# 2016 Recommended RAC Changes



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Some interesting RAC recommendations going into next year.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-11_rac_packet.pdf

One of the more interesting ones is allowing magnifying scopes on muzzys!

Some of em: 
*
1. We will present the statewide elk management plan. If accepted in its entirety, the following rule changes
will be required.
A. We recommend updating the big game rule to allow a person to obtain 3 elk permits annually with
the following restrictions: 1) a maximum of 1 permit can be for a bull, 2) a maximum of 1 permit
can be obtained through the antlerless big game draw, and 3) a maximum of 2 antlerless elk
permits can be obtained over the counter.
B. We recommend allowing general season muzzleloader bull elk hunters to harvest a cow or bull
elk with their muzzleloader permit on select units that are over objective (similar to archery elk).
C. We recommend defining private lands only permits, which allow a person to take one antlerless
elk on private lands using any weapon during the season dates and area as approved by the
Wildlife Board.
D. We recommend defining antlerless elk control permits.
2. We recommend defining 2-doe permits for mule deer and pronghorn.
3. We recommend prohibiting smart guns (computerized targeting firearms) to take big game.
4. We recommend allowing magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders during the muzzleloader season.
5. We recommend allowing hunters to use an electronic range-finding device attached to a bow to take big
game.*


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

So, it begins.....


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

If were going to screw up the the Elk herds. Then attaching Range Finders to a Bow(DUMB) How many hunters that take 100 yard shots now will increase that>> say 200 yards or better? Hers My Plan. U All Love This, I Recommend as an Archery Hunter for 52 years TA> DA> STATE WIDE ARCHERY>> 3 POINT OR BETTER>> Antler Restrictions seem to be workin on the Elk>> Wait a second can't do antler deer restrictions.. Produces smaller deer. and increases poaching.. No enforcement..hunters who lack any ethics..OH! been working for the Elk herds..??


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

More late muzzy deer hunts....

Statewide Changes
1. We recommend adding 6 additional limited entry muzzleloader deer hunts. These hunts would occur on
general season units that are exceeding management objectives of 18-20 bucks per 100 does.
They include 1) Fillmore, 2) Monroe, 3) Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits, 4) Plateau, Thousand
Lakes, 5) South Slope, Yellowstone, and 6) Wasatch Mtns, East.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Old Fudd said:


> If were going to screw up the the Elk herds. Then attaching Range Finders to a Bow(DUMB) How many hunters that take 100 yard shots now will increase that>> say 200 yards or better? Hers My Plan. U All Love This, I Recommend as an Archery Hunter for 52 years TA> DA> STATE WIDE ARCHERY>> 3 POINT OR BETTER>> Antler Restrictions seem to be workin on the Elk>> Wait a second can't do antler deer restrictions.. Produces smaller deer. and increases poaching.. No enforcement..hunters who lack any ethics..OH! been working for the Elk herds..??


People will always attempt to make long shots. It doesn't matter if a range finder is on the end of a bow or not. I guess you could make an argument that reducing to a archery a long bow / recurve only and that would significantly reduce long shots, until they made a long bow / recurve with compound technology.

Long bow *7,400-7,200 BC*

Crossbow *~700 BC*

Compound Bow *1966 AD*

Range Finders on Compound bows *~2010-2015 AD*

Heat Seeking Arrows for bows *2020 AD*

Mini Sharks with Laser Beams attached to their head on arrows *2030 AD*

I do like the 3 point or better idea for deer and I like the 5 point or better idea for elk.


----------



## RidgeRebel (Feb 1, 2012)

I thought the majority of hunters they surveyed said they were in favor of more primitive weapons and did not want magnified scopes and the like? Here we go again with changes that will limit hunter opportunity just like rifle hunting elk in the rut. Don't get me wrong, I like high success rates too, but not at the cost of waiting years to hunt. Is everybody really more interested in a trophy every 5-10-15 or more years? Colorado looks better and better to get my money I guess.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

They have some VERY interesting changes in mind this year, should make for some heated RAC meetings. #4 and #5 irk me, I dislike how we keep trying to take the "HUNT" out of hunting! With the direction we're heading we might as well just have 3 any weapon seasons! Other proposals that peaked my interest are the addition of 6 new late muzzy deer LE units and the one that really surprised me is the proposal to add 5 new LE rifle elk hunts that run the same time as the GS spike hunt. I can already imagine the possible issues you could run into having that tag. Probably the last LE elk tag I would want.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RidgeRebel said:


> Is everybody really more interested in a trophy every 5-10-15 or more years?


People here certainly post that... repeatedly. Drives me nuts... I want to hunt every year, *I* will decide what is or isnt a trophy for ME. I dont need some numskull defining what I need to be shooting.

EVERY year big animals are taken in every unit on the state. It just takes more effort. When I hear someone willing to hunt every 5 years for a chance at a bigger critter, I just think they are some of the lazier hunters and what they are really saying is "I want to shoot a bigger animal closer to the road".

Guys who bust their A$$ like Ridgetop, get into big stuff every year. Kudos to them.

-DallanC


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

RidgeRebel said:


> I thought the majority of hunters they surveyed said they were in favor of more primitive weapons and did not want magnified scopes and the like? Here we go again with changes that will limit hunter opportunity just like rifle hunting elk in the rut. Don't get me wrong, I like high success rates too, but not at the cost of waiting years to hunt. Is everybody really more interested in a trophy every 5-10-15 or more years? Colorado looks better and better to get my money I guess.


Magnified Scopes on muzzleloaders was a yes on the survey.

Utah is doing some things to prevent the clogging of points by introducing new seasons. There are a lot of limited entry deer hunts now which helps.

It is easy to argue that more opportunity is needed in a trophy elk state, but the reverse argument for bigger antlered elk is just as strong in a opportunity state.

The issue is that there are too many people allying for the number of tags available and want the opportunity to shoot the next world record with their tag.

You can't have big animals and get to hunt them every year when you only have ~2,000 tags available and an exuberant amount of people applying for those tags.

Primitive weapons is an interesting way to suggest bow or muzzleloader, because with modern technology neither one is really primitive. I mean the compound bow was invented in 1966 and modern muzzleloaders shoot farther and more accurately than the predecessors whether they are exposed breech, ball & patch or inlines.


----------



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

My opinions are:

-I don't really like the extra LE deer units in November much because they are cutting right into the rut and then you are proposing magnified scopes in muzzleloaders to further the success. However as long as the tag numbers are kept to only 5-10 per unit that is opened up to these late season hunts I'm fine with it because it will unclog the LE point system which is forever being backed up.

-I would like to see a reduction in anterless tags

-I like they are looking into a dedicated hunter elk program

-The late LE elk hunts that would run the same time as the spike hunts I like. Yes it would be busy during that time, but YOU have the choice to apply for that tag or not. It will also help with the backed up point system and have a lower success rate I would imagine.

-I really hope they put a cap on the magnified power allowed on a muzzleloader or success rates will go up I think.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Shooting deer with a bow is hard. I don't care how fancy your bow is. Success rates reflect that. Muzzy hunting is easy if you can find deer. I'm not sure magnification will increase success. In areas with good deer (buck) success rates are as high as rifle.


----------



## Seven (Jan 8, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> My opinions are:
> 
> -I don't really like the extra LE deer units in November much because they are cutting right into the rut and then you are proposing magnified scopes in muzzleloaders to further the success. However as long as the tag numbers are kept to only 5-10 per unit that is opened up to these late season hunts I'm fine with it because it will unclog the LE point system which is forever being backed up.
> 
> ...


I like the extra LE November deer hunts just like I like the Antelope island hunt. It takes a lot of people away from what I am putting in for.

What is your thought process in combining late LE and spike. I don't see how that accomplishes anything? I put in for Late LE elk right now for 2 reasons. first is I don't have that many points and second is that I love that it is secluded from the other hunts. With archery, Early, Muzzle loader they are all stacked right next to other. with it stacked you have some overlay of people who are hunting and others that are trying to scout for their upcoming hunt.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I didn't see where they are going to address the loop hole in the draws for the general season deer hunts. 

I would also like to see if you put in for a LE hunt you can't put in for a general hunt, make the hunter choose one or the other. 

For scopes on a ML, even if I would like to see them do away with all scopes on the ML's, I have a nice 3x9 that I would stick on mine in a hear beat. If I would of had a scope of that power I would of had a very huge buck this last ML season. Or at least a better chance at one than my open sights provided me.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

3. We recommend prohibiting smart guns (computerized targeting firearms) to take big game.
Why? I'd really like to hear a solid, reasonable explanation for this.

4. We recommend allowing magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders during the muzzleloader season.
Perfect! This should have happened a long time ago.

5. We recommend allowing hunters to use an electronic range-finding device attached to a bow to take big game.
Agree! If they so choose to do so.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It is interesting that the UDWR is recommending adding more late ML hunts. I can guarantee you that the Mule Deer Committee was told that general season permits would increase rather than using late ML hunts as the "control". 

As for magnifying scopes on MLs, lets just keep making it easier to kill the bucks everyone seems to want to protect.

Ah well, we can keep abusing the point system and draw tags ahead of others and now we can have actual yardage to shoot our bows at farther distances so it will all be more messed up than it already is......


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Seven, the proposal does not combine the late rifle with the spike hunt. The early and late rifle would stay as is and a 3rd rifle hunt would be created that ran during the any weapon spike hunt.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Critter said:


> I would also like to see if you put in for a LE hunt you can't put in for a general hunt, make the hunter choose one or the other.


In that case, what would be the difference between general hunts and LE hunts? Wouldn't they all be LE? If so, I don't think I would support that. It's nice to be able to hunt deer every year or two and still apply for LE pronghorn.

If I could apply for a deer hunt and pronghorn, I'd be fine with it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Critter said:


> I didn't see where they are going to address the loop hole in the draws for the general season deer hunts.


Nope, I don't see anything either. I thought last year, they agreed there was an issue but wanted to "study it more" and deal with it this year. So much for that.

Good grief, I guess one just has to keep "playing the game". :roll:


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

*2016 Recommended RAC Changes
1. We recommend allowing magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders during the muzzleloader season

about time
*


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

sagebrush said:


> *2016 Recommended RAC Changes
> 1. We recommend allowing magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders during the muzzleloader season
> 
> about time
> *


Exactly, unless someone can clarify how ME using an optic on a muzzleloader will adversely affect THEIR hunt and hunting experience I think it's asinine to argue that. Unfortunately for me, over the last 3 years my eyesight has diminished faster than I ever dreamed. In my younger days I had incredible eyesight, now I can't use open sights without the front or rear sight being blurred. My eyes no longer can focus on two objects at differing distances clearly. That's why I am having to go through the rather expensive process of putting a scope on every rifle I own just to be able to shoot them. I wish this wasn't the case but it is so. Heck even with optics I have to wear the right magnification eye glasses in order to be able to see the crosshairs and target clearly. I can only imagine what my capabilities will be like in 10 years...it sucks. If you feel that having a scope on a muzzle loader is not for you then don't but don't keep folks who really need one from having the right to use one.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

I personally don't like the idea of combining the spike with LE hunts. I think it will potentially lead to more poachers. There's less chance of guys being caught with a big bull they shouldn't have in that type of situation. I do think it would help with the bottle neck of points though.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I really really hope they dont go to three point or better. If the do get ready for the poaching case Clim like no other and get ready to see many dead two points laying there going to wast.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Exactly, unless someone can clarify how ME using an optic on a muzzleloader will adversely affect THEIR hunt and hunting experience I think it's asinine to argue that. Unfortunately for me, over the last 3 years my eyesight has diminished faster than I ever dreamed. In my younger days I had incredible eyesight, now I can't use open sights without the front or rear sight being blurred. My eyes no longer can focus on two objects at differing distances clearly. That's why I am having to go through the rather expensive process of putting a scope on every rifle I own just to be able to shoot them. I wish this wasn't the case but it is so. Heck even with optics I have to wear the right magnification eye glasses in order to be able to see the crosshairs and target clearly. I can only imagine what my capabilities will be like in 10 years...it sucks. If you feel that having a scope on a muzzle loader is not for you then don't but don't keep folks who really need one from having the right to use one.


I would answer that question with my experience. I hunt Kansas with a muzzleloader. Scopes are legal in Kansas. I shoot out to 300 yards very accurately with my scoped ML, even have practiced at 400 yards with success. My friend shoots his out to 500 yards. A change to variable power scopes will kill more deer. Killing more deer means reduced hunting opportunity, longer waits for permits, and will play a role in hunter pressure as the range of each hunter expands. The argument that it will lessen wounding is negated by the fact that people will just be wounding at longer ranges.

A 2x scope might be ok. But variable power magnification scopes are not what I want to see during a muzzleloader deer hunt.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

They aren't going to 3-point or better. 

I don't know that I fully support all the changes, but I'm certainly not hugely opposed to any at this point either. I could change my mind through some good discussion on the topics. 

I'm not a bow hunter, so maybe people can help me out here, but how will having a rangefinder attached to your bow lead to more long range shots? I would think that this would do the exact opposite. Instead of guessing and taking a bad shot that I thought was either closer or further away, you know that the deer is at a certain range, and should help with more accurate shots and therefore more efficient kills. Or am I totally off-base here?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Vanilla- Imagine how a range-finding scope on your rifle would aid in your ability to kill the animal you are looking at. Instant range, better shot placement, more chance to kill the animal.

Those in favor of such changes always say they will lessen the wounding rate. Those same people never say that it will increase ranges, reduces misses, and that it makes it easier to kill the animal.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Packout said:


> Vanilla- Imagine how a range-finding scope on your rifle would aid in your ability to kill the animal you are looking at. Instant range, better shot placement, more chance to kill the animal.
> 
> Those in favor of such changes always say they will lessen the wounding rate. Those same people never say that it will increase ranges, reduces misses, and that it makes it easier to kill the animal.


They have those range finding scopes already. The Burris Eliminator series is a range finding scope that can be put on a ML or Rifle with the right setting.

There is really no evidence to support it will raise or lower the wounding rates. It is all personal opinion and it would be a very difficult thing to study.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

What i dont get is they have spent all this time cutting deer tags in a lot of units to increase the heard. Now that they have, as evident from this years deer hunt, they want to give out a late L.E. muzzy deer hunt? Why not just increase the tags across the board? I thought that is what they said they would do if units stayed above objective? They would give back the GENERAL SEASON tags, not turn the tags cut from the general season into L.E. tags? AS for the elk, i just dont know what to think. I am losing faith in what they are trying to accomplish in their management program. On a side note, I hunt muzzy deer every year. I really dont understand why it is so important to people to have magnifying scopes on their muzzys. IMO, rifle hunt. The only reason i see people pushing this issue, is the people that are switching or have switched from rifle to muzzleloader to increase their odds. Im all for people choosing what they want, how they hunt, and what they shoot, but to push this issue is only going to convert more hunters to try muzzy hunting because its more like rifle hunting. JMO


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

dkhntrdstn said:


> I really really hope they dont go to three point or better. If the do get ready for the poaching case Clim like no other and get ready to see many dead two points laying there going to wast.


There is no evidence that applying an antler restriction will increase or decrease poaching. It would be a difficult thing to prove either way, because of the parameters of the study.

Other states have point restrictions and poaching does happen, but not at a rate that would be any different that Utah's.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> Exactly, unless someone can clarify how ME using an optic on a muzzleloader will adversely affect THEIR hunt and hunting experience I think it's asinine to argue that. Unfortunately for me, over the last 3 years my eyesight has diminished faster than I ever dreamed. In my younger days I had incredible eyesight, now I can't use open sights without the front or rear sight being blurred. My eyes no longer can focus on two objects at differing distances clearly. That's why I am having to go through the rather expensive process of putting a scope on every rifle I own just to be able to shoot them. I wish this wasn't the case but it is so. Heck even with optics I have to wear the right magnification eye glasses in order to be able to see the crosshairs and target clearly. I can only imagine what my capabilities will be like in 10 years...it sucks. If you feel that having a scope on a muzzle loader is not for you then don't but don't keep folks who really need one from having the right to use one.


You ought to try hunting with a ML in different states where one state allows the 1x scope (Utah) and the other where no optics are allowed (Colorado). I just went to a peep sight where you don't have to focus on a rear sight and it has been working for me.



Clarq said:


> In that case, what would be the difference between general hunts and LE hunts?


No difference but they are going to go that way sooner or later so lets just get it done and be done with it.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Packout said:


> I would answer that question with my experience. I hunt Kansas with a muzzleloader. Scopes are legal in Kansas. I shoot out to 300 yards very accurately with my scoped ML, even have practiced at 400 yards with success. My friend shoots his out to 500 yards. A change to variable power scopes will kill more deer. Killing more deer means reduced hunting opportunity, longer waits for permits, and will play a role in hunter pressure as the range of each hunter expands. The argument that it will lessen wounding is negated by the fact that people will just be wounding at longer ranges.
> 
> A 2x scope might be ok. But variable power magnification scopes are not what I want to see during a muzzleloader deer hunt.


Kansas and Utah are pretty different as far as topography goes. The mountain units of New Mexico would probably be a closer comparison, but it wouldn't be exact.

The argument of killing more deer resulting in reduced opportunity is interesting. I don't know if that will be the case, but it might be.

I do know that hunting is not the primary cause of deer population fluctuations. Winter, Vehicular accidents, pesticides, predation, unregulated hunting, and inadequacy of habitat do more in the boom or bust of deer populations than hunting.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

In reading the Agenda.... Noticed this, how does one go about getting on this committee? Any Ideas? :mrgreen::mrgreen:

VI. STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 
A. Population Management Goal:Improve management of Utah's elk populations. 
Population Objective 1:Maintain healthy elk populations at biologically and socially 
sustainable levels.
Note: The statewide population objective is the sum of objectives contained in unit plans.
Strategies: 
A. Elk Population Objectives
a)Set population objectives and manage elk populations at appropriate spatial 
scales that account for migration patterns.
b)Establish local 
advisory committees to review individual herd unit management plans 
when considering a change (increase or decrease) in the herd size objective.
i) Committees will be established
following approval of the statewide elk plan.
ii)Committees will consist of the 
UDWR unit biologist and regional wildlife 
manager as facilitators, two local sportsman's representatives, and one 
representative from each of the following (if app
licable): Farm Bureau, Cattlemen's Association, Wool Growers Association, Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, local elected official, RAC member, CWMU 
Association, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Mule Deer Foundation, Rocky 
Mountain Elk Foundation, tribal representative, local land owner or land owner 
association representative and other affected stakeholders. Recommendations 
from these committees will be reviewed by UDWR and presented to 
the Regional Advisory Councils and Wildlife Board for public input and approval.
iii)
Committees shall be provided with the results
of habitat projects completed in the previous five years, planned projects for the next three years,UDWR range trend data, and any other applicable information.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The increased or more efficient killing causing reduced opportunity simply does not jive with me. Nor does it jive with actual science or biology. Deer and elk populations are not controlled by buck and bull tags. On a unit with 18 bucks per 100 does, killing a small percentage more bucks is not going to impact herd numbers. Not even in the slightest observable way. 

As far as range finding devices on scopes go---Knowing the range of an animal instantly is not going to magically increase the lethal range of the weapon in your hand or the ability of the hunter holding it. I really don't believe it will lead to longer shots. Having a range finder in my hand not connected to my scope has actually prevented me from taking a shot I otherwise may have when I realized what the true distance was. I do believe it will make killing an animal more efficient within the capabilities of the weapon and shooter, however. I'm not opposed to that. If I know a deer is at 270 yards and I aim accordingly, I have a better chance of a quick, efficient kill than if I'm guestimating that buck to be at 200-225 or 325-350. (really easy to do out in the hills where perspective often makes it VERY difficult to compare to distances) 

I have a muzzleloader. I've hunted with it several years. I bounce back and forth between it and my rifle. I have long been a proponent of allowing magnification scopes on muzzy hunts. That doesn't mean I am going to start popping off 300 yard shots. It simply means that my 150 yard shot has a better chance of a clean, efficient kill. I like that. Some may not. It's okay, reasonable people can disagree on this stuff.


----------



## 4pointmuley (Sep 18, 2007)

When will these changes go into effect if they pass?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Has anyone given thought to the length of the hunts as being a major factor in pressure on the animals? Just thinking out loud here but....If the seasons were longer, giving you more time to hunt I think we might see less people on the mountain at any given time. If I had say 3 weeks to hunt my buck deer I might be inclined to hunt the 2nd week as opposed to the first (or only) week.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> Has anyone given thought to the length of the hunts as being a major factor in pressure on the animals? Just thinking out loud here but....If the seasons were longer, giving you more time to hunt I think we might see less people on the mountain at any given time. If I had say 3 weeks to hunt my buck deer I might be inclined to hunt the 2nd week as opposed to the first (or only) week.


They have proven that the vast majority of deer are killed the first 3 days of the hunts. If you have ever been out after the Monday after the opening you will see that the vast majority of hunters have left for their city lives.
On the longer hunts there are too many hunts out there to extend any of them any further. That is unless you want to do as Colorado has done and have 3 or 4 different combined hunting seasons and even then the longest hunt is only 9 or so days.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Critter said:


> They have proven that the vast majority of deer are killed the first 3 days of the hunts. If you have ever been out after the Monday after the opening you will see that the vast majority of hunters have left for their city lives.
> On the longer hunts there are too many hunts out there to extend any of them any further. That is unless you want to do as Colorado has done and have 3 or 4 different combined hunting seasons and even then the longest hunt is only 9 or so days.


In my home state of LA you can hunt deer with a rifle for a total of 4 months depending on which zones you go hunting in. Crazy huh.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yah but the cougar hunting is terrible there.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I really think that if you spread the seasons out longer you will have less pressure on opening day and more opportunity to hunt.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Yah but the cougar hunting is terrible there.


Actually there are a lot of cougars trolling on Bourbon Street and in the French Quarter...oh wait you're talking the 4 legged variety...my bad. ;-)


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> I really think that if you spread the seasons out longer you will have less pressure on opening day and more opportunity to hunt.


I have thought this as well. Idaho and Montana spread out the season dates to allow for lower hunters on a given weekend and to allow more time to hunt. Knowing that it is a passion and hunters will spend more money economically to a an area by traveling there more.

Does anybody truly know why Utahs season are so short? Has it just always been that way or are they just trying to cram to many hunts in the short "prime Time" season?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Some are confusing the issue of buck deer management. Of course bucks do not drive deer herd growth. I am not arguing this point as a driver of mule deer herds-- simply as a component of BUCK numbers, which directly effect TAG numbers. Kill more bucks and the Buck to Doe ratio is reduced, which means tags would be cut. Scopes on MLs will make it easier to kill bucks. Rangefinders attached to bows take the ranging step out of the process-- making it easier to shoot. 

Everyone seems to have forgotten that just a handful of years ago, the deer herds were struggling. Put us back in that scenario AND add more efficient weapons there will be less tags to go around.

And as for the Kansas not the same as Utah comment- I disagree 100%-- open country is open country. Long draws, above timberline, across canyons. Give me a 300 yard consistent ML and I'll give you a lot more dead deer in Utah or Kansas or wherever I can see 300+ yards. 

Just my opinion, based on years of "learning" on Mule Deer Committees. It also makes sense to me. Of course as Vanilla said- reasonable people can disagree.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> I really think that if you spread the seasons out longer you will have less pressure on opening day and more opportunity to hunt.


So what would your season dates be? If it stretches into November I would be willing to bet that over 50% of the hunters would be hunting the last dates to get into the larger bucks during the rut when they are out in the open chasing girls and being stupid. If you start the rifle hunts in August or early September you would have to deal with the archery hunters, the end of September the muzzle loader hunters.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

My thought on seasons...

Deer:

Archery-3rd weekend in August till 3rd weekend of Sept. 
Muzzy- 4 weekend in Sept to 2nd weekend in October 
Rifle- 3rd weekend in october till last day of October.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

tallbuck said:


> My thought on seasons...
> 
> Deer:
> 
> ...


*What about a general deer tag good for all of these seasons.*

Archery: August 1 to September 30

Rifle: October 1 to October 31

Muzzleloader: December 1 to December 31

*What about General Limited Entry Rut Hunts (5 tags 4:1 R/NR a unit)*

Early Rifle: November 1-7

Archery: November 8-15

Muzzleloader: November 15-22

Late Rifle: November 22-29

Premium: November 1-29


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Our deer need less pressure, not more. Late season deer hunts... early season, high country rifle hunts. Its all poor decision making IMO.


-DallanC


----------



## ARROWHNTR (Dec 11, 2008)

*Muzz Scopes*

Packout hit the nail on the head for Muzz with scopes. As muzzeloaders have become more accurate they have taken away opportunity. They took the November dates away and stuck them in the middle of everything else in the only dates that were left. They have no guaranteed gen deer tags, they just lump them in with the rifle. Anyone who claims success will not increase with a scoped muzz is crazy, eventually they will just do away with it and let you use it on the any weapon seasons.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

ARROWHNTR said:


> Anyone who claims success will not increase with a scoped muzz is crazy, eventually they will just do away with it and let you use it on the any weapon seasons.


They already do.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

I will just say this, I would give up my 8 deer point to hunt with a muzzy, scoped or unscoped during the rut. SO bring on the Late season ML hunts!!


----------



## ARROWHNTR (Dec 11, 2008)

Critter you are right I should of said your only option will be to use it on the any weapon.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

ARROWHNTR said:


> Packout hit the nail on the head for Muzz with scopes. As muzzeloaders have become more accurate they have taken away opportunity. They took the November dates away and stuck them in the middle of everything else in the only dates that were left. They have no guaranteed gen deer tags, they just lump them in with the rifle. Anyone who claims success will not increase with a scoped muzz is crazy, eventually they will just do away with it and let you use it on the any weapon seasons.


I may be crazy, but I would like to see a study to prove this notion.

2014 Stats

General Rifle is 40.2 %

General Muzzleloader is 33.01%

General Rifle had 32,899 people that hunted in 2014 and they harvested ~ 13,226 deer

General Muzzleloader had 13,502 people that hunted in 2014 and they harvested 4,456 Deer

If you increase your muzzleloader success rate to the rifle success rate, then you would have 5,428 deer harvested.

Which is a difference of 972 deer and in a population of 332,900 mule deer, that is not a lot.

Back to the point, you might be right and the success rate may climb into the 60 % (8102 Deer) or 70 % range (9452 Deer) , but I am skeptical that it will happen.

It wouldn't make much sense to me, unless a study came out and defined that the result of more hunters putting deer in their freezer and a decline in the deer population is directly related to the distance a hunter using the 3rd most popular hunting weapon in Utah with the aid of magnification optics.

So, call me crazy - but I'll keep to *my* skepticism.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> If you increase your muzzleloader success rate to the rifle success rate, then you would have 5,428 deer harvested.


While we're making assumptions....I think you need to add % of hunters choosing the muzzleloader hunt will increase a fair amount as well....pushing overall success numbers even greater.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

gdog said:


> While we're making assumptions....I think you need to add % of hunters choosing the muzzleloader hunt will increase a fair amount as well....pushing overall success numbers even greater.


Tag #'s are capped for muzzleloader. We are near or at the cap in most units... so while a few might switch over, it wont increase the overall amount of ML hunters much. Pre-Option 2, ML tags came out of the rifle pool but that was changed.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> I didn't see where they are going to address the loop hole in the draws for the general season deer hunts.



This is most definitely the biggest issue in the entire thread, and no-one has said a thing about it (beyond Critter anyway).

Absolutely needs to be addressed. That it is being ignored is proof to me that too many people in power are taking advantage of this to be guaranteed a tag every year.

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> This is most definitely the biggest issue in the entire thread, and no-one has said a thing about it (beyond Critter anyway).
> 
> Absolutely needs to be addressed. That it is being ignored is proof to me that too many people in power are taking advantage of this to be guaranteed a tag every year.
> 
> -DallanC


What about me? (I don't count anyways. I use a strike indicator/bobber when flyfishing.);-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critter View Post
I didn't see where they are going to address the loop hole in the draws for the general season deer hunts.

Nope, I don't see anything either. I thought last year, they agreed there was an issue but wanted to "study it more" and deal with it this year. So much for that.

Good grief, I guess one just has to keep "playing the game".

Anyway, kidding aside, you are right. it does make one wonder.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Catherder said:


> What about me? (I don't count anyways. I use a strike indicator/bobber when flyfishing.);-)
> 
> Good grief, I guess one just has to keep "playing the game".
> 
> Anyway, kidding aside, you are right. it does make one wonder.


Apologies, Yep I missed your comment.

-DallanC


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Catherder said:


> What about me? (I don't count anyways. I use a strike indicator/bobber when flyfishing.);-)
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Critter View Post
> ...


HELP, What loop hole? if there is one and they promised then we need to bring it up to the RAC's hold them accountable

Sorry for not know.... :shock:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Critter said:


> I didn't see where they are going to address the loop hole in the draws for the general season deer hunts.





DallanC said:


> This is most definitely the biggest issue in the entire thread, and no-one has said a thing about it (beyond Critter anyway).
> 
> Absolutely needs to be addressed. That it is being ignored is proof to me that too many people in power are taking advantage of this to be guaranteed a tag every year.
> 
> -DallanC





Catherder said:


> What about me? (I don't count anyways. I use a strike indicator/bobber when flyfishing.);-)
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Critter View Post
> ...


I actually started to think about this problem and wouldn't it be for the Wildlife Board to take it up instead of the RAC's? 
If so they still might take up the problem.

At least we can hope.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

DallanC said:


> This is most definitely the biggest issue in the entire thread, and no-one has said a thing about it (beyond Critter anyway).
> 
> Absolutely needs to be addressed. That it is being ignored is proof to me that too many people in power are taking advantage of this to be guaranteed a tag every year.
> 
> -DallanC


What loophole are you referring to?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> What loophole are you referring to?


General Deer uses a different draw system than the LE tags. In LE, everyones first choice is drawn first. In the Preference pt system, people with the most points are drawn first... so a person with 3 points will draw their 5th choice pick over a person's first choice who only has 1 point.

So people gaming the system all put in for the hardest to draw area (making it even harder to draw now btw), planning to not draw... but keeping their points so they get their 2nd choice pick. Next year they do it again but with an additional point yada yada yada.

The fix is simple, you draw ANY Gen buck deer tag you loose your preference points, period. That is how the system was intended to work when we had 5 units... now that there are 30, its a loophole that is being exploited by a sheeeeeeeeettttt load of people.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You don't have to go to the extreme of loosing the points if you draw any tag but everyone's first choice should be drawn before they go to second, third, and fourths. Also all second choice hunts should be drawn before third and fourth choices.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> You don't have to go to the extreme of loosing the points if you draw any tag but everyone's first choice should be drawn before they go to second, third, and fourths. Also all second choice hunts should be drawn before third and fourth choices.


Absolutely not. The entire general season system and preference points was to move people through the pool as quickly as possible, giving everyone the shortest possible wait between deer tags. Thats why people with more points are given "preference" to draw first. Its only this halfassed option2 micro unit thing that was quickly rammed through without fully understanding the ramifications that is causing this "loophole"

Going against that, allowing people to earn a point AND a tag is against the very foundation of why the original preference point system was created, and frankly if people want to go down that road the we can just turn the whole state into LE. You can then put in for your Wasatch West Deer tag or your Bookcliffs deer tag.... OR elk OR antelope for that matter.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Perhaps I have watched Colorado's system for too long to see one like I described work. 

Colorado also works on the principal that all units are equal, no LE hunts. But there are units that you'll have to wait for 15+ years as a resident before you can even think of drawing a tag. They also only have one point system. If you have 20 points and put in for a unit that only requires 2 points you will draw and your points go back to 0. Also you take a chance if you put in for a unit that takes 15 points and don't draw that your second, third, and fourth choice units or hunts will be all drawn out by the time your turn comes around again during the draws.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

While, I do like the loophole and the fact fish lake thousand lakes takes a bunch of points to draw. 

I would not be opposed to either an all first choice before moving onto 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 5th or a draw that looks at all 5 choices and then you lose your points if you draw, but I would like to know what the system is before putting in for the draw

I don't want to put in using the loophole and have the system change during the April decisions on tags and end up with nothing.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Critter said:


> I actually started to think about this problem and wouldn't it be for the Wildlife Board to take it up instead of the RAC's?
> If so they still might take up the problem.
> 
> At least we can hope.


The Wildlife Board certainly has the right to take up the "loophole" on its own and deal with it. However, a proposal to fix it from the DWR that goes through the RAC's *requires* the Wildlife Board to take up the issue and render a vote on it. If I understand our lovely system, it would have been much better if it had been taken up and a solution approved by the RACs .


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> While, I do like the loophole and the fact fish lake thousand lakes takes a bunch of points to draw.
> 
> I would not be opposed to either an all first choice before moving onto 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 5th or a draw that looks at all 5 choices and then you lose your points if you draw, but I would like to know what the system is before putting in for the draw
> 
> I don't want to put in using the loophole and have the system change during the April decisions on tags and end up with nothing.


With a high point accumulation, I don't see how a "loophole" guy would lose out if there is a change. He/she would still have a pocket full of points for at least the next draw.

There are multiple ways to fix this. Two have been already discussed. Another would be to either return the Thousand Lake unit to LE or merge the unit to the Fishlake or another bordering unit. That is the main unit used by loophole users due to its small size and low number of tags. If Thousand lake was put in a larger unit with more tags, the high point guys would finally draw their first choice and lose their points.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Or you could just try the "loophole" yourselves and quit complaining and plotting how to defeat it.

At worst you'll benefit from it and start getting a tag every year or at worst so many people will start doing it and the DWR will have no choice but to fix it.

It's not cheating or unethical it's the same as utilizing a tax deduction your eligible to take. If you don't it's your loss.

It sure makes option 2 a lot more palatable.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

LMFAO,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Spot on IB...;-)...


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> My opinions are:
> 
> -I don't really like the extra LE deer units in November much because they are cutting right into the rut and then you are proposing magnified scopes in muzzleloaders to further the success. However as long as the tag numbers are kept to only 5-10 per unit that is opened up to these late season hunts I'm fine with it because it will unclog the LE point system which is forever being backed up.
> 
> ...


Dedicated general elk:

Should be in the recommendations for this year. Should've been investigated a long.

I still think even just giving us an option to buy an archery stamp to hunt the archery season if you have a rifle or muzzleloader tag would be enough.

I would be in favor of both being implemented.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Everytime I realize what the preference loophole really means I get mad... someone could be in a good position to put in for our hardest unit to draw each year and if their second choice was say the 3rd hardest, they could continue to draw that for as long as they found a way to not draw their first choice correct? That makes it bull. I put in for my most desired unit, which is easy to get, as my first choice. One day, someone could draw it year after year as an alternate choice because they have points banked. Total BS. Imagine that with LE. Guy with 10 points putting in for henrys every year, drawing a Dutton tag or boulder or whatever every year or 2 if the waiting applied. When you put it like that it suddenly makes a lot less sense for those who support it.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

I still would like to see the late "limited entry" muzzy tags to be pushed back to the L.E. Rifle elk dates so you have more of a quality hunt rather than hunting with the general muzzy elk hunters. Even if you have to wear orange on some units.

Also why not offer 1-10 of these tags on every unit.

Also add 1-10 mid November rifle tags to the L.E. Units. 

That would change draw odds up a lot more and provide opportunity in the L.E. System. 

However, I still would like to see the deer system go to one general system and not split by L.E. Or general. 

-Make it all general. 
-Go to one point system
- design hunts for opportunity on every unit
- design hunts for trophy opportunity on every unit.
- manage some units for older age class of bucks. 
- manage other units for younger age class of bucks

Just some thoughts


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Agreed Elk2.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think thats were we will be in a couple more years!

Just do away with the 'general' PP system.

Go LE state wide deer. The loophole gos away.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Do control permits cause me to lose my cow points?

If so, I would rather them make it so control points don't have you lose normal points, then have you get 3 elk tags. Seems like a lot of tags.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

RandomElk16 said:


> Do control permits cause me to lose my cow points?
> 
> If so, I would rather them make it so control points don't have you lose normal points, then have you get 3 elk tags. Seems like a lot of tags.


I don't kill a bull every year. So I like the idea of that. But I agree. The 3rd tag needs to be over the counter and not attached to pp's.

For some folks 3 elk wouldn't last a year. My brothers family for example with 9 kids plus two adults. That's a lot cheap great tasting burger they don't have to spend $6.00/lbs at the grocery store!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Or you could just try the "loophole" yourselves and quit complaining and plotting how to defeat it.


Well, yes, you almost have to do it at this point if you want to regularly hunt the better units. I can play the game as well as the next guy.;-)

Still doesn't make it right. -O,-


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Agreed Elk2.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think thats were we will be in a couple more years!
> 
> Just do away with the 'general' PP system.
> ...


You have any F'ing idea the hornets nest that would stir up? Right now you can put in for a single LE and a single OIL. You really want people to choose between deer or elk or pronghorn? Or do you support removing the restriction of putting in for a single LE, which of course would cause unimaginable point creep.

Easy fix is simple, draw a general deer tag you loose your points. Simplest solution, fairest solution.

-DallanC


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

DallanC said:


> You have any F'ing idea the hornets nest that would stir up? Right now you can put in for a single LE and a single OIL. You really want people to choose between deer or elk or pronghorn? Or do you support removing the restriction of putting in for a single LE, which of course would cause unimaginable point creep.
> 
> Easy fix is simple, draw a general deer tag you loose your points. Simplest solution, fairest solution.
> 
> -DallanC


Couldn't this just be solved by removing all deer tags from the LE system? General and LE are the same thing anyway. Call it Deer Hunting instead of GS or LE. Then you get to pick one deer unit, an elk or pronghorn, plus an OIL to put in for each year.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

nocturnalenemy said:


> Couldn't this just be solved by removing all deer tags from the LE system? General and LE are the same thing anyway. Call it Deer Hunting instead of GS or LE.


General Deer and LE deer are completely different systems... different points, different methods of drawing. Apples and Oranges.



> Then you get to pick one deer unit, an elk or pronghorn, plus an OIL to put in for each year.


That would be the worst possible decision. Look a the point requirements for top tier elk elk, or top tier deer units. Can you imagine how it would be now if people were able to build up points for BOTH species at the same time? (ignoring NRs)

You all are recommending blowing out the odds so bad young people will NEVER get a shot at a tag, and this at a time the DWR is doing everything they can to get new people into hunting (Mentor, skipping hunters safety, youth tag allocations).

Seriously, you guys need to stop and really think out what you are proposing.

-DallanC


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

DallanC said:


> General Deer and LE deer are completely different systems... different points, different methods of drawing. Apples and Oranges.
> 
> That would be the worst possible decision. Look a the point requirements for top tier elk elk, or top tier deer units. Can you imagine how it would be now if people were able to build up points for BOTH species at the same time? (ignoring NRs)
> 
> ...


I know deer have different point systems. What I meant was that they are both limited entry draws. The point creep on the LE deer is directly influenced by the fact you can put in for both LE and GS. Combining those draws would reduce the point creep for the current LE deer units and make the general units easier to draw because you weed out the people who double dip.

I mean, I get what you're saying about point creep for elk, but guess what? Point creep is already out of control for elk. If you're just starting to put in for points now, you're basically looking at a random draw chance anyway. You might draw an archery tag in the next 15 years on bonus points, but you won't draw an early rifle for like 30+ years.

General deer hunting is the most popular hunt in the state so fix that first and then work out wrinkles in the other hunts. LE elk is next most popular so we can work out point creep solutions on that next.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

nocturnalenemy said:


> I know deer have different point systems. What I meant was that they are both limited entry draws. The point creep on the LE deer is directly influenced by the fact you can put in for both LE and GS. Combining those draws would reduce the point creep for the current LE deer units and make the general units easier to draw because you weed out the people who double dip.
> 
> I mean, I get what you're saying about point creep for elk, but guess what? Point creep is already out of control for elk. If you're just starting to put in for points now, you're basically looking at a random draw chance anyway. You might draw an archery tag in the next 15 years on bonus points, but you won't draw an early rifle for like 30+ years.
> 
> General deer hunting is the most popular hunt in the state so fix that first and then work out wrinkles in the other hunts. LE elk is next most popular so we can work out point creep solutions on that next.


I'm not sure adding 35,530 residents to the elk and antelope pool via combing the LE and GS deer system is a good idea. 
Say it is split right down the middle 17,765 go to pronghorn and elk.

45,068 people that are applying for elk, just became 62,833. The 1 in 16 elk draw success ratio just became 1 in 23 for the 2734 permits, which these numbers are hardly accurate, because it doesn't take into account bonus points and bonus permits. I am a man and not a wizard, but you could calculate the actual impact if you like. A lot of variables will be involved.

The 6,274 people applying for pronghorn just became 24039. The 1 in 8 success ratio just became 1 in 31 for the 758 permits. Another note, the success ratio is a poor way to represent the actual representation of draw odds, but if they wrote it as 3%, I think people would be less inclined to put it. 1 in 8 seems like a good number, but it is really 12.5% draw odds. Or an 87.5% chance that you will not draw. Like I mentioned before these numbers are flawed, but lack the motivation to calculate the actual numbers. I would tend to think the actual numbers would be lower.

The General Season for deer would get only 1325 more permits, so it doesn't look like the reward is worth the risk.

The division's idea of adding hunts to get people through the deer LE is really the only system that has been presented so far that makes a tiny bit of sense. It is pretty simple straight forward math, you take 35,530 and divide it by the number of hunts.

35,530 / 10 , 35,530 /20 , 35,530 /30 .

The issue is that the top number is growing faster than the bottom number can compensate with.

There is not a simple solution for the amount of people applying for the amount of permits that are available with deterring people from applying or growing the population or in LE areas the age objectives.

I will say that Utah has a pretty fair system for LE's. 49% to the top point pool and 51% to the random draw (odd numbers go random, because you cannot split half a tag), each year you apply you receive a bonus point for the next year or another number in the computer.

The general season hunts are not that bad and certainly not broken. The loophole only helps those that understand it. Without the loophole, unless you are applying for Fish Lake Thousand Lakes or Filmore Oak Creek it is feasible to get a tag every 1 to 3 years even with 114,555 people applying for 62.533 permits every year. You might have to switch weapons, but the opportunity is there.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of points.

1. Fixing the "loophole" does *not* have to change how the LE draws are done nor does it require that the LE deer and general deer points be combined. They are separate issues and suggesting otherwise is a smokescreen.

2. We have discussed this before regarding combining deer points. It is possible to combine the deer points if the WB so wishes and *not* mess up the LE draws. All that would need to be done is to maintain the "premium" or LE designations on the current premium LE deer units and stipulate that one may not apply for a premium deer and a LE tag for other species in the same season. (just as it is now) The net effect of this would be that the "trophy" deer hunters would not apply for lesser tags and the "general hunt" guys would not be applying for the premium units anymore because they want to draw tags to the areas they are accustomed to at a regular frequency. A slight win for both groups. The other species would not be affected much.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

nocturnalenemy said:


> I know deer have different point systems. What I meant was that they are both limited entry draws. The point creep on the LE deer is directly influenced by the fact you can put in for both LE and GS. Combining those draws would reduce the point creep for the current LE deer units and make the general units easier to draw because you weed out the people who double dip.
> 
> .


This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not only that, It would pull a TON of hunters out of the elk and antelope pools.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

That is where they need to eliminate the wording "Limited Entry" from the drawings. 

Since all deer tags are now draw why even have a LE hunt in the deer pool. Just go to one set of points for deer. Now you will have some units that take 1 or 2 points and others that will take 10+ points to draw. It would be the same as it is now for antelope which you could also remove the LE tag for the draws. 

Just leave the elk draws as they are now. 

So in the end you would be able to put in for a draw for deer and a LE elk hunt or antelope tag. 

All they would need to do is to decide what to do with Lifetime License holders. And my opinion on that would be to just give them 1 or 2 points automatically in the deer draws.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

YES!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Critter gets it!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I do not see the UDWR getting rid of the 3 Deer Point System anytime soon. There are 135,000 general season apps. There are 3,000 DH apps. There are 60,000 limited entry apps. Take away two of the 3 (DH and LE) and the Division will have lost $600,000+ in revenue. 

Then there is the lifetime license issue and the "what to do with people's current points" issue. 

They should only have 2 point types-- 
-OIL points. Not species specific.
-DEA points. Good for either deer, elk, or antelope. This would cause people to choose which type of animal is more important to them to hunt each year.
Of course this idea would reduce revenue even more, but it would distribute hunters and allow more individuals to draw each year.

But none of this is even on the table for this Fall.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No, not on the table for next fall.

BUT, they are doing a study on this 'deer points' issue, we'll see.
May-be 2017


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Ok I have been following along as best I could, but could somebody please explain other than the revenue why we even have multiple LE point systems in place. I say when you earn x amount points you use them where ever you want. Once they are gone they are gone period. For Instance, I have 8 deer points that I would much rather use on elk. Why not allow me to burn them on what ever species I want? just curious...


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

As I've perused over this thread some things have popped up that I'd like to address as a living check to check regular joe hunter.

1. Antler restrictions. I shoot what I can get lucky enough to see and shoot. Go to the muzzy section and see what I shot this year. I'm 36 and it's my SECOND buck. To me it's a trophy. Many others don't see it that way. I would have had tag soup once again had there been a "3 point or better" system in place. Also, I used to drive a tow truck for a dealership out here. I've had to drive to the book cliffs in that tow truck. Do you who don't go there know how many 24" two points are there? Those are bucks that are breeding. I would love to shoot a nice big buck, but it doesn't make sense to only take out the big bucks so the little guys can breed.

2. Combining general/le deer. What does that do to the cost of a tag? I had to budget just to fit deer hunting into my funds. I actually had to get a ride up the mtn the last few days because gas was too expensive and I had to register my truck. As it is now, the general is like a limited entry to me because I only draw every other year. I would love to draw my 2-5 choice so I could hunt yearly. But funds limit what areas I put in for, so I can't afford to play that game.

3. Dedicated hunter for elk. I'd love to do this. But again, I can't afford the big chuck of change it'd cost. Dedicated hunter combined species would be nice too. 2 bulls/2 bucks in 3 years? That'd be ok by me. But could I get a cow with the dedicated tag one year so I still get elk all 3 years? Or what about just getting a cow all 3 years?

4. Muzzy scopes. Let's keep them limited to 4x and no higher. I'd love to put a 4x32 on my muzzy.

5. Hasn't been talked about, but how about rewarding killing coyotes in the recommended areas? Guess what? I hunt an area full of dogs and it's not in the recommended area. Perhaps some way to have more accurate proof of where dogs were killed. (anyone can fudge gps coords) Every 20 dogs in XX unit gives a preference point? 

Just thoughts... Everyone gets an opinion right?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

The way they are split are for increasing the draw odds. 

Rather than 100,000 people putting in for all of deer, elk, and pronghorn. 

It is split roughly 45% Elk, 35% Deer, and 20% Pronghorn.

45,000 people putting in for 3,000 elk tags is better than 100,000 putting in for the same 3,000. and so on. 

As far as why, you can't use them between species - I don't know. It probably has to do with semantics.

With the system where they are combined something would have to be done to prevent non residents from moving to Utah and being at the top of every point list. 

Some people have an issue with Non Residents being able to put in for every single hunt, but most of the time it is just that, putting in.

Non Residents get an allotment of 10% of the tags and a lot of hunts only have one permit available. (about 300 elk, 200 deer, 70 pronghorn each year)


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Draw a tag, lose your points would be way too simple. There has to be a way to complicate it alot more than that. Most of you sound like our politicians.


----------



## trapper12 (Dec 27, 2012)

Ridge rebel I feel the same way, I am starting to hunt idaho. I seen more elk in 5 minutes than I did in two units in utah for the general season bull last year that includes cows


----------

