications of their intentions at other DWR meetings that you don't hear about. For instance, at one of the Mule Deer Committee meetings, an SFW member (who petitioned to get on the committee as an at large member) made a proposal to make a portion of EVERY general deer unit a Limited Entry Unit like we have done with Vernon, Oak Creek, Dolores Triangle, Elk Ridge, Diamond Mountain and Crawford Mountain. When that didn't pass he proposed that we expand the number of units from 30 to 74 like we had in the 60's while keeping the General and Limited Entry ratios. In other words, he wanted to double or triple the number of Limited Entry units with their accompanying Conservation Permits any way he could, while reducing the General hunt areas and permits. That didn't fly either! There were also other times when their motives were obvious, but other times when they weren't so obvious at the time, but took some thought later on to sort out.

Shawn (kblzdad) tends more to adamantly oppose the SFW organization than I do, but I admit it's getting harder to separate the organization from their antics because of the number of negative encounters we (UWC) have with them (original Parowan Front range ride, RAC meetings, Wildlife Board meetings, Convention tag meetings, Mule Deer Committee, Bear Committee) and because of our exclusion from meetings we feel we should have been invited to (Parowan deer transplant planning meetings, Partners in Pine Valley, some Convention tag meetings, and likely others we'll hear about later.) Fortunately, the DWR is more inclined now to include us in their meetings and we thank them for it. We were invited to be on the Mule Deer Committee, the Bear Committee and the upcoming Cougar Committee. And we were invited to a convention tag final proposal meeting. I don't fault SFW (or any other group) for making their proposals because they have every right to do so, just as we do. But it's one thing to admit their real intentions, but something quite different to claim their efforts are for the betterment of all hunters and fishermen in order to get proposals passed and then just giving us more promises as they are currently doing.

I still hate politics and we're forced into playing them, but UWC's motives are clear per our mission statement and logo. Wildlife first, outdoor families second!


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

AH!.. BACK STATE WIDE ARCHERY!!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

ridgetop said:


> It seems your the one leading the charge when it comes to crying out loud!
> 
> klbzdad,
> I do respect your willingness to get involved with many of our wildlife issues but it just seems all too often that you enter these RAC meetings looking for a fight and expecting to find one, even if your the one that needs to start it.
> ...





Iron Bear said:


> Most people I've heard from are trilled with the quality of deer hunting over the last few yrs. I think a majority agree we are heading in the right direction.
> 
> Mild winters. And if we're headed in the right direction, then why would they not approve the statewide plan and allow each unit plan to be built? Why would they raise the b/d ratio on a unit that is over objective, over holding capacity, and is already at 19/100? Why? It wasn't an action item, it wasn't in the packet, it was something a member drummed up and since the trophy crowd lost out to science and common sense when they determined the b/d ratios for option duece, each of them on that RAC were more than happy to corn hole the public while staring right back at them. No discussion from the public and they had already made up their minds. How is that going in the right direction?
> 
> ...


Here's the link to the recording. Listen for yourself:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac_minutes/14-11-18_sr.mp3


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Klbzdad, your OP was spot on!
 It was painfully obvious that certain members of the RAC could not comprehend the differences between what the STATEWIDE management plan is intended for and what UNIT management plans are. A couple RAC members stated that they could not and would not approve the STATEWIDE management plan unless they got to make changes on their favorite individual UNITS. That mentality is how they came up with the idea to approve it for one year so that they could make the Mule Deer Committee go back and address their personal wants and needs. Every single thing they wanted to change should be addressed this coming year when the UNIT management plans are revised! It was ridiculous to say the least!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

One thing I have learned when it comes to the political nature of hunting and fishing in Utah is that until the 'average Joe' starts SHOWING UP in big enough numbers to get people's attention, your special interest groups will always win out. 

I'm talking hundreds, or thousands showing up at a meeting. Not 5. If Governor Special Interest, I mean, Herbert got 10,000 calls demanding that the Wildlife Board be directed to actually start listening to the DWR and the biologists and not just groups like SFW and their money, and that he himself would be held accountable if they didn't....think things would change? 

I do. But it won't, because 95% of us don't care enough to get involved. That is the sad, pathetic truth.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

TS30 said:


> One thing I have learned when it comes to the political nature of hunting and fishing in Utah is that until the 'average Joe' starts SHOWING UP in big enough numbers to get people's attention, your special interest groups will always win out.
> 
> I'm talking hundreds, or thousands showing up at a meeting. Not 5. If Governor Special Interest, I mean, Herbert got 10,000 calls demanding that the Wildlife Board be directed to actually start listening to the DWR and the biologists and not just groups like SFW and their money, and that he himself would be held accountable if they didn't....think things would change?
> 
> I do. But it won't, because 95% of us don't care enough to get involved. That is the sad, pathetic truth.


Is there an organization out there that represents "Joe Hunter" that could inform people ahead of time and request their presence?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

TS30 said:


> One thing I have learned when it comes to the political nature of hunting and fishing in Utah is that until the 'average Joe' starts SHOWING UP in big enough numbers to get people's attention, your special interest groups will always win out.
> 
> I'm talking hundreds, or thousands showing up at a meeting. Not 5. If Governor Special Interest, I mean, Herbert got 10,000 calls demanding that the Wildlife Board be directed to actually start listening to the DWR and the biologists and not just groups like SFW and their money, and that he himself would be held accountable if they didn't....think things would change?
> 
> I do. But it won't, because 95% of us don't care enough to get involved. That is the sad, pathetic truth.


What was once a problem (lack of citizen participation) is now being exploited as a political advantage. It's the foundation of Rob Bishop's Public Land Initiative.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What about when "joe's" don't agree on the solution? Problem with "joe's" are they are generally uniformed on the proper solution or that there even is a solution. 

I'm glad Washington DC doesn't have total authority over state policy. I'm glad salt lake doesn't have total authority over county policy and so on. 

For 40 yrs we had blanket policy regarding deer. Basically unlimited hunter harvest and at the same time managing for capacity predators. We've listened to the biologist I've heard the biology. I'm sorry but it's track record sucks. As I have stated in my prior posts the units with local organization have more abundant deer then the ones that don't. 

I don't agree with these groups limiting opportunity I'm not going to second guess them at this point. I feel their demonstration of taking control effecting wildlife for the betterment of hunters, is a example of best practices for hunters in today's climate of wildlife management in the west.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

IB has a point regarding average joe's being informed (uninformed). Muleskinner also has a point about organization.

We see this with anglers all the time. Fly anglers vs Spin anglers vs Bait anglers vs Bass anglers vs Walleye anglers vs rainbow glitter powerbait anglers. They can never come to a common ground to agree on anything. Hunters would be the same.

One thing that maybe the big game managers at the DWR need to start looking at is something that the southern region fish biologists have been doing for a couple years now that works very well: committees. Look at what has happened recently with Boulder Mountain work groups and Fish Lake workgroups. Biologists have been able to get working committees comprised of multiple different groups of people together to work on and discuss management plans. It's not special interest groups proposing their plan to a RAC -- it's multiple individuals that comprise multiple different sectors of anglers to work together and hash out the difference long before a RAC is ever approached. The plan is developed utilizing the "average joe". Then the plan is actually accepted because "average joe" helped put it together. When presented the RACs they have also been well accepted.

Maybe our big game managers need to start looking at better ways to involve the public long before the general public (and special interest groups) arrive at the RACs. Head these issues off before they ever become an issue?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

They already have those it's called the muledeer committee. They are all folks from different groups representing muledeer managment.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> They already have those it's called the muledeer committee. They are all folks from different groups representing muledeer managment.


But what I wonder if they need to do is start having a "Pine Valley deer management committee" or a "Parowan Front deer committee" or a "Panguitch Lake deer committee" to address specific concerns for those specific areas.

It's obvious that the Mule Deer Committee isn't getting things done the way managers, RACs, and the public want.

Like I said, things have worked very well for the fisheries side with these committees -- which is why you're seeing new committees being formed to address issue at Lake Powell, among other "special" projects.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

That is what klbzdad complaining about. He doesn't want little coffee shops deciding what goes on in certain areas because this is what's happening allready.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> That is what klbzdad complaining about. He doesn't want little coffee shops deciding what goes on in certain areas because this is what's happening allready.


not if you organize them. Forget the coffee shop talk and RAC agreement before that stuff every happens. Get the DWR to organize those meetings. Involve the public. Educate them. Discuss with them. Allow them to talk. Formulate the plan based off the education and discussion. It gets biologists and the public on common ground and forms much better working relationships between them. It would provide an opportunity for klbzdad to work alongside a DWR biologist, an SFW representative, a farmer, and joe blow coffee shop hunter all at the same time. I'd feel pretty good about that.

Like i said, this has been working very well with fisheries in the southern region. They've already had great feedback from the public and are moving forward with doing more. Start doing the same with with big game.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

For what ever reason I would think you would end up with a sfw member on all those committees and it would be no different than it is right now. The general public doesn't care or they would be showing up at the rac's. 

The squeaky wheel gets the grease and sfw seems to be the oil. Right now as long as sfw doesn't screw with archery persentage of the tags I don't care what they do. I think the state is headed in the right direction because the trend in muledeer numbers is trending up. Buck doe ratios are up. I have no desire to hunt 10/100 units. The hunting now is almost as good as it was when I first started hunting.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

"It's obvious that the Mule Deer Committee isn't getting things done the way managers, RACs, and the public want." 

That has to be one of the most ill-informed sentences in this whole thread. Interesting that 60% + of hunters are satisfied with the current management strategy (how many Presidents have a 60% + approval rating), the UDWR Managers involved with the Committee expressed how they liked the end-result of the Plan, no Public has voiced serious opposition in the RACs to the Plan, the Groups have all supported the Plan, and every RAC besides the Southern RAC supported the Plan. 

Friends of the Unit X and special interest committees could be implemented to grow herds, care for them in drought or bad winters, lobby local govt entities to improve/protect deer herds. They should not dictate management of how to kill the animals. If the Board was to pass the request to move all units in the Southern Region to 18-20 that will have a negative effect on units outside the Southern Region-- hunters will move to other units simply to hunt. The Southern Region is not independent from the rest of the State. Those deer herds are not theirs anymore than the Wasatch moose herd is mine. I thought we were kind of in this all together......

Oh, and there are many units across the state doing very well which don't have a group of friends. At the same time- carrying capacity varies from year to year, yet the long-term capacity is what we should manage for-- and hopefully that is a lot more deer.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

For the record I'm happy with the muledeer committee and think they are doing a fantastic job. It's hard to please everyone in such a political mess.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

PBH said:


> not if you organize them. Forget the coffee shop talk and RAC agreement before that stuff every happens. Get the DWR to organize those meetings. Involve the public. Educate them. Discuss with them. Allow them to talk. Formulate the plan based off the education and discussion. It gets biologists and the public on common ground and forms much better working relationships between them. It would provide an opportunity for klbzdad to work alongside a DWR biologist, an SFW representative, a farmer, and joe blow coffee shop hunter all at the same time. I'd feel pretty good about that.
> 
> Like i said, this has been working very well with fisheries in the southern region. They've already had great feedback from the public and are moving forward with doing more. Start doing the same with with big game.


 Oh, if life were so simple! Fishin' ain't huntin'! Especially with big game!

Fishing goes on all year and nobody complains about catching or harassing them 5 months in a row. EVERY fishing license is over the counter and there are no draws. ANYONE can buy one ANYTIME during the year without taking a fishermen safety course. You can fish ANYWHERE IN THE STATE OF UTAH at ANY TIME, even at night! And when we get down in school populations, we just dump a thousand more of them in the water. Body size is the only issue and, we don't worry about female to male ratios, nor do we have gender specific regulations. We also can catch as many as 8 of each species per day, in fact some species have NO LIMIT. And now we could legally harvest 1,000's of them each year if we took them home every other day. And if we want to see and catch the big ones, we can go to waters that grow the big ones without having to buy another license at a premium or hire a guide. And we can take our families with us without having to worry about the kids (or the dog) making too much noise while scaring the fish or us smelling bad, or having to worry about what color our jacket is, or following a blood trail for miles or someone else stealing them before we can get them in the creel. And we can gently put them back in the water if we decide they weren't big enough or if we wanted to catch them again. In some peoples mind, overcrowding could be an issue, but that's easily resolved by moving to the other side of the lake or driving a few miles or fishing at a different time (night). In other words, the fishermen conflicts are miniscule compared to the big game hunter conflicts. Oh yeah, I forgot the two biggest differences (Not really, I just wanted to save them for last to emphasis my point). There are NO EXPO fi$hing licen$e$ or Con$ervation fi$hing licen$e$ that fund and empower those groups that will be on those committees. They're much easier to work with on the fishing committees because none of the proposals will threaten their income nor their leverage with the RAC's and Wildlife Board and Legislature.

The following is the bulk of a proposal sent to the Mule Deer Committee from one of those committees you envision, Partners in Pine Valley. Remember now, that this is a General Hunting Unit.

1) "Work very closely with the BLM and Forest Service to repair and enhance existing guzzlers and catchments. Also support and encourage continued water development for wildlife."

2) "Develop parameters in Mule Deer plan to trigger state help in predator control. Closely monitor Doe/Fawn ratios with coordinated effort from BLM, FS, DWR, and Sportsmen. We need to keep the fawns alive."

3) "Renewed campaigns via media to alert public that poaching violations will not be tolerated. Emphasize what the penalties are and encourage law enforcement to maximize those penalties."

4) "Construct fences where economically feasible along Hwy 18 and increase flashing signs as a continued reminder of potential wildlife/auto collisions."

5) "Recommend and increase in Mule Deer populations @ 750 per year over the life of the 5 year plan to meet the management objective of 16,000 for the Pine Valley Unit. Also...that the Buck/Doe ratio increases correspondingly to a minimum of 23/100."

6) "Until such time as the above objectives and ratios have been achieved, we propose that the Adult any-weapon season be 5 days and 9 days for Youth."

Items 1, 2, 3 are already in place in the Mule Deer Plan and have been all along, but I guess they don't think we're doing enough of it or we aren't doing it right.

Item 4 is unit specific and isn't meant to be addressed in the STATEWIDE mule deer plan, but will be considered in the unit plan.

Item 5 has one part, population, that is already addressed in the plan, but not number or unit specific. (see above), but the other part, buck to doe ratio, is far outside the parameters of the general hunt designation and, if passed, even on the unit plan, would likely set in motion a drive to eliminate general unit hunting as now constituted. Justin said in the meeting that for every 1 buck increase in buck to doe ratios, we would have to cut the permit numbers by 5%. And, notice that 23/100 is a MINUMUM number and that they have not indicated a maximum number where they would be willing to restore lost permits.

Item 6 is not only troubling for the shortened Adult any-weapon season which research has shown to be ineffective in lowering success rates, but for the fact that they aren't willing to restore permits nor season length until the above objectives and ratios have been achieved. regardless of the amount of time it takes to get there, if ever!

So, who are the Partners in Pine Valley? Beats me! I 've never seen a roster. I know I wasn't invited nor was any UWC member. I do know who was on the Mule Deer Committee and so do you and that committee was put together by the DWR, not self appointed like the Partners in Pine Valley. You also already know how tough it was to get that mixture of hunters to come to an agreement on a mule deer plan and you see the reaction we got at the Southern RAC.

Yes, I guess DWR could form and run unit deer committees, but the results would be the same as we saw from the statewide deer committee meetings.

Carry on! Rant over!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> I know I wasn't invited nor was any UWC member.


Really curious............who are the UWC members again? Is it those that like the UWC on Facebook and see a new link put up every month or so? Is there a list of it's members somewhere? Who are the current members of it's board? Who appointed them? Does it have a board? Who do they represent and when/where are the meetings held? I think I am real confused as to what a member is.

What does the UWC have going for it that the Partners of Pine Valley doesn't?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Really curious............who are the UWC members again? Is it those that like the UWC on Facebook and see a new link put up every month or so? Is there a list of it's members somewhere? Who are the current members of it's board? Who appointed them? Does it have a board? Who do they represent and when/where are the meetings held? I think I am real confused as to what a member is.
> 
> What does the UWC have going for it that the Partners of Pine Valley doesn't?


I know that both efa and klbzdad are very involved in the Southern Region. I also would like to see some organization and detail about UWC. I signed up a while ago hoping it would be a place I can get more involved in what's going on in the state, however I have received 1 email the entire time. Is there anything going on in the northern part of the state? Meetings, members, etc? I would genuinely like to get more involved with what's going on. Educate myself more than from just behind my keyboard, and help where I can. Anyone else?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

A lot of the guys on this forum are uwc members including myself. The guys on the board are doing a great job keeping you up to date posting big game updates or concerns right here.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I get regular emails from a group of anglers complaining about the very Boulder Mountain committee that PBH speaks of. Success in one person's eye is not always success in another's. He's right that the committees work very well for "those communities." But alas, those fisheries and those big game animals don't belong to "those communities", no matter how much the southerners think they do. You'll never make everyone happy. Which is why committees, politicians, and special interest groups will always screw up wildlife issues. 

PBH, you used to be a pretty level-headed and well-thought out dude. You are a guy that knows what he's talking about and is passionate about the outdoors, this much I know. But good heavens, does it get tiring talking about both sides of your mouth all the time these days? Aren't you the one always talking about how we need to listen to the DWR and the biologists more? From what I'm gathering from this thread, the DWR thinks the Mule Deer Committee did just fine. It's these little groups you are proposing putting together that didn't like what they did. 

So which is it? Are we supposed to listen to the biologists and say the Mule Deer Committee did well? Or are we to listen to the Southern RAC and the public and say they didn't get it done? Can't be both ways. Pick your side here man.

You can't organize the general public. There are multiple reasons for this. But the biggest is most people aren't willing to stay home from fishing or hunting one day to show up to the organized function. And even if they do, they show up one time and call it good. I've been there, done that. I know how long the vast majority of people have an attention span with this stuff when they aren't on the pay roll. Which is why the groups with people on the pay roll end up being the most successful. They get paid to show up.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> A lot of the guys on this forum are uwc members including myself. The guys on the board are doing a great job keeping you up to date posting big game updates or concerns right here.


A lot of guys on this forum signed up to become members of what used to be the UWC. Being a member is nothing more now than saying that you signed up on web page that has not been updated in over two years. Even what little has been posted on Facebook is nothing more than links created by other groups. Other than that what involvement has there been by it's "members" other than what is in all likelihood is just a few guys from down south? Even at that who are they?

If you can answer the questions that I posted above about the UWC I would sure like to hear them. Until then to assume that it is anything more substantial than the Partners of Pine Valley is nothing more than an assumption.

Members and active members are two entirely different things.

Personally I think it is now just a few guys that are using numbers from old non expiring memberships to have a word at a table.

While I appreciate the effort that anybody gives I do not under any circumstances appreciate the suggestion that they are representing it's "members" when it's "members" are not involved in any real way shape or form. Furthermore.......there has not been any attempt that I can see to get anybody involved.

UWC this. UWC that. blah. blah. blah.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> A lot of guys on this forum signed up to become members of what used to be the UWC. Being a member is nothing more now than saying that.


I signed up. I would not consider myself a member or supporter still.

Just based on my observation and conversation here with most of the guys running or calling themselves UWC. My take is they feel weather and habitat is just about the only thing that is going on and predator control does not work and low buck to doe ratios are ok and sending 150,000 hunters out to chase 50,000 buck was fine. Pretty much the status quo over the last 40 yrs. pray for good weather and habitat is key.

I'm saying yes habitat is key and the reason we don't have 3 million deer. But is not the reason we have 300,000. These units that are the topic of this conversation are proving what I know of the UWC and "biologist" approach wrong, or less effective than other approaches.

As for hunting dynamics and SFW antics habitat and the effort to raise money for it has been the needle that weaves Don Peay into the fabric of Utah's wildlife. Expo banquets dinners actions all to raise money for habitat. Now he's gonna save us from wolves.

I'm sorry I only hunt one unit 90% of the time. So my interest knowledge and efforts are focused on that unit. If you give as much crap about it as I do come help me fight for it. Or you can come fight me on it. I don't think there is anything stopping anyone from joining "friends of unit X" or forming an opposition group if you have the support. Its checks and balances. Can anyone argue that the mule deer herd has been neglected and mismanaged over the last 40 yrs? Except those who had a part in doing so.

The recent changes including option 2 and the great hunter approval satisfaction should serve as proof the change in direction are welcomed. Before someone sites weather again. I will say again. This isn't the first time we have tied a few yrs of so called good deer weather together in the last 20 yrs but it is the first time we have seen so called improvement in deer hunting in that time frame. I hope its not just luck.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

IB, 

Horse pucky! I'm getting ready to go out tomorrow early morning and kill some predators. You're welcome. I'd point out the obvious in the mule deer population chart from 1992 - present and the snow fall averages for the same as they directly coincide. Our success, as stated by far more in the field and smarter folks on mule deer than me and everyone else on this forum, is weather. Habitat improvements, they are great and we are finally seeing some successes there but there are other issues above PREDATORS that prevent historic migration because of roads and freeways or development (encroachment) in critical habitat areas that effect holding capacity of now small critical winter range. Pivots and a freeway right now prevent the Parowan Front wintering deer from accessing literally thousands of acres of prime winter habitat. Juniper encroachment on the same is being controlled but the unit is over objective and the animals are literally going to eat themselves to death. WE, HUMANS, have caused this on my beloved unit. If fire rolls through the cheat grass on the Parowan Front, this unit will be obliterated. That was validated from the people who spend their days there from the BLM, DWR, and even some really smart people from another agency that studies ranges (too many acronyms to keep up with these days). Speaking of...

The UWC was origionally set up to establish a group of folks who were disenfranchised with option 2 and the way certain other conservation orgs were influencing management policy. Joining was free. UWC was basically managed by only a few folks and will very little money. I gave all I could financially but board members and the operational folks gave far more until it was all exhausted including their time and support seemed to fade after all the work done on the convention tag proposal. I'm not afraid to say that the same apathy I see with people who complain about wildlife management NOT showing up to RACs or sending a damned email is the same thing that discouraged those trying to work hard for all of us. I think the founders of UWC and those still serving want to see good things from the organization and several of us have been given the opportunity to do just that, but it takes time and money. Not money to buy fancy shirts and crap to brag about being at a project or getting into the tag fiasco, but it takes money to host and change a website. It take money to manage mass emailing and other correspondence. It takes money to attend all the RACs and WB meetings and it take considerable money to participate in projects that we as members want to call our own for the sake of youth hunters or in the name of conservation. More important than money, it takes YOU!!!!!!! People showing up for projects even if they are paid for by another group. People showing up at RACs stating their support for the biologists and the division as members of UWC. It takes you focusing either your pleasure or displeasure on making a difference. That is what motivates some of us. So join, show up, donate. Almost every dime would be spent on things like the youth turkey hunts and a few other things that involve the youth. Just like the founding members, none of us are wealthy enough to make it a full time unpaid job. However, with many hands comes light work. Sorry for the membership drive type rant here but if you all want to see things improve for the true "average joes", its going to take more than cowboy keyboarding and coffee shop meetings. Its going to take leadership (which under Lee and Carlyle we do have), it will take people, and it will take everyone's generosity in both time and money. We hold spots on important committees and I can promise that the division would love to see UWC emerge as an influence from the local to state level. I have yet to speak to a single one who doesn't want UWC to grow. Maybe I've spoken out of place here, but Lee is working hard daily to get the ball rolling again and support would be great. If you don't want to join, fine. I think we all share one thing no matter what our wants are and that is the love for the outdoors and wild things or nobody would bother to cowboy keyboard here either. Well, I have some coyote lives to end in the morning. Another idea, a UWC Coyote Hunt and Bounty Pow Wow donating all the bounties back to the division. To dream.......


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> IB,
> 
> Horse pucky! I'm getting ready to go out tomorrow early morning and kill some predators. You're welcome. I'd point out the obvious in the mule deer population chart from 1992 - present and the snow fall averages for the same as they directly coincide. Our success, as stated by far more in the field and smarter folks on mule deer than me and everyone else on this forum, is weather. Habitat improvements, they are great and we are finally seeing some successes there but there are other issues above PREDATORS that prevent historic migration because of roads and freeways or development (encroachment) in critical habitat areas that effect holding capacity of now small critical winter range. Pivots and a freeway right now prevent the Parowan Front wintering deer from accessing literally thousands of acres of prime winter habitat. Juniper encroachment on the same is being controlled but the unit is over objective and the animals are literally going to eat themselves to death. WE, HUMANS, have caused this on my beloved unit. If fire rolls through the cheat grass on the Parowan Front, this unit will be obliterated. That was validated from the people who spend their days there from the BLM, DWR, and even some really smart people from another agency that studies ranges (too many acronyms to keep up with these days). Speaking of...
> 
> The UWC was origionally set up to establish a group of folks who were disenfranchised with option 2 and the way certain other conservation orgs were influencing management policy. Joining was free. UWC was basically managed by only a few folks and will very little money. I gave all I could financially but board members and the operational folks gave far more until it was all exhausted including their time and support seemed to fade after all the work done on the convention tag proposal. I'm not afraid to say that the same apathy I see with people who complain about wildlife management NOT showing up to RACs or sending a damned email is the same thing that discouraged those trying to work hard for all of us. I think the founders of UWC and those still serving want to see good things from the organization and several of us have been given the opportunity to do just that, but it takes time and money. Not money to buy fancy shirts and crap to brag about being at a project or getting into the tag fiasco, but it takes money to host and change a website. It take money to manage mass emailing and other correspondence. It takes money to attend all the RACs and WB meetings and it take considerable money to participate in projects that we as members want to call our own for the sake of youth hunters or in the name of conservation. More important than money, it takes YOU!!!!!!! People showing up for projects even if they are paid for by another group. People showing up at RACs stating their support for the biologists and the division as members of UWC. It takes you focusing either your pleasure or displeasure on making a difference. That is what motivates some of us. So join, show up, donate. Almost every dime would be spent on things like the youth turkey hunts and a few other things that involve the youth. Just like the founding members, none of us are wealthy enough to make it a full time unpaid job. However, with many hands comes light work. Sorry for the membership drive type rant here but if you all want to see things improve for the true "average joes", its going to take more than cowboy keyboarding and coffee shop meetings. Its going to take leadership (which under Lee and Carlyle we do have), it will take people, and it will take everyone's generosity in both time and money. We hold spots on important committees and I can promise that the division would love to see UWC emerge as an influence from the local to state level. I have yet to speak to a single one who doesn't want UWC to grow. Maybe I've spoken out of place here, but Lee is working hard daily to get the ball rolling again and support would be great. If you don't want to join, fine. I think we all share one thing no matter what our wants are and that is the love for the outdoors and wild things or nobody would bother to cowboy keyboard here either. Well, I have some coyote lives to end in the morning. Another idea, a UWC Coyote Hunt and Bounty Pow Wow donating all the bounties back to the division. To dream.......


Nice rant but the fact is the UWC can not answer the basic questions that have been presented for months.

So how many ACTIVE people are there? Who would receive the donations? Who makes the decisions where they would go? Nobody has seen ANYTHING happening. What is so hard to understand about that?

BTW a $5 T-shirt that sells for $10 bucks is a pretty good way of raising funds. Nothing fancy about it.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

o-||


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Nice rant but the fact is the UWC can not answer the basic questions that have been presented for months.
> 
> You are right. There haven't been any clear answers but there will be. That is up to the sitting leadership to answer and those answers will come. If elkfromabove has your email address, you've probably gotten the emails but again, it takes time and it doesn't happen just because people want it to. Time, effort, money.
> 
> ...


People are quick to be critical of those who try to do something. I've been quick on the trigger more than I care to admit but for hell's sake, you can't change anything if you do nothing. Look at where we are at with wildlife management in this state. I blame those of us who've done nothing or very little than I do sfw or other special interest orgs. My criticism of the Southern RAC is not unfounded and I know I'm not alone. Listen for yourself, where am I wrong?

Nothing good comes from apathy. Nothing.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> People are quick to be critical of those who try to do something. I've been quick on the trigger more than I care to admit but for hell's sake, you can't change anything if you do nothing. Look at where we are at with wildlife management in this state. I blame those of us who've done nothing or very little than I do sfw or other special interest orgs. My criticism of the Southern RAC is not unfounded and I know I'm not alone. Listen for yourself, where am I wrong?
> 
> Nothing good comes from apathy. Nothing.


Thanks for the answer....my question in a previous post was legitimately asking how I could be of help or get involved. I've been doing nothing, and would like to do something Sorry if it came acrossed as downplaying the org.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Say what you want. I have heard nobody ask for a miracle and I don't see how it cost so much money to notify members how an organization is structured and what future plans are. Yet somebody has the audacity to suggest donating to it. Right now it sounds like one of those private clubs that kids form in the back yard with a fort and everything.

I'll let it rest. My patience has ran out on the UWC. You won't hear me comment on the subject again.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> A lot of guys on this forum signed up to become members of what used to be the UWC. Being a member is nothing more now than saying that you signed up on web page that has not been updated in over two years. Even what little has been posted on Facebook is nothing more than links created by other groups. Other than that what involvement has there been by it's "members" other than what is in all likelihood is just a few guys from down south? Even at that who are they?
> 
> If you can answer the questions that I posted above about the UWC I would sure like to hear them. Until then to assume that it is anything more substantial than the Partners of Pine Valley is nothing more than an assumption.
> 
> ...


Sit down folks, this is gonna be a long one!

There is no way I can satisfy everyone with the answers I give, but for the sake of those asking, whether hostile or otherwise, and especially for those onlookers who seldom get into the frey, I'll review what has happened with UWC this last year or so. Shawn is correct in his statement about UWC's formation except for the fact that Bowhunters of Utah were also involved. To what extent, I'm not sure because I came on later. In any case, they felt that the direction of Utah hunting (particularly deer) and fishing was quickly being pulled away from more casual family involvement and more toward trophy style hunting and Option #2 was the catalyst. The size of the antlers or horns became more important than the actual experience. The destination became more important than the journey. Please understand that the founding leaders (and current leaders) have not nor do not desire to take away from those who choose to hunt the big ones. They have their place, but so does the less involved hunter. Notice, UWC has never proposed or pushed for lower buck to doe ratios, shorter seasons for LE units, hunts on smaller areas, fewer LE hunts and areas and more road closures. We've always spent our resources on growing our wildlife and just trying to hold our place in the hunting scene. We don't try to diminish others hunting experiences just to make it "fair".

In any case, the red tape process of forming a non-profit group took on a whole new challenge for most of them and it took a lot of their time, money and energy to get it all set up. And in addition, there were projects to plan and conduct and members and sponsors to gather and presentations to make at RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings. and an internal organization to set up. And the ever ongoing PR, not only with the public, DWR, RAC's and Wildlife Board, but with the members themselves. To say (per TS30) that you can't organize the general public is putting it mildly! That's why they are the GENERAL public. Bottom line, the enthusiasm waned when Option #2 passed and the leadership had to assume the roles given up by others. Some of them held as many as 3 positions and it took it's toll and there came a point at which some of them had to resign some of those positions. That's when, unfortunately, some of the things mentioned were set aside.

However, there were a handful of us in the Southern Region that hadn't taken on all that diverse responsibility and projects. We were much more modest in our approach and didn't have all the heartache of red tape to maintain and were pretty much functioning on our own with very little money. But when we realized there was some burnout in the higher ranks, we offered to fill in and the Board took us up on our offer and thus we're now in the process of restructuring/reorganizing and we've discovered it's much more involved that we (or you) thought. The website alone is a nightmare with domain and website administration transfers (GoDaddy) and 3 different links (.org, .com, .net) and items we have been paying for that we don't even use and I'm not sure what else. And the mass mailing issue and the renewal of our state non-profit permit with changes in leadership and IRS status (31 pages) and our Facebook page. We'll get through it all and we'll learn a lot in the process, but it's taking much longer than we anticipated, especially since I'm computer challenged and live in Enoch, 200+ miles away from the core of our State leadership and membership. In most cases it's waiting game!

Now having said all of that, here's how it now stands.

Board of Directors
Kris Marble-Chair and Treasurer
Tye Boulter-Vice Chair
Jeremy Hansen-Secretary
Jerry Hill-Member
Kelly Hicks-Member
Gordy Bell-Member
Dale Corry-Member
Shawn Spring-Member

Operations
Lee Tracy-President
Carlyle Bills-Vice President
Candus Tibbitts-Accountant
Barry Rimmasch-Fishing Advisor
Chad Coburn-Predator Advisor
Burdell Bradfield-Website Host
We also have 3 other people listed and/or committed to operations but I'm not yet in a position to disclose their names to the public. I realize this may not look like much to some of you, but it will grow as we make more personal contact with members.

Regarding organizing the general public, I've discovered that making a general plea for help brings few results, but a personal phone call or email makes all the difference. For instance, Chad committed to go to a bear harvest plan meeting after I had sent several emails to some older members who lived in Salt Lake Valley who I thought could make the 1:00 meeting on a weekday. I got two pleasant replies. One couldn't make it and so I thanked him for letting me know and assured him his reply mattered. The other one said he could make it even though he knew nothing about bear hunting, but he assured me he would take good notes and give me a report. And so I thanked him and told him that Chad would do all or most of the talking and I let Chad know he would be there and they could sit together. And I got two great reports. One from a novice and one from an expert third generation houndsman. And both of them taught me a lot about bears and bear hunting and how it's viewed from both sides.

It's true there hasn't been much hands on during all of this turmoil, but Carlyle and I have been to another session (the 2nd) of the Parowan Front Deer Transplants, Kris and I went to 8 Mule Deer Planning Committee meetings (There were 9, but Gordy filled in for me on 1 and Kris mis-calendared 1), several RAC (Kris is a Central RAC member) and Wildlife Board meetings. I've also spent many hours with Burdell at his home in West Valley and the board members on the computer transferring the hosting of the domains and website to myself and him. Additionally, I contacted and got a commitment from a family to set up and conduct a Youth Turkey Hunt in May and they've already started working on it. And, of course, the deer transplant updates on the forum and MM.

As far as the EXPO permit issue goes, I also just went to an EXPO tag meeting (Oct 23) where I must have rattled some chains by saying we did not agree with their proposals to give 30% of the $5 application fees to wildlife while giving MDF and SFW 70% AND to automatically extend the contract for another 5 years, because the issue disappeared from the RAC and Wildlife Board meeting agendas. I'm not sure what they are going to do with it, but I guess we'll find out.

And the accusation that we are merely using our "membership" numbers to have a word at the table is entirely inaccurate. It's our ideas they are after. In fact, as far as I know, they didn't even know our "membership" numbers until the meeting mentioned above when I confirmed my position in the cooperative and told them the number (1,400+)* since they asked. (They sent the email invitation to Tye whom I replaced and I had to explain it in an email sent to the DWR person conducting the meeting.)

Whether or not all or most those members still feel part of the cooperative I can't say. I don't personally know most of them (though I'm working on that). But I do know that they all signed up either online or on paper and there have been only a dozen or so opt out of our email list or membership list. Whether those emails end up as junk or not, I also can't say but our goal is to make contact with EVERY member on a regular basis because I believe every person's opinion is vital to our efforts.

What does UWC have that Partners in Pine Valley doesn't have? A different viewpoint, which the DWR apparently appreciates.

We're not perfect and certainly not ideal for everyone and if you're inclined to agree with us then join us by emailing to [email protected] and we'll welcome you and include you in our membership list and/or email list. If on the other hand, you're a member and inclined to opt out, you're also welcome to do so by emailing your decision to the same email address and we'll wish you well on your new adventures.

Thanks,

Lee

*This number includes 214 email bounce backs of changed or inaccurate emails that we're trying to verify.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Hey Lee, 
how about tying people's real UWC names with their user names on this forum?
So we know who some of these people are.

Thanks, Koby


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Hey Lee,
> how about tying people's real UWC names with their user names on this forum?
> So we know who some of these people are.
> 
> Thanks, Koby


 I don't think most of them do much if any posting on this forum or any other, at least not anymore, but the ones I do know (or remember) are:

Lee Tracy - elkfromabove
Shawn Spring - klbzdad
Gordy Bell - gbell or wiley wapiti on another forum
Barry Rimmasch - cathedar

I'll post the others in the future as I get them.

When I accepted my new position I asked about representing UWC on the public internet and was advised to do it at my own risk. They weren't so much concerned about me misrepresenting them as they were about the personal toll it might take trying to handle all of the negative replies, but so far it hasn't been too bad even when I asked for it as I obviously did on this thread. I find that because I NEVER personally attack a poster, but stick to the issue, it works out better. Besides, to be honest, I usually don't try to respond directly to the poster, but more to those who are quietly watching from the sidelines. They're the ones we REALLY need to get involved regardless of their opinions. And I don't mean just on this forum!

Lee


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

EFA,

I'm confused...how does the UWC decide what the membership wants and what should be proposed at RAC/Board meetings? During this last Central RAC I believe your UWC Chair (as you say) made a motion to reject the DWR proposal on the preference point change but down in the Southern RAC you asked the RAC to accept the DWR proposal??????


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> Sit down folks, this is gonna be a long one!
> 
> There is no way I can satisfy everyone with the answers I give, but for the sake of those asking, whether hostile or otherwise, and especially for those onlookers who seldom get into the frey, I'll review what has happened with UWC this last year or so. Shawn is correct in his statement about UWC's formation except for the fact that Bowhunters of Utah were also involved. To what extent, I'm not sure because I came on later. In any case, they felt that the direction of Utah hunting (particularly deer) and fishing was quickly being pulled away from more casual family involvement and more toward trophy style hunting and Option #2 was the catalyst. The size of the antlers or horns became more important than the actual experience. The destination became more important than the journey. Please understand that the founding leaders (and current leaders) have not nor do not desire to take away from those who choose to hunt the big ones. They have their place, but so does the less involved hunter. Notice, UWC has never proposed or pushed for lower buck to doe ratios, shorter seasons for LE units, hunts on smaller areas, fewer LE hunts and areas and more road closures. We've always spent our resources on growing our wildlife and just trying to hold our place in the hunting scene. We don't try to diminish others hunting experiences just to make it "fair".
> 
> ...


PM Sent


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How come I didn't get to vet Chad Coburn? 
Haha just kidding.

Seriously though would I approve of him?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

flinger said:


> EFA,
> 
> I'm confused...how does the UWC decide what the membership wants and what should be proposed at RAC/Board meetings? During this last Central RAC I believe your UWC Chair (as you say) made a motion to reject the DWR proposal on the preference point change but down in the Southern RAC you asked the RAC to accept the DWR proposal??????


 That was my mistake. I failed to correctly state who I was representing. Like I've indicated in my emails and this post, I'm still new and uncomfortable at all this leadership stuff. Since I didn't hear from Kris and since this was a RAC meeting not the Wildlife Board meeting I assumed the decision to speak was left up to me as the still-acting Southern Region Chair. Each UWC Region Chair has always had the option to speak independently of the State Leadership at the RAC meetings, but not the Board meetings. (SFW is the same way as I've noticed in the meetings.)

And since my email invitations to the local members (Beaver to St. George) to respond to the issue and attend the meeting went unanswered, I relied on my conversations with Shawn, Dale and Carlyle. And they didn't think it had enough of an impact on most general deer hunters to merit fighting the proposal. In fact, neither Dale nor Carlyle knew about the so-called loophole and were surprised it existed. (Carlyle jokingly said he was sorry he didn't know about the loophole until they decided to close it.) And I've known about it for some time, but never desired to use it. And Shawn loved the proposal because it would clear up the point creep and would show the DWR and the hunters which of the 3 units needs the most work. And it would certainly clear up the ambiguous answers we got in the survey.

However, at the Board Meeting you may hear me eat my words, 'cause I'll speak for the whole group.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

EFA,

I don't know you from Adam. I honestly don't know a lot about the UWC or what it stands for either. But I have to say the way you handle yourself on these forums after all is said and done is nothing short of impressive to me. And candidly has me interested in exploring the UWC to see how I feel about it. 

Thanks for all your hard work. Even if we happen to disagree along the way, I always respect and look up to people who are willing to show up. 

Interesting how these threads turn. A bash of the Southern RAC has turned into a full on UWC discussion.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> How come I didn't get to vet Chad Coburn?
> Haha just kidding.
> 
> Seriously though would I approve of him?


It could happen!

I think you might be surprised at his emails to me! He was VERY concerned about speaking for the group at the Bear meeting and didn't want to misrepresent us. He asked me several times what I thought but since I know absolutely nothing about bear hunting, I told him that I trusted Leslie MacFarlane's (who conducted the meeting) judgment and that unless she or the DWR proposed anything outrageous, he should also trust her and support the plan as presented, which is what he and Newt did. And I got a thorough report from him at the time and have received followup information since. I know you think you two are at opposite ends of the pole when it comes to predators, but Chad has been at both extremes (He resigned as president of UHA because they went too far.) and has chosen to stay in the sensible middle.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> PM Sent


 Replied, thanks.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Kwalk3 said:


> Thanks for the answer....my question in a previous post was legitimately asking how I could be of help or get involved. I've been doing nothing, and would like to do something Sorry if it came acrossed as downplaying the org.


 PM sent.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

My coyote calling skills are clearly in line with my ability to convey the message at times. Overly raspy, sometimes too aggressive, and in definite need of practice. 
(Coyotes 1 - Me 0 today)


Thanks, Lee for all you do and thank you for your response!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Those crazy southern RAC guys. Always getting this site riled up and pulling the UWC together to ride again.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Those crazy southern RAC guys. Always getting this site riled up and pulling the UWC together to ride again.


It's a challenge to succeed when you're in reactionary mode. Remember, by the time UWC got involved in the Opt 2 fight, the fight was already over. The "official" and legally mandated public Board meeting hadn't happened yet, but it was apparent that the Board had made up its mind long before that meeting.

As a rule, it's the proactive folks who are successful.

Now a battle has begun that has much higher stakes and permanent consequences. I hope we don't once again make the mistake of sitting it out until it's too late, then reacting to those consequences.

Best of luck to the UWC. We need you. Now.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> It's a challenge to succeed when you're in reactionary mode. Remember, by the time UWC got involved in the Opt 2 fight, the fight was already over. The "official" and legally mandated public Board meeting hadn't happened yet, but it was apparent that the Board had made up its mind long before that meeting.
> 
> As a rule, it's the proactive folks who are successful.
> 
> ...


Your absolutely right. If someone has an issue that they want addressed in next years meetings. They need to start right now. Not the day of the meeting.
I would be really upset if the board had no idea how they were going to vote the morning of the meeting and they were just going to go with their gut feeling off of 5 or 6 public guys input. Now that's crazy!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Those crazy southern RAC guys. Always getting this site riled up and pulling the UWC together to ride again.


Those crazy napkin meeting guys, always contributing NOTHING substantive or constructive to UWN threads. MM is calling to you, Cody. Have a nice day.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Shawn,
Come on now, this is the interweb. A good place to cry and get a little support. I'll stick to napkin meetings and real results. One question, do you get better interweb service on the mountain over the coffee shop? Don't jump up on a stump and cry and then get your feelings hurt when someone points it out. 

Is this the official forum for the UWc?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Shawn,
> Come on now, this is the interweb. A good place to cry and get a little support. I'll stick to napkin meetings and real results. One question, do you get better interweb service on the mountain over the coffee shop? Don't jump up on a stump and cry and then get your feelings hurt when someone points it out.
> 
> Is this the official forum for the UWc?


^^^Again, no substance.

Who calls it the "interweb" anyway? I actually do get INTERNET service on the mountain property and in many places in Southern Utah you wouldn't expect. That's not necessarily a good thing. Did you napkin captains determine at your last conferencing/expo/coordinating/steering/drowning/idear forming meeting at Bucks and Bulls R-US Coffee determine that you could help wildlife out by killing threads on the INTERNET? Just curious.....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Shawn,
Haven't attended many napkin meetings lately, been busy working on the road. Just good to see the RACs doing what they do. Sometimes they go the way you want sometimes they don't. Either way it makes for good banter on the interweb. I do know one thing, I will always support groups that get results. Hopefully its the groups that support my views.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

TS30 said:


> PBH, you used to be a pretty level-headed and well-thought out dude. ...does it get tiring talking about both sides of your mouth all the time these days?


i was never level-headed. And, I've ALWAYS talked out of both sides of my mouth!!

You are correct -- you will never please everyone. There will always be those that don't like whatever plan is presented.

I really liked how both the Fish Lake and Boulder committees ended up. I was able to watch some of the members of those committees make 180 degree changes in their thoughts and wants during those meetings. I live close to one of the members, who grew up and still owns a home in Wayne County. He still tells me how much he learned by being on that committee. If he learned that much and changed his line of thinking that much -- how much are others that participate in such committees learning?? That's a benefit in my book any day!

The chance for the general public -- those uneducated individuals with limited knowledge of wildlife biology -- to work alongside DWR biologists is a benefit no matter how you look at it. That's the advantage to these committees. Education. The more people that get the opportunity to learn, the better.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I attended a southern Rac last year and had full intentions of attending with a friend last week. Work conflicted & I couldn't go. 

I had the same concern that the committee seems stacked with people who are bent on cutting tags by complaining about crowds. I see significantly fewer hunters since option 2. I'm sorry if someone's honey hole has been discovered, but don't cut my opportunities especially if numbers are increasing.


----------

