# Where have all the hunters gone? Thoughts?



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

This is an article by Tom Wharton of the SL Tribune.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/5 ... csp?page=1

I think he is spot on with his observations and congratulate him on getting the word out. I know, I know, we bash the hell out of this topic, but in MHO it needs to be done. Those of us who put our thoughts out on the web on these type of forums at least have some type of understanding of what is going on, but there is a huge population of hunters out there that don't have a clue. I have a hunch apathy on their part has much to do with it, as well as a lack of honest information.



> An even more restrictive system is coming in 2012 and my guess is that it's going to catch many Utah deer hunters by surprise. In one of its worst decisions in recent memory, the Utah Wildlife Board has reduced the number of deer permits by around 13,000 to fewer than 80,000 next year. Even worse, participants will have to apply to hunt in one of 30 units instead of five.
> 
> This is a move, pure and simple, to attract trophy hunters. It will do nothing to increase the number of deer in the state. It will likely result in a few more trophy bucks, which is what the Wildlife Board directed Division of Wildlife Resources biologists to do. There will be less pressure for the lucky few who draw permits.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think this article is more distructive towards hunters than anything. All he's trying to do is divide hunters in general even more than already. Makes me wonder if we would have been more proactive towards pheasants 20 years ago with habitat, predators and reduced hunter numbers, maybe we would have more birds around now. Like he said about the duck hunters, duck hunting is at it's best right now but there are very few hunters. I think in general people have just changed their activities and peoples lives have gotten so much busier than ever before. Hunting has become to much work for some people. No matter how good the deer hunting gets, we will continue to loose some hunters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> This is an article by Tom Wharton of the SL Tribune.
> 
> An even more restrictive system is coming in 2012 and my guess is that it's going to catch many Utah deer hunters by surprise.


You have no idea!



> This is a move, pure and simple, to attract trophy hunters. It will do nothing to increase the number of deer in the state.


Bingo! We have a winner, folks!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

+1000!

I'm dumbfounded people think its only going to be a 13k reduction in tags. I'll bet when the counts are in, the tag numbers get adjusted due to the mandate ratios, its possibly double that. Give it a few years and units that cant hold the magical 18:100 get turned into units like the bookcliffs striving for that 25:100 so ratio that less than 1000 people can hunt!

Nevada issued 16500 total statewide deer tags this year? Micro units are working so awesome for them!


-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

We now have a claim that if the UDWR would have limited pheasant hunters then we would have more pheasants today? Hahahaha That is some great humor! Thanks for the laugh. hahaha

Yes, cut permits and seasons when a herd (or flock hahaha) is in need! But don't do it to increase antlers. Loosing 150,000 hunters has grown how many deer? 

Hunting is becoming exclusionary. If you don't have the best of whatever then you are made to feel less than adequate. 

So my son shot his first deer this year-- a small spike. The kid hunted hard with Dad, hiking hours and missing opportunities on mature bucks. So what did he get in response to his deer? 20-50 year old men giving him a hard time. Kids at school telling him their Dad shot a bigger one (yeah I saw some of those 2 year old 2x3s and 4x4s- whooppee). He went from feeling great about his experience to feeling inadequate because it didn't "measure-up". He went from wanting to post his experience to WORRYING about what some vocal yahoos will say. When I shot my first buck it was the same size and I never heard ONE negative response. THAT change over the past 25 years is what is wrong!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Packout said:


> We now have a claim that if the UDWR would have limited pheasant hunters then we would have more pheasants today? Hahahaha That is some great humor! Thanks for the laugh. hahaha
> 
> Yes, cut permits and seasons when a herd (or flock hahaha) is in need! But don't do it to increase antlers. Loosing 150,000 hunters has grown how many deer?
> 
> ...


Well said Packout.....

And nice job Tom......

What has divided us hunters and is destructive, is the thought that some how we are entitled every time we go out.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else. 

Packout,
I know what you mean about people making comments about deer. Heck last year my son posted up a pick of his 2x3 "whoopee". And some individuals chose to use it to try and prove their personal point at RAC meetings. It kind of blew me away! Guess some people just don't get it!!!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Pacout as you know kids will be kids and they will say things that most people won't. To them is is always going one better than the next kid. Don't you remember or ever hear that my dad can beat up your dad? One thing that should never be taken away from a first time hunter is what he has accomplished weather it be a doe which was the first deer that I shot back in the 60's to a record breaking buck. And while I am a self imposed trophy hunter the only people that I will talk down to are those that have a spike or 2 pt on their wheeler and then listen to them complaining that there are no big bucks. 

As far as the pheasants I wish that it was back in time to the 60's when you could hunt from one end of Utah to the other and find them everywhere. Not to mention being able to hunt 90% of the fields without even having to ask permission from the owners, and then if you did see the owners they would shoot the bull with you and tell you where to go on their property to find the birds. 

Now duck hunting is turning into the sport for the rich. Places that I hunted as a kid on the south end of Utah Lake and elsewhere have turned into expensive hunting clubs. The last time that I even shot a duck in Utah was while I was deer hunting and found some mallards landing on a pond at 9,000'. 

So in my opinion hunting is turning into the rich mans sport. The duck and pheasant hunts have been that way for quite a while in Utah. I just hope that the deer and elk hunts don't follow suit.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

gotta disagree on duck hunting piece. best its been since in 15 years. tons of great public areas to go kill a limit. and I see more and more people in the marsh than ever before. I use to go out mid week and never see a car in the parking lot and now I see at least 6-7 rigs. difference is habitat, I'm sure that's the same with the deer/pheasants. we had a great wet spring and that's why we are seeing so many birds this year. tons of new area for them to stick around.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

but I do agree with the money being a main issue. fuel prices alone really limit people hunting big game and tag increases and what not.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> I'm dumbfounded people think its only going to be a 13k reduction in tags. I'll bet when the counts are in, the tag numbers get adjusted due to the mandate ratios, its possibly double that. Give it a few years and units that cant hold the magical 18:100 get turned into units like the bookcliffs striving for that 25:100 so ratio that less than 1000 people can hunt!


Dallan, I'm happy to see you understand the issue at its core. The most egregious clause in the changes is neither the reduction of 13,000 tags nor the change to 30 units. It's the fact that when a unit falls below 15:100 bucks to does the unit is then changed to a limited entry unit until it is up to 25:100 bucks to does. Every unit in this state has just been made a limited entry, Book Cliffs style unit. A dozen years under the adopted system and there won't be 25,000 hunters who draw tags.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

BirdDogger said:


> Dallan, I'm happy to see you understand the issue at its core. The most egregious clause in the changes is neither the reduction of 13,000 tags nor the change to 30 units. It's the fact that when a unit falls below 15:100 bucks to does the unit is then changed to a limited entry unit until it is up to 25:100 bucks to does. Every unit in this state has just been made a limited entry, Book Cliffs style unit. A dozen years under the adopted system and there won't be 25,000 hunters who draw tags.


The single most assinine part of this... is that at a time when we need to grow herds, the quickest, fastest way to improve buck to doe ratios is to have a doe hunt!

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Over regulation has been a large part of the loss. Either regulating the amount of hunters or making the rules of the hunt so confusing that they no longer want to to hunt for fear of breaking the rules. I know of several friends that have given it up just because it is too much hassle to remember when to put in for the draw.



Muley73 said:


> 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.


Less than half as many deer and less than half as many people. It should be all better by now then. It may be an issue but is not leading cause of less hunters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> +1000!
> 
> I'm dumbfounded people think its only going to be a 13k reduction in tags. I'll bet when the counts are in, the tag numbers get adjusted due to the mandate ratios, its possibly double that. Give it a few years and units that cant hold the magical 18:100 get turned into units like the bookcliffs striving for that 25:100 so ratio that less than 1000 people can hunt!
> 
> ...


You're on the right track and you certainly make your point! But it's actually worse than that! Those numbers were for 2010 and that was the total number of tags. (resAW-9,326, resML-980, resArch-2,130, resJr(youth)either sex-2,762, NresAW-715, NresML-116, NresArch-239, resAWdoe-394 = 16,662).

Per Reno's KRNV-TV (5/27/2011), this year it was *11,536* buck tags for their *110 units* which averages 105 buck tags per unit. (I don't know what the antlerless tag numbers were nor whether the youth either sex tags were included.) In any case, they have 109,000 deer, so that's 106 buck tags per 1000 deer. If we were to follow their lead, we would have 31,058 buck tags! (293,000 deer x 106/1000) In other words, we would have to cut about 60,000 tags!

Nevada has had this system in place for a couple of decades. And is it working? Nope! Per the above source, Dr. Gerald Lent, VChair Wildlife Commission (Wildlife Board) thinks there are now only 50,000 deer (I guess they don't believe their wildlife division's counts either.) while there were "a few hundred thousand a few decades ago".

I'll concede that they do have a "better" buck to doe ratio, but if you raise your buck to doe ratio, while losing total population, what have you gained?

Still wanna go there?


----------



## 90redryder (Oct 10, 2011)

Packout said:


> We now have a claim that if the UDWR would have limited pheasant hunters then we would have more pheasants today? Hahahaha That is some great humor! Thanks for the laugh. hahaha
> 
> Yes, cut permits and seasons when a herd (or flock hahaha) is in need! But don't do it to increase antlers. Loosing 150,000 hunters has grown how many deer?
> 
> ...


I give your boy props on his first deer, there is not a thing wrong with him shooting a spike. However I do disagree that there is a problem with people only wanting to shoot trophy animals. Every hunter goes through his phases. You have to learn what it feels like to have success, thats what keeps your hunting spirits up. Im sure your son will shoot a quite a few more small bucks before he is out of that phase and on to being a "trophy" hunter. There is nothing wrong with that and he shouldnt be ashamed of that. What i do have a problem with is when the people who are fortunate enough to shoot multiple big bucks decide they need to make the young kids feel insecure about their first deer. It takes a real man to put a kid down because he shot a bigger deer doesnt it? I got lucky on my first buck. It took me three years to finally be successful and I was lucky enough to shoot a thick 3 point. But I wont try to sound all cool and say I woulnt have shot a spike, I took the first buck I got a chance on and it just happened to be a 3 point.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

In my view, as with why mule deer numbers are declining across the west, declining hunter numbers is mult faceted, with no single reason being the cause.



> by Muley73 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:45 pm
> 
> 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.


This type of blanket statement, along with many other examples being spread by hunters, brings to light the type of attitude that is prevelant amoungst our own: "my way, idea, plan, reason, etc. is better than yours! It's the only thing that will work!"... As with the many reasons there are for declining mule deer numbers across the west, I think there are many reasons we are losing hunters, and recruitment is pretty high up the list. I'll leave it at that for now 8)


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Many good statements have been made on here. Many ideas brought up on this subject. My problem with the whole subject is this. The herds have been declining for the past what 20 years 25, 30 maybe. I have heard that many things are causing this, predation, auto-deer collisions, loss of winter habitat, hunters, overpopulation of elk etc. yet I have not too date seen a study with hard statistics and information determining exactly what is going on and what can be done too solve the problem, if it can be solved? All I'm seeing is hey lets try this, how bout we do this even though we know it wont help the herds... Is the DWR really doing its job and solving the problem? I heard rumor that USU students were going to be studying all of these contributing factors, has it been done? If it has, have the notes been compared and have the statistics been plotted to provide an overall look at the problem? If so shouldn't we have a good solid answer? I've heard the DWR say that elk will not effect deer, then talked to some of their own biologists that say they do. So what is the solution? Simple, find the actual problems, then solve the problem. It's sure difficult to solve a problem when you don't know what the real problem is. Sorry for the tangent. My 2 cents.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

90redrider said:


> I give your boy props on his first deer, there is not a thing wrong with him shooting a spike. However I do disagree that there is a problem with people only wanting to shoot trophy animals. Every hunter goes through his phases. You have to learn what it feels like to have success, thats what keeps your hunting spirits up. Im sure your son will shoot a quite a few more small bucks before he is out of that phase and on to being a "trophy" hunter. There is nothing wrong with that and he shouldnt be ashamed of that.


I have no problem with that viewpoint and, in fact, welcome it, though I don't think *every* hunter goes through those phases, nor do I think that trophy hunting is the ultimate/final phase. Personally, I'm 70 years old and back to phase 1 1/2. I still archery hunt and, although I'm still looking for my P&Y deer, (I need only one.), any legal deer, at least in the last few days, is a trophy.

Where I have a problem is with the trophy hunting viewpoint running the show for the rest of us. Trophy hunters already have a program in place to meet their "needs". It's called Limited Entry and Premium Limited Entry. Additionally, the general hunts and areas have lots of trophy deer on them as evidenced by the number of pictures posted on this forum. And, in spite of what many believe, the Dec 2008 5 year deer management plan addressed that concern with plans and procedures to raise the total deer population, thus raising the trophy buck population as well.

What concerns me is that the recent changes to the plan will prove to be ineffective and counterproductive, not only to the majority of Utah's deer hunters, but to the trophy hunters as well. Those changes are not based on sound science and will not serve us well in the long run. I may be long gone before it happens, but unless we get our heads together with reason instead of just emotion, we're in for a rough ride.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

You guys are taking the "whoopppee" comment out of context of how I meant it. I didn't mean it to degrade their bucks, just that it doesn't matter if it is a yearling or a two year old. They are the results of a hunt in which the hunter did what HE/SHE wanted to do. I think people should shoot whatever makes them happy. Others should support them as long as they are within the law. There is no need to degrade another hunter for what they want to shoot. But that is just my opinion and isn't shared by everyone.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't remember seeing any degrading comments on this site towards a small buck taken. Most of the snide comments always seem to be directed towards the "Trophy Hunter". Even you Packout had to jump in and get a good laugh at my expense. I hope you enjoyed yourself. Keep up the good fight.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Many good statements have been made on here. Many ideas brought up on this subject. My problem with the whole subject is this. The herds have been declining for the past what 20 years 25, 30 maybe. I have heard that many things are causing this, predation, auto-deer collisions, loss of winter habitat, hunters, overpopulation of elk etc. yet I have not too date seen a study with hard statistics and information determining exactly what is going on and what can be done too solve the problem, if it can be solved? All I'm seeing is hey lets try this, how bout we do this even though we know it wont help the herds... Is the DWR really doing its job and solving the problem? I heard rumor that USU students were going to be studying all of these contributing factors, has it been done? If it has, have the notes been compared and have the statistics been plotted to provide an overall look at the problem? If so shouldn't we have a good solid answer? I've heard the DWR say that elk will not effect deer, then talked to some of their own biologists that say they do. So what is the solution? Simple, find the actual problems, then solve the problem. It's sure difficult to solve a problem when you don't know what the real problem is. Sorry for the tangent. My 2 cents.


Try; http://www.creatstrat.com/muledeerinthe ... group.html
Edited; Sorry, but I couldn't make the link. You'll just have to type it in or Google-mule deer working group. Unless one of you out there can fix it!

This is the model for the original Dec 2008 DWR 5-year deer management plan which is almost an exact duplicate. (Before we messed with it!)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I don't remember seeing any degrading comments on this site towards a small buck taken. Most of the snide comments always seem to be directed towards the "Trophy Hunter". Even you Packout had to jump in and get a good laugh at my expense. I hope you enjoyed yourself. Keep up the good fight.


I havn't seen much of that either, but there are _other_ sites frequented by several of us that it is commonplace. Easy to get confused and riled up.

Yes, trophy hunters have come under scrutiny for the last few years and I think it's justified. It's not necessarily due to all trophy hunters, but it we are talking about an issue where trophy hunting mentalities can't help but receive flack. Many of the policies that are being enacted and the direction of our fish and game are being driven by the trophy mentality. I don't think that anyone is belittling hunters choosing to seek and harvest big antlered animals. A few people I know actually seek out young animals, because they are interested in the table fare. But most are out there looking for a big antlered animal and when questioned about which is more important Trophy or opportunity, most will choose opportunity. Unless of course they are being led astray by notions of opportunity loss resulting in more deer an a healthier deer herd.

So is trophy hunting an evil thing? I guess that's open to subjective conjecture, but it has become somewhat of an evil set of words due to the results that have been produced by influences of trophy hunters and even more so, an industry that has become very large and is predicated on a public resource.

It's akin to the government taking our tax money, purchasing public transportation with it, then giving a private entity control over our vehicles and on top of that, the entity choosing and lobbying successfully to run transportation routes that are desired only by a minority of taxpayers. On top of that, telling this majority of folks that if they are patient, that the bus routes will include them in the future. Do you actually think that the people who are used to having the bus come a block from their house, the ones who control the bus routes, will actually give up their cozy 50 yard walk to the bus stop in exchange for a walk to a stop a mile away?

Some call it tyranny.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- I never said it was here. The turned-up noses came in person. By guys who made comments to me and my son. I did have to laugh at the "pheasant analogy". I am not laughing at the tail-feather length or the size of your buck. I know you are a good hunter, passionate about the resource and very willing to give of yourself and time. I enjoy your posts, even though I may not agree with them all the time. I just happened to find the thought that the decline of pheasants can be blamed on rooster hunters was funny. I do think the decline of pheasants has led to a decline of pheasant hunters. Which leads me to AGREE with Muley73- Less deer has led to less hunters. If we still had the same deer herd as we did in the 1960s then we'd still have 250,000 hunters- or more. But cutting tags to further to grow more bone leads to less hunters also. 

Why are there less hunters? Because some people are tired of the competitive "sport" of hunting. Some are tired of not seeing enough game. Some are tired of jumping through the hoops to get a tag. Some people won't give their credit card number on the WEB and the UDWR won't allow them to pay at the desk anymore. Some people have lost the passion. Some people want to do other activities. Some kids won't work for it. Some can't afford it. Some lost the areas they hunted. Some are dieing. There are many reasons.

It is my belief that there is a wave of people waiting to get into hunting. New hunters, who know not of the past. Guys and gals who see our passion- Tree's, Ridges', Muley's, my passion want to give hunting a go. Will there be tags and opportunity to support their desire?


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Oh the good old days. Never went scouting, never hung a trail cam, treestand, or set out a salt lick. Could buy a couple boxes of ammo at Allieds or Wolfs for under $10. Could run up big, little, milcreek to sight in the rifles. 

Might come as a shock to the younger die hard wasatch archery crowd, but the wasatch produced monster bucks long before carbon risers, one pin sights, and epek broadheads. And according to some on this sight opening up the old fashioned rifle hunt on the wasatch wouldn't hurt a thing with the deer herd up there.

Utah's population was about 1/4 of what it is now. Road hunting along Wasatch Blvd didn't raise an eye brow.

Grandma had a tag, so did the old widow down the road in the ward. Said she could use the deer meat. Neither had ever shot a rifle, and never did. But, they sure tagged a lot of deer during the good old days....

Give me a flipping break folks. Times have changed. Not saying I like it, but to blame it on trophy hunters is a weak argument at best.

Old Tom is just doing his job and that's to push our buttons.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I think Tom was making a point in his article that isn't really being discussed in this thread. The point of Tom's articles, IMHO, was to simply say that cutting hunter opportunity unnecessarily has some potential damage to our sport. Hunters are voters and by cutting tags we will certainly make our fraternity smaller and hunting issues will become a much lesser priority with lawmakers. Financially the burden will become increasingly more for us as individuals. 

The other point I believe that he was trying to make is that this is not an isolated incident. This is a trend folks. That's the scary part.

It's true there are less deer now but if you believe that tags have been cut in equal proportion to the loss in deer numbers, you've been hoodwinked. If you believe that the recent tag cuts have anything to do with less deer OR is a solution to grow more deer you've been equally duped.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

The good old days of deer getting shot for camp meat. Connected families starting deer season a day or two early. Old mausers, fixed 4x scopes, 30-30s, no range finders just fire away. Couldn't tell you if it was 100 yards or 500 but we got in a lot of shooting. More 3 legged deer running around than californians. 

Elk sightings were like wolf sightings these days-Lots of rumors.

Rarely saw a coyote. Cougar and bear sightings were like seeing a unicorn.

Oh the memories.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I think this article is more destructive towards hunters than anything. All he's trying to do is divide hunters in general even more than already.


I don't get that; he is simply stating the obvious facts. The pheasant question is the most interesting to me. Predators are certainly the largest factor; way more than habitat as the state continues to repeat. Why don't the raccoons seem to ebb and flow as the rabbit to yote cycles do? 
I could not have said it better on the WB issue. I wonder just how many years it will take before something can be done to reverse this deer program. I would guess that it won't ever be reversed, but what could we do make it so? Just get used to getting hosed I reckon.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Getting back to the thread title, I can't speak for other families, but when I was a teen (and even before) my dad and two brothers and I and all of my uncles except one and all of my male cousins hunted deer. Most of them also hunted rabbits and about half of them hunted pheasants and ducks. 

By the time I was married in 1966, two of my uncles had passed away and their boys had quit, mostly because they hadn't bought any guns or gear themselves and weren't as close to their cousins as they were to dad. My two brothers married girls who wouldn't allow guns in the house and they had moved out of Utah into SW desert cities (Phoenix and Albuquerque) where there isn't much of a hunting community. And since they didn't hunt, their kids didn't either. Both of my sisters married deer hunters, but one of my BIL's got fed up with the paperwork and red tape and quit, taking his 2 boys with him. The other BIL still hunts, but only cow elk because "deer meat ain't worth the bother". And only one of his sons still hunt.

Then my dad and his brother got too old and tired to get around the mountain any more and my uncle sold his guns while my father gave me his. Both of them have since passed away. I still hunt, but my 3 sons and my 2 hunting daughters hunt only every few years because of the hassle and costs. And I always have to remind them of time tables (Proclamations come out in Nov/Dec, applications are due in Mar, results come out in Apr, sighting in/practice in the summer, hunts in Oct.) Several years in a row I bought their licenses and tags and spent over $1200 doing that each year but I couldn't/can't afford it any more. Now only 3 of my 15 grandchildren are/were interested in hunting and one of them, my 16 year old granddaughter, informed us that this year's elk hunt is the last one ever. (She texted almost every minute of our hunt.) The other two grandchildren (grandsons) are only 7 and 9. They love hunting with grandpa now, but who knows how long that will last! I suspect when I pass away, it's the end for our family. 

Where have all the hunters gone? It just isn't worth the hassle anymore! And we keep adding hassle!


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Elkfromabove

I think your situation is similar to most of ours. 

I believe we're losing more hunters to attrition than we could ever hope to recruit from youth.

Hunters have to be more dedicated than ever if they want to hunt big game anywhere in the west. I handle all the applications and leg work for my aging family members. They'd given up hunting long ago if it wasn't for my efforts to keep them hunting.
It's a hastle, it's expensive, it's intimidating, and with all of the rules and regs it's a legal nightmare just waiting to happen. One mistake in the field could cost you big time in the courts.

To a growing number of people it's just not worth the time, effort, and risk.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Where have all the hunters gone? It just isn't worth the hassle anymore! And we keep adding hassle!


I agree, this is a large factor, but the success rates seemed to have sharply dropped also, at least that is the perception. I know of some who stopped duck hunting once the non toxic rule passed, in like 1992 or so. One uncle due to just getting old, one uncle who seems to not care for all of the rules/regs and his own sons don't hunt, so just kind of casually hunts, but still comes to every annual fishing outing. Seems pretty rare to hear of experiences like NHS's this year where he got his FIL to go on his first hunt in decades and his neighbor the same, but they certainly had great experiences. My neighbor was looking to get involved in hunting, but he was absolutely blown away at all of the different rules, procedures, classes, waiting periods, etc. to go through.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bring back the deer numbers and the hunters will increase. Micro managing units will give use the best chance to do this IF we utilize the tool correctly!!! If we truly only use it to try and grow bigger bucks then I agree we will not be successful. But to say that is the only benefit of micro managing is just short sighted and cutting off our nose to spite our face. I truly hope others can realize this rather than demonize it.

And Packout, congrats to your young one on the buck!!! I am sure the memory of harvesting it and the hunt that took place with far outlast the comments of a handful of idiots.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I personally don't think that it is that much more of a hassle than it was years ago. How many here remember the 5 year wait between elk tags? Hunting used to be the thing to do but anymore there are a lot of other things that are there for the kids to do that is a lot more exciting for them. I remember a hunt that I was on a few years ago when a couple of the kids showed up with there dad and they spent just about the whole time with their hand held games. They could of cared less about the hunt. 

Now I do know a few that gave up deer hunting when the DWR went to the regional hunts and few more that drooped out when it went to the draw in the regions saying that it took too much time but they would put in for the cow elk hunts. So really even when we had to do the paper applications and send them through the mail did it really take that much more time and effort? And now with it being on line you can have you application filled out and sent in less time than it takes to read one page of these responses. 

It is sad but I have a nephew that his dad puts in for elk and moose every year and if he draws one of the tags I doubt that he will ever hunt either animal. He rather sleep in than get up before daylight and put forth the effort to find them. One thing that I didn't mention about him but he is in his 30's now and he dad is still doing the applications for him.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

PS to my previous post:

And we're about to lose even more hunters with our 3 year inactivity rule where they lose ALL their points! We just don't think some hunters are serious enough, I guess. Or do we just want to be bumped up to the top of the list faster?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Bring back the deer numbers and the hunters will increase. Micro managing units will give use the best chance to do this IF we utilize the tool correctly!!! If we truly only use it to try and grow bigger bucks then I agree we will not be successful. But to say that is the only benefit of micro managing is just short sighted and cutting off our nose to spite our face. I truly hope others can realize this rather than demonize it.
> 
> And Packout, congrats to your young one on the buck!!! I am sure the memory of harvesting it and the hunt that took place with far outlast the comments of a handful of idiots.


Micro-managing smaller units would work if we just stuck to the real problems, but the current number or antler size of the bucks killed during the hunt and the current 15/100 buck to doe ratios are not the problems per the 64 world-class wildlife managers and biologist of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' Mule Deer Working Group.* And if they are not the problem, then fixing them is not the solution!*

Unfortunately, Option #2 doesn't stick to just fixing the real problems. And, in fact, make it harder to do so.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Bring back the deer numbers and the hunters will increase. Micro managing units will give use the best chance to do this IF we utilize the tool correctly!!!


1) If the deer numbers are brought back, the only way the number of hunters will increase is if there are tags for those hunters to hunt....

2) Weren't we already managing on a unit by unit basis? The only real difference between what was being done and what we are changing to is the management of hunters. So, really, the only positive thing I can see coming from this is the DWR will have more exact harvest numbers....so, how will these numbers equate to more deer in Utah?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

W2U,
That answer is so wrong and those that research know it. Including yourself, Anis himself stated that we lose control once the hunts start. Further more the units were averaged together. This does not help indiviual units that are struggling. Yes we cut back days afield on a couple units, but still not enough focus on each unit. 

To say tag numbers will never come back if deer numbers increase is a poor guess at best!!! As the number of elk have increased what have the tag numbers done??? I believe just three years ago we added 5000 over the counter tags alone?????


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> W2U,
> That answer is so wrong and those that research know it. Including yourself, Anis himself stated that we lose controlcontrol of what? The hunter...and where the hunter hunts. But, not of our ability to count fawn/doe ratios, buck/doe ratios, etc. once the hunts start. Further more the units were averaged together. This does not help indiviual units that are struggling. Yes we cut back days afield on a couple units, but still not enough focus on each unit.


What answer? The only thing that changed with micromanaging units is controlling the hunter. What else will change? Biologists looked at buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios, habitat, etc...on a unit by unit basis...all of the work done was on a unit basis. The only thing different for this micromanagement change is where the hunters will hunt...and because of tighter control on hunters, buck harvest numbers will be more exact. That's it. What else will change? Tell me!

And, again, bucks don't give birth to does. So, how will controlling where the hunters hunt help grow more deer? Based on what you are telling me, you believe hunters are the root cause of fewer deer. I don't believe that for one second...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> W2U,
> To say tag numbers will never come back if deer numbers increase is a poor guess at best!!! As the number of elk have increased what have the tag numbers done??? I believe just three years ago we added 5000 over the counter tags alone?????


So, if our deer numbers returned to the 600,000 deer we had in the 80s, do you think we would be give out up to 250,000 deer tags? I seriously doubt it...and I seriously doubt we would even come close percentage wise.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout tell your son don't worry about it man.I just tell people that bitch because I shot a small two point.Is i buy my tag when you buy them for me then you can tell me what to shoot and how to hunt. in tell then go and take a hike.Tell your son congrats on his deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> W2U,
> That answer is so wrong and those that research know it. Including yourself, Anis himself stated that we lose control once the hunts start. Further more the units were averaged together. This does not help indiviual units that are struggling. Yes we cut back days afield on a couple units, but still not enough focus on each unit.


I can understand your point but let's call it what it is. It is true that, to Anis's point, it is more difficult to manage a unit for a buck to doe ratio when it is unknown how many hunters will hunt the area. From a hunters satisfaction point of view unit by unit will be a good tool. It will distribute pressure more evenly and that will help the division manage buck to doe ratios easier on a given unit.

From a biological standpoint though hotspotting has never been shown to be a big enough problem that it effects breeding or herd production. So unit by unit hunter management will not help herd production. One other thing to consider is that under the regional plan if one area has a lot of hunters that means another area has very few. So even though one area has high harvest another has very low meaning at the end of the day you aren't killing less deer under unit by unit, you are just more evenly spreading out the harvest.

Again I can understand unit by unit management to improve hunter satisfaction, I just fail to see the biological benefit is all but I can live with it.

Raising buck to doe ratios is a whole other story altogether and is nothing more than a trophy hunting mentality that will hurt our sport.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > W2U,
> ...


Ditto!
In my words, drop the trophy driven 18/10 buck to doe ratio back to a biologically sound 15/100 ratio and restore the 13,000 lost opportunities and the money that goes with it and we're good to go! (I'll even accept the nonsensical unit by unit archery hunt! How's that for a compromise?)


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Guys,
Especially bull,
You know that I am not hung up on 18/100 and would be fine with 15/100. I've never claimed different. But to ignore the fact that managing "fully" unit by unit is more biologically sound than what we have done in the past is just not sane!!! It has nothing to do with trophy hunting or bigger bucks at all!!! Manage the deer with the tool given and then we can all argue how each unit should be structured!!!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Hey Muley73, you gonna make it up to the WB meeting on the 1st? If so, would like to buy you lunch is hear about your ideas on how the DWR can use the tool given them. What say ye?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

stillhunterman said:


> Hey Muley73, you gonna make it up to the WB meeting on the 1st? If so, would like to buy you lunch is hear about your ideas on how the DWR can use the tool *forced down their throats*. What say ye?


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Guys,
> Especially bull,
> You know that I am not hung up on 18/100 and would be fine with 15/100. I've never claimed different. But to ignore the fact that managing "fully" unit by unit is more biologically sound than what we have done in the past is just not sane!!! It has nothing to do with trophy hunting or bigger bucks at all!!! Manage the deer with the tool given and then we can all argue how each unit should be structured!!!


I get what you are saying. Do you have some examples of what they might do?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think most of us are a lot closer on what we are concerned about than what we really want to admit. The thing I'm most concerned about is the 18:100 to 25:100 range they are talking about using. I would much rather see a 15:100 to 20:100 range to manage tags. Does the UWC have plans on trying to get the ratio lowered? If so, how agressive are you going to get?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Here is how the 15-25 buck ratio came to be... I will take the blame for it, as I feel that I was the Mule Deer Committee Member who caused it to be placed on our general units.

I fought hard to maintain a regional buck hunting format, with specific unit management for the deer herd. The Committee looked at extensive data and concluded that neither micro nor regional buck hunting would grow the herd any faster. To continue the Regional Format, the Mule Deer Committee compromised to the following- Regional buck hunting, but raise the buck to doe objective from 15-20 to 15-25. There was a concern that some units could be above the 20 number and raise the Region buck ratio to the point where more tags would be issued for the Region. Some on the Committee did not want a couple units buoying-up the region's numbers causing more tags to be issued. I didn't like the raised number of 25, but felt like it would only come into play IF our herds were growing at an exponential rate-- which would be GREAT. 25 bucks per 100 doe would not come from cutting buck tags. (Note that there was a trigger in the old Plan which would have micro-ed out struggling units such as the Monroe, Stansbury, South Slope)

Now that we have Unit-by-Unit buck management, there is no need to have a the objective of 25 to protect the REGION. In fact, I think they could have a smaller range than 15-20. Say 16-18. Something more targeted should be possible. 

Ridge- I am smiling with you now.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I had many ex-hunter neighbors while growing up. When asked why they stopped hunting, I most commonly heard:

I hunted until I got married.

I hunted until I went to college.

I hunted until I hurt my knee.

I stopped hunting when work got too busy.

I stopped hunting because I couldn't afford it anymore.

I stopped hunting because my dad got too old to go with me.

My old hunting spot is now private property/developed/off limits.

I moved.

I got too busy.

So then I would ask why they don't start hunting again. They either said:

My circumstances still don't allow me to.

I just don't feel the need to go anymore.

*It seems to me that many people stop hunting, and don't start again.*

We managed to get some of these people out on a shooting preserve for a pheasant hunt, and they all had a good time. However, it didn't help to recruit them. They would only go if we invited them, and we couldn't invite them more than once a year at most, due to expense.

Hunter recruiting is tough. I mainly hunt waterfowl, and it's hard to turn people into lifelong waterfowl hunters. My family could loan people gear and take them waterfowling. We even managed to show a few different people a great time. However, we couldn't give them gear or motivate them to buy necessary equipment or go hunting on their own. These people will only go hunting when invited. My dad managed to convert one family to waterfowling for all of his efforts.

So, where have all the hunters gone? The casual hunters are falling away, and recruitment is scarce. And it's only going to get worse.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I think most of us are a lot closer on what we are concerned about than what we really want to admit. The thing I'm most concerned about is the 18:100 to 25:100 range they are talking about using. I would much rather see a 15:100 to 20:100 range to manage tags. Does the UWC have plans on trying to get the ratio lowered? If so, how agressive are you going to get?


Yes, we have been working with people from the division, as well as several people from the mule deer committee coming up with a comprehensive plan for the buck to doe ratios in each unit. It's completely asinine for the board to subdivide the state and then manage each unit exactly the same, at least on the buck/doe objective.

Something like 16-18/100 On the low end and 20-22/100 on the high end. More or less looking to make the buck to doe management reflective of public desire per the division surveys. The small gap between the low and high was actually recommended by the division biologists we met with. They said it is not difficult to target a small gap like this.

You are spot on with seeing that the 25/100 top end of the buck to doe ratio is the silent killer here. Not to mention units falling into LE when they reach sub 15/100.

I think most aren't seeing what this may end up looking like 10-20 years down the road.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> On the low end 16-18/100 and 20-22/100 on the high end......
> We are probably recommending 1 high buck to doe ratio per region.....


I got to ask, Why the split (16-18 vs 20-22)? Why the 1 high buck unit?

We already have the high end units. The remaining units were supposed to be for the general hunter.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The thought is that there is a certain percentage of people who want the general season units to be managed for more bucks. Would it be fair to manage 100% of the general season to the wishes of any one segment?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

This hunter, his family and friends will be "gone" to Wyoming.

If we have a system in this state that sets rule according to what a few dudes in a Glenwood or Koosharem diner see's as a way to go and basically says EFF everybody else it won't get my support.

Once Utah stops catering to the extremists that represent 30% and steps up for the other 70% I'll bring my money and support back.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The thought is that there is a certain percentage of people who want the general season units to be managed for more bucks. Would it be fair to manage 100% of the general season to the wishes of any one segment?


Is it the same hunters who wanted the High end LE units?. It just seems to me that those certain percentage of people can put in for the already existing LE hunts. I mean really how many tiers are needed? How many pieces are we going to carve up the State into?

Edit:
I guess the more I think about it , what is really being said is that people are tired of waiting the 10-15 years to draw that high end tag that they said they were willing to wait for to get that really big one. I guess they are tired of NOT hunting after all.......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> But to ignore the fact that managing "fully" unit by unit is more biologically sound than what we have done in the past is just not sane!!!


That's a bunch of fluff and bs! How? What will be changing? The only thing changing is that the number of hunters will be reduced. That's it. Nothing more. So, biologically, managing on a unit-by-unit basis will be no more sound than what was already being done. Again, all the deer classifications were already being done on a unit-by-unit basis, all the habitat work and classifications were already being done on a unit-by-unit basis, all the units were already being managed on a unit-by-unit basis. So, what does "fully" even mean? Again, your argument is simply saying that hunters are causing the decline of deer numbers because the number of hunters is the only change being made.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> Ridge- I never said it was here. The turned-up noses came in person. By guys who made comments to me and my son. I did have to laugh at the "pheasant analogy". I am not laughing at the tail-feather length or the size of your buck. I know you are a good hunter, passionate about the resource and very willing to give of yourself and time. I enjoy your posts, even though I may not agree with them all the time. I just happened to find the thought that the decline of pheasants can be blamed on rooster hunters was funny. I do think the decline of pheasants has led to a decline of pheasant hunters. Which leads me to AGREE with Muley73- Less deer has led to less hunters. If we still had the same deer herd as we did in the 1960s then we'd still have 250,000 hunters- or more. But cutting tags to further to grow more bone leads to less hunters also.
> 
> Why are there less hunters? Because some people are tired of the competitive "sport" of hunting. Some are tired of not seeing enough game. Some are tired of jumping through the hoops to get a tag. Some people won't give their credit card number on the WEB and the UDWR won't allow them to pay at the desk anymore. Some people have lost the passion. Some people want to do other activities. Some kids won't work for it. Some can't afford it. Some lost the areas they hunted. Some are dieing. There are many reasons.
> 
> It is my belief that there is a wave of people waiting to get into hunting. New hunters, who know not of the past. Guys and gals who see our passion- Tree's, Ridges', Muley's, my passion want to give hunting a go. Will there be tags and opportunity to support their desire?


Well stated!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I will get back to hunting deer in Utah when Utah gets back to being stewards of wildlife. Like a wise friend said, "Manage wildlife WITH hunters, instead of managing wildlife FOR hunters." The 'option 2' fiasco is 100% about managing FOR hunters. I truly am baffled how so many 'independent'/'conservative' hunters advocate central planning, and actually think five guys in SLC are better qualified/able to disperse hunters than the hunters themselves. Are we livestock, willingly being herded by those with superior intellect?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks for the update Ty. Glad to hear from you Bart. Hope alls going good at home. Thanks to everyone who has been working so hard on getting the different groups of people represented. With all the times I seem to get quoted, I think I have a few people thinking of solutions.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

W2u,
Easy to call it fluff, thank you for proving my point. You are correct if we don't actually look at the issues on each unit the new system will not work. 

Wiley,
You would rather the archers tell the rest of the state how the deer should be managed? The truth is 90+% don't care enough about the deer herds to have any involvement!!!! Hats off to you and others that are in the other 10%. We all know it will ultimately be decided by what that 10% fights for!!!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I have stopped deer hunting in Utah because I don't feel safe. I am a rifle hunter. My first year hunting in Utah was in '92 - the last year of unlimited tag sales. When the sun finally broke the darkness, I couldn't look any direction without seeing hunter orange. I hunted with my uncle that year, and we each somehow managed a buck in all that cross fire. The deer moved all day long, getting shot at every time they crossed any kind of opening. It was frightening. We hunted the same area the next 5 years until I moved out of state. I've hunted deer in Utah a few years since then, and still find it too crowded on the general rifle hunts to feel safe. In between, I lived in Montana and discovered a completely different world. It totally tweeked my basis for comparison, perhaps unfairly. But their six week, either sex, either species season, and fairly affordable non-resident tags has me going north every 3-4 years to deer hunt. I can hunt, see lots of deer, and more importantly to me, feel safe. I've never been on a hunt in Utah when I didn't discover another hunter looking at me through his scope. And I've never been looked at through a scope while hunting in Idaho or Montana. 

So long and short of it now, I believe the 5 and 7 day rifle seasons create an unsafe hunting environment. And 2, I don't feel safe on the mountain with many of those that also choose to hunt the rifle season. Concentrate those two factors to all the unsafe hunters out on one weekend - and I doubt I'll ever hunt deer in Utah again.

Just a disclaimer - I don't think all rifle hunters are unsafe. But, all the unsafe rifle hunters are on the mountain together - and that is scary.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wileywapati said:


> This hunter, his family and friends will be "gone" to Wyoming.
> 
> If we have a system in this state that sets rule according to what a few dudes in a Glenwood or Koosharem diner see's as a way to go and basically says EFF everybody else it won't get my support.
> 
> Once Utah stops catering to the extremists that represent 30% and steps up for the other 70% I'll bring my money and support back.


For those of you who are quitting Utah, but not quitting hunting, are these kinds of things happening in the states you hunt as well? If so, to what extent? I know it's happening in Nevada and that their Wildlife Commission (Wildlife Board) doesn't believe the counts/classifications of the Nevada Department of Wildlife and think that hunters are the problem for the decline. And they reduced the 2011 buck tags from 16,268 in 2010 to 11,536 in 2011 (29%) to fix it (An estimated loss of $811,200). They also manage unit by unit (*110 units*) and have for decades. They also have threatened to "remove" the NDW biologists if they don't raise the deer population to the populations of the 1980's which is double the current NDW count and quadruple the count the Wildlife Commission believes it is. And they have to do it using the Wildlife Commission's deer management plan. And the Wildlife Commission's actions are being challenged by hunting groups, particularly by Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, the largest in the state.

I know that the surrounding states are losing mule deer and they are managing unit by unit including managing hunters but have they/are they also being challenged by hunters?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> I have stopped deer hunting in Utah because I don't feel safe. I am a rifle hunter. My first year hunting in Utah was in '92 - the last year of unlimited tag sales. When the sun finally broke the darkness, I couldn't look any direction without seeing hunter orange. I hunted with my uncle that year, and we each somehow managed a buck in all that cross fire. The deer moved all day long, getting shot at every time they crossed any kind of opening. It was frightening. We hunted the same area the next 5 years until I moved out of state. I've hunted deer in Utah a few years since then, and still find it too crowded on the general rifle hunts to feel safe. In between, I lived in Montana and discovered a completely different world. It totally tweeked my basis for comparison, perhaps unfairly. But their six week, either sex, either species season, and fairly affordable non-resident tags has me going north every 3-4 years to deer hunt. I can hunt, see lots of deer, and more importantly to me, feel safe. I've never been on a hunt in Utah when I didn't discover another hunter looking at me through his scope. And I've never been looked at through a scope while hunting in Idaho or Montana.
> 
> So long and short of it now, I believe the 5 and 7 day rifle seasons create an unsafe hunting environment. And 2, I don't feel safe on the mountain with many of those that also choose to hunt the rifle season. Concentrate those two factors to all the unsafe hunters out on one weekend - and I doubt I'll ever hunt deer in Utah again.
> 
> Just a disclaimer - I don't think all rifle hunters are unsafe. But, all the unsafe rifle hunters are on the mountain together - and that is scary.


I know what your saying because hundreds of hunters are getting shot each year.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I have read this thread with some interest and I guess it is time for my inflation adjusted 2 cents.

It is laughable to blame management plans (whether we like option 2 or not or previous changes), draw difficulty, hunter numbers, the DWR, SFW, trophy hunters, or any other group as I see many of you do, for the steep decline in hunter participation. The reason hunting participation is in decline reflects societal change as a whole. Back when hunter numbers were much higher, a larger percentage of the population lived in a rural community *OR* had familial connections to an agrarian way or life. People were aware where food came from because they grew it, raised it, and often butchered it. Hunting was a pleasurable way to get together with family and friends and put more meat on the table and in the freezer. Hunting was a "cool" thing to do even for suburban kids and acceptance by the nonhunting public was high. Being outdoors (whether hunting, fishing, hiking, or otherwise was "what people did" for recreation. Contrast that to now. Most of the public lives in a highly urban setting. Most youth have absolutely no idea about how the food supply works. They think a Big Mac is magically fabricated by a computer. Kids, especially boys, would rather waste their time with an X box than be out getting exercise in the outdoors. Increasingly, youths do not have parents or relatives that hunt and fish, so they don't learn. The urban public, due to their absence from having to raise their food and other factors, views hunting as barbaric and is increasingly gravitated towards the animal rights movement. Modern urban life also doesn't allow time to be spent hunting as it did in the past. Finally, as the older hunting generation dies, often the younger hunters who went partially to spend time with dads and other close family and friends lose interest too. I know of this personally. The deer hunt was an annual event with my father that I always looked forward to every year, whether I drew out or not. When dad passed on, I didn't have the heart to put in for a couple of years and have only gotten back into it the past 2-3 years when a friend coaxed me back.

With that in mind, what can be done? Don't expect arguing about option 2 for the 100th time to accomplish much with hunter retention. There aren't easy answers, but it seems to me we will keep the tradition going one person at a time. Be good stewards of the resource, don't continually make the evening news with egregious game violations that stir up the antis, and especially teach our kids. This year, I was successful on the deer hunt. When I came home, my 10 year old daughter didn't want to see the deer because "she was grossed out". Well, it was an opening for me to explain where food comes from and that deer meat was really healthy compared to the fat laden, antibiotic blasted, hormone infused meat we get at Micky D's. Whether it does any good or not I may never know, but at least I tried.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> I know what your saying because hundreds of hunters are getting shot each year.


Really? The only hunting fatality I'm aware of in Utah this year was the poor guy that stabbed himself while field dressing an animal, and the only shooting incident I heard of was that crazy guy by Cedar city that intentionally took potshots at those people because he mistakenly thought they were on his property. (He missed and was busted)

We are more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the hunt than die while hunting from getting shot.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

This is nothing more than a minority goup of greedy hunters that want the mountain and the deer to themselves and from the looks of it are going to get their wish. The majority opportunist hunters are tired of feeling powerless to stop the ever encroaching loud mouths from stealing their hunting privledges so they move on to other hobbies.

Down the road, the in-your-face mentality being demonstrated by the minority will do nothing more than alienate them even further from the hunting majority and their mountain will come crumbling down. Hopefully they will not cause too much damage to our hunting base and public opinion while we wait....


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Catherder said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > I know what your saying because hundreds of hunters are getting shot each year.
> ...


Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm smiley.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think Slayer was being sarcastic. To make a point to me, that it is rare that someone gets shot. And he makes a good point. And though I think the chances of me getting shot on the rifle hunt are very slim, I really don't like anyone pointing a gun at me. Period. I'm a little weird that way.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> I think Slayer was being sarcastic. To make a point to me, that it is rare that someone gets shot. And he makes a good point. And though I think the chances of me getting shot on the rifle hunt are very slim, I really don't like anyone pointing a gun at me. Period. I'm a little weird that way.


I don't know anyone that would like a gun pointed at them. Maybe more hunter safety requirements would help some people.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Guys,
> Especially bull,
> You know that I am not hung up on 18/100 and would be fine with 15/100. I've never claimed different.


Really I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or call you out....you have said exactly what you posted above in the past and I never claimed differently.



Muley73 said:


> But to ignore the fact that managing "fully" unit by unit is more biologically sound than what we have done in the past is just not sane!!!


Again I am not picking a fight with you just having a civil discussion....I am simply asking how?

I have laid it out and given you that unit hunter management will be a good tool for hunter satisfaction because it will spread pressure out evenly. It will help managers keep buck to doe ratios where they want them in a given unit more easily...but again even if one unit gets pounded under the the regional system today buck to doe ratios do not drop low enough to effect breeding and fawn production...so unit hunter management will not help herd production.

If hunters pound one unit under the regional system then it means there is another unit that is getting very light pressure. So you are killing the same amount of deer under either system, unit management just spreads out harvest more evenly.

As far as other factors such as predators, habitat needs, and other limiting factors...those were already being addressed under the unit by unit management that was there.

It's my belief based on my limited knowledge that controlling your buck harvest only buys you so much and there is just not much more to be had by controlling buck harvest. Again I can live with unit hunter management but I really don't see how it will do anything biologically for our deer herds, for hunter satisfaction I can see a benefit.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> W2u,
> Easy to call it fluff, thank you for proving my point. You are correct if we don't actually look at the issues on each unit the new system will not work.


Again, what is changing with this new "unit-by-unit" management? You have NEVER answered this question....the "issues" on each unit have been looked at in the past on a unit-by-unit basis. That is not changing...so, again, what is changing? The only thing that this new management plan is changing is where hunters will hunt and the number of hunters who will hunt...that is it.

Somehow, you think that by changing where and how many hunters will hunt, that unit-by-unit management will change what information biologists are gathering...it won't.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

73 you are missing my point. It's not what Bowhunters want. It's not what rifle hunters want. It's what DEER hunters want. 

I'm not sure how many different forms of public opinion you need, the last survey showed that people want to hunt. The RACs that represent over 70% of Utahs license sales said they want to hunt. 

So to say that DEER HUNTERS are benefitting from the current system is false. Deer herds sure as sh!% won't benefit.


Exclusionary forms of hunting WILL benefit. Thats all, nothing more.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bull,
I only brought that up because you reopened back to my comments with the 18/100. I think we are in agreement on that? So alls good.

W2U,
The units have not been looked at close enough in the past. One of the reasons is because the DWR was been more focused on the Region which lead to some units falling even further because other units I'm the region were ok. With this we can ask for pressure to be taken off units that hurting. Yes they looked at each unit but just adjusted by shifting pressure within the region. This is not a good practice!!! What happens when several or all units within a region stubble? Now we can adjust as needed on all of them!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Bull,
> I only brought that up because you reopened back to my comments with the 18/100. I think we are in agreement on that? So alls good.
> 
> W2U,
> The units have not been looked at close enough in the past. One of the reasons is because the DWR was been more focused on the Region which lead to some units falling even further because other units I'm the region were ok. With this we can ask for pressure to be taken off units that hurting. Yes they looked at each unit but just adjusted by shifting pressure within the region. This is not a good practice!!! What happens when several or all units within a region stubble? Now we can adjust as needed on all of them!!!


I hope that you have hunter management about number 6 on your list when it comes to looking at each unit.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> The units have not been looked at close enough in the past. One of the reasons is because the DWR was been more focused on the Region which lead to some units falling even further because other units I'm the region were ok. With this we can ask for pressure to be taken off units that hurting. Yes they looked at each unit but just adjusted by shifting pressure within the region. This is not a good practice!!! What happens when several or all units within a region stubble? Now we can adjust as needed on all of them!!!


I am assuming you are talking about buck/doe ratios. Again, buck/doe ratios were counted on a unit-by-unit basis...that will not change. The only difference is that the units that fell below that management objective can be controlled more tightly as to hunting pressure. This, though, is still not a biological issue but a social one. NO unit in Utah was below the biologically safe level as far as buck/doe ratios go...again, all other work done by bios was done on a unit-by-unit basis.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Catherder said:


> I have read this thread with some interest and I guess it is time for my inflation adjusted 2 cents.
> 
> It is laughable to blame management plans (whether we like option 2 or not or previous changes), draw difficulty, hunter numbers, the DWR, SFW, trophy hunters, or any other group as I see many of you do, for the steep decline in hunter participation. The reason hunting participation is in decline reflects societal change as a whole. Back when hunter numbers were much higher, a larger percentage of the population lived in a rural community *OR* had familial connections to an agrarian way or life. People were aware where food came from because they grew it, raised it, and often butchered it. Hunting was a pleasurable way to get together with family and friends and put more meat on the table and in the freezer. Hunting was a "cool" thing to do even for suburban kids and acceptance by the nonhunting public was high. Being outdoors (whether hunting, fishing, hiking, or otherwise was "what people did" for recreation. Contrast that to now. Most of the public lives in a highly urban setting. Most youth have absolutely no idea about how the food supply works. They think a Big Mac is magically fabricated by a computer. Kids, especially boys, would rather waste their time with an X box than be out getting exercise in the outdoors. Increasingly, youths do not have parents or relatives that hunt and fish, so they don't learn. The urban public, due to their absence from having to raise their food and other factors, views hunting as barbaric and is increasingly gravitated towards the animal rights movement. Modern urban life also doesn't allow time to be spent hunting as it did in the past. Finally, as the older hunting generation dies, often the younger hunters who went partially to spend time with dads and other close family and friends lose interest too. I know of this personally. The deer hunt was an annual event with my father that I always looked forward to every year, whether I drew out or not. When dad passed on, I didn't have the heart to put in for a couple of years and have only gotten back into it the past 2-3 years when a friend coaxed me back.
> 
> With that in mind, what can be done? Don't expect arguing about option 2 for the 100th time to accomplish much with hunter retention. There aren't easy answers, but it seems to me we will keep the tradition going one person at a time. Be good stewards of the resource, don't continually make the evening news with egregious game violations that stir up the antis, and especially teach our kids. This year, I was successful on the deer hunt. When I came home, my 10 year old daughter didn't want to see the deer because "she was grossed out". Well, it was an opening for me to explain where food comes from and that deer meat was really healthy compared to the fat laden, antibiotic blasted, hormone infused meat we get at Micky D's. Whether it does any good or not I may never know, but at least I tried.


It's true that society is changing and moving away from hunting and that our efforts to keep it going are tougher. However, you did say a friend coaxed you back into it and you're doing it now and you took the time and effort to talk to your daughter about it which indicates that it is still possible to recruit new hunters. Our fear is that with the increasing red tape, regulations, and license and permit prices, coupled with the decreasing permits/opportunities, revenue, choices of hunting sites and deer herds --things that are within the system and under our control-- trying to recruit new hunters will be impossible because they'll have no recognizable place to go. It's like going over the river and through the woods to grandmother's house for Thanksgiving, only to find that her furniture has been moved day by day a piece at a time over the last year and Grandmother no longer lives here! A rich family does. We gotta quit moving grandmother's furniture!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.


DING DING DING :O||:

Seriously end of discussion...........same thing goes for pheasants........

People don't hunt to be unsuccessful........most now go camping with 35 more dollars in their pocket

Blame it on the big bad SFW, Trophy Hunters, blah blah blah

I know every single member of my family that don't participate in our old annual deer camp anymore blame lack of deer and nothing else......

Continue the beating
-O\__-


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.


If this were true, then why are hunter numbers so down in other states where the whitetail is so numerous that wildlife agencies are begging hunters to shoot more deer?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Because they are compromised of about 99% private land.....that is why............ever been to a "whitetail state" and tried to hunt public land....I highly recommend it :lol:


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.
> ...


But REB wait just a minute that $*#()$) SFW its all there faults. :lol: :lol:


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I am waiting for the quick change of subject pheaz.......


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.
> ...


Let's do a sanity check here....we had 600,000 deer then and 250,000 tags (84 I believe is where we reached that peak). Now we have 300,000 deer and 81,000 tags anticipated in 2012. Now it doesn't take a mathmatical genius to see that tag decreases have exceeded the loss in deer numbers.

That's really what point many of us are trying to make.

Do I get to try and say something cool now......like.......NUF SAID! :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.
> ...


I wish it was easy to wave a magic wand to bring the herds back to 600,000 deer like we had before. I guess part of the magic would be getting rid of roads and houses and business off the winter range. We cut tags in the 90's which has done nothing for our deer herds already.

We have lost a lot of pheasant habitat also so the magic wand would work well there also.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.
> ...


So, if that is the case, who on this forum can show that the changes that were just made per Option #2 will bring the deer herds back to 600,000 or anywhere near it? Or that it will even halt the decline? Give us something scientific, not just theories.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Our fear is that with the increasing red tape, regulations, and license and permit prices, coupled with the decreasing permits/opportunities, revenue, choices of hunting sites and deer herds --things that are within the system and under our control-- trying to recruit new hunters will be impossible because they'll have no recognizable place to go.


I recognize that these concerns are legitimate and agree with you that we ought to fight for what we feel is right in these areas, but I would maintain that they are more excuses than anything for a person that is pulled away from hunting for other, more fundamental reasons. If the person has the passion for a given activity, they will still participate, even if there are a few hoops to jump through. Most of the guys on here are hard-core hunters and how many of you are going to bag it, regardless of how we felt about option 2? I do feel that programs that show the *youth* how much fun hunting can be and provide opportunity for them should be especially fought for and I do agree that the new management could compromise this.

Along the same lines,


ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now. That is the issue, nothing else.
> ...


And the drop in hunter numbers matches the drop in deer population. So it seems to me that there is still the same number of deer in the field per hunter? Sure there may be some truth to what you say but there is no way it is the end of discussion. Waterfowl numbers are through the roof right now and the number of duck hunters continue to decline from historic levels. Not that our old deer camp was anything special, but I can't say we ever had a terrible hunt and always did or could have harvested some deer. (Some years we trophy hunted, O-|-O some years we didn't O-|-O ) The reason we stopped was death, age, one person becoming too busy due to church and work obligations, one, his wife not letting him go, and in my case a couple of years off for personal reasons. I'm the only one that now still goes. But it definitely wasn't lack of success or lack of seeing deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Catherder said:


> If the person has the passion for a given activity, they will still participate, even if there are a few hoops to jump through.


To a certain degree I would agree but on the other hand I wouldn't. There is no singular reason that deer hunters quit being hunters, there are lots of reasons but I think there are a certain percentage of hunters that leave because of an ever increasingly complicated and competitive system.

Could we extrapolate from that situation that they weren't that comitted in the first place? Perhaps but on the other side of the fence I doubt very seriously that all 80,000+ deer hunters annually are all that passionate about it either. For some folks it's another recreational activity, like going to a movie. We can argue all day on whether or not that is ok but the fact remains there are varying levels of passion for the sport. Same could be said for anglers. Who am I to say at what level the passion a hunter has is or is not ok and we don't care if they leave because they weren't passionate enough?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

If we had 600,000 deer back then then what model did we use to count deer? Maybe that is the model we should be using to count deer.

Hunters also hunted statewide and I believe they had no problems spreading out all over Utah.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I've read quite a bit of the MDWG website now, quite a bit of info. there. Make's me wonder why the WB would abandon a 5 year management plan halfway through? I would imagine they felt some pressure, from somewhere, to do so. I, personally, don't see smaller units as a huge problem. Was it my first choice, no. Like Bull has said, I can live with it. I really don't like a 13000 tag reduction with nothing too show that it will help. Most of the major triggers for mule deer decline, from my understanding in what I've read, has little to nothing too do with hunters. It has a lot to do with range, predation, and migration (ie roads cutting it off/vehicle deer crashes) Some more competition, elk and a lot more humans. Unfortunately, our population has been booming for the past 30 years. It's evident too anyone that has grown up here. I remember returning for my first time on leave in the Marine Corps. In 2 years the entire Utah Valley had changed. All the open space I used to romp around was all but gone. Where I used to hunt pheasants is covered in houses, as are the foothills I used to hunt deer. The mountain areas I used to hunt deer, rarely seeing an elk, I now see dozens of the large beasts. Unfortunately, I think we've hit a trade off. Do I like it? Not really, not right now anyways. I see declining opportunity to hunt deer, and no increasing opportunity to hunt elk. I also come from a family that everyone used to hunt. My younger years growing up, I don't remember a time all my uncles weren't out. Now, it's me 1 of my 2 brothers, I drag my dad along everywhere I go, and I took my grandfather on his last hunt. It's sad really if you look at it. I've drawn a deer tag once in the last 4 years, putting in for central which shouldn't be that hard to draw according to the DWR's stats. I have many times thought about giving up hunting Utah for deer and going too Colorado. Then, I think too myself, why in the H#!( should I have to go to another state too hunt the same animals I have at home. Then I get a little pissed. So whats the answer? I would think with as many great minds as we have in this state, we should be able to solve this problem. Are we up to the task? I hope so. Are we gonna have to compromise, yup. Is it ever gonna be how it was, I can hope, but I doubt it. Does that mean it can't be good? Absolutely not. All I can say is lets get involved in anyway we can. Join a Sportsmans group, I dunno like say UWC. Put in some time and get too know as much as you can. Maybe at some point you can be the man behind the curtain. Thanks for letting me rant for a bit. Happy hunting.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

1,,,,2,,,,AND A 3....,

The wheels on the[attachment=0:288ila7d]bus.jpg[/attachment:288ila7d]gos round & round :!: :O•-:


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Forgive me ya'll.....

I don't want to argue or carry on with you all on the same subjects that have been hashed out for years
Forget the option 2 sucks, habitat loss, predators, vehicle collisions, yadda yadda beat the dead horse.........there are about five hundred threads discussing this.......

Im simply stating that the reason hunters are gone or disappearing is this-



> 600,000+ deer compared to 300,000 now


That is my thoughts.....answering the question.......



> Where have all the hunters gone? Thoughts?


But for fun though my other opinion is this-
The country is no longer the country.....most citizens of Utah live in Suburbia......visit the outdoors on a rare basis, their kids are fat little bastards that eat cheesy poofs and play Nintendo 24-7......most of them think the grocery store manufactures food inside 

You can't fix it.....nothing will bring back the deer of the seventies.........people want to play on the internet, watch TV, etc..... take this website for instance......thousands of people wasting time talking about hunting and fishing instead of actually going out :O•-:

I could go on bitching for hours about how life is different now but I will save my breath.......I have a mountain lion to go skin


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

A couple points, make of them what you will.

According to the last census, 1/3 of American kids are growing up without their biological father. 40% of babies born today are born to unwed mothers.

According to a poll done at a Salt Lake valley high school last spring, 58% had never visited a national park, 32% had never spent a night in the mountains and 14% had never been out of the suburbs.

Not only has the vegan/vegetarian lifestyle gained a foothold in mainstream society, but it's also a fact that one of Utah's best known gangs, _Straight Edge_, is founded on the principle of veganism.

The National Archery in the Schools Program has two major obstacles. First is a lack of adults who are willing to donate the time and energy. But close behind that is the fact that a number of schools, both urban and rural, will not allow it because bows are weapons.

Across the state, any and all websites that deal with guns, bows or hunting are blocked on all school computers. (Oddly enough, UWN is an exception. And thanks to the Utah Board of Education that has endorsed the program, the NASP site is another.) Since 2004, not a single parent has objected to this policy.

Due to "unit management", (the biggest fraud ever pulled on Utah hunters), the DWR now proposes the elimination of 1500 OTC youth archery tags. Remember when we were so concerned about USHS and other anti-hunting groups?

Here's more: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... &issue=021

Seems cut and dried to me. Bottom line is God bless you dads and step-dads out there!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Its amazing to me to see all this talk about " loss of hunting opportunity" and
were have all the hunters gone........

9 pages on deer management, hunter management, how much society has changed..
Blaming it on trophy hunting, habitat, global warming, what ever else,,,,,,,,BUT,

NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HUNTINGS greatest threat in our changing times..
WOLVES

Wolves are by far the biggest threat to hunting opportunity in the 
rocky mountain region.....And they are entering Utah as we type...........

Time and energy would be much better spent in the fight against wolves
than bickering over deer management styles at this point in time........


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Its amazing to me to see all this talk about " loss of hunting opportunity" and
> were have all the hunters gone........
> 
> 9 pages on deer management, hunter management, how much society has changed..
> ...


 :roll:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

:roll: :shock: Ya think Finn?

Right now the wolf groups are pushing to release Mexican greys in
central/southern Utah...............

"As part of their proposal to "reintroduce" 750 Mexican wolves, these scientists want to have a self-sustaining population of 250 wolves in southern Utah and northern Arizona "

http://wolfcrossing.org/?p=544

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archiv ... e-opinion/


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Goofy, I think your almost spot on. But your forgetting the biggest threat is cougar and coyote. (When your talking deer) And we are seeing the effects today. I figure you will find a way to make a buck off of wolves then you will become an advocate for them and spread misinformation about their true effects on our big game herds.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Forgive me ya'll.....
> 
> I don't want to argue or carry on with you all on the same subjects that have been hashed out for years
> Forget the option 2 sucks, habitat loss, predators, vehicle collisions, yadda yadda beat the dead horse.........there are about five hundred threads discussing this.......
> ...


But for fun though my other opinion is this-
The country is no longer the country.....most citizens of Utah live in Suburbia......visit the outdoors on a rare basis, their kids are fat little bastards that eat cheesy poofs and play Nintendo 24-7......most of them think the grocery store manufactures food inside 

You can't fix it.....nothing will bring back the deer of the seventies.........people want to play on the internet, watch TV, etc..... take this website for instance......thousands of people wasting time talking about hunting and fishing instead of actually going out :O•-:

I could go on bitching for hours about how life is different now but I will save my breath.......I have a mountain lion to go skin [/quote:1m121kov]

I have never seen you post ANYWHERE on this forum your solution to bring back the deer to 600,000. You just sit behind a computer and blame the DWR. :roll: :lol:


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Yote it ain't happenen period.....this state will NEVER see numbers in the 600,000 again period!!! Numbers will continue to decline until the point mule deer are in zoos and seen on rare occasion all the while the UDWR tells me they have done everything in there power to bring them back...look at population estimates in fifty years....people will continue to destroy habitat, roads will continue to get bigger wider and faster, wolves, coyotes and predators increase (it's just to inhumane to deal with predators in these times even according to guys on this forum) it's a long spiral and as much as I hate it....I have faced it....just got to do what we can to preserve it!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Yote... Btw you don't know me from Adam, you don't know what I do in my spare time... Do I sit behind a computer and complain...yep....you know little of what I do in the real world besides this little forum...so think what you would like


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes, and the reason it's not possible is because we have lost a lot of winter range. I believe 425,000 deer is possible though. But when you only focus on the number of bucks being harvested and when you think we need to keep cutting tags then you're just making a bigger problem then solving the real problem. Micro-management is a step in the wrong direction. We need to focus more on habitat projects. We need to focus more on predator control instead of worrying about how many bucks we see during the deer hunt. We need to focus more on making sure that our fawns grow up to adulthood and produce offspring.

The DWR isn't the big bad wolf. Many people blame SFW because most of their decisions are based on MONEY. They started out as a good group. They had a good mission statement, but they don't follow that mission statement anymore.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not saying UDWR is to blame...but they have been far from perfect...and that is okay no one is..

SFW as much as you all hate them have done a lot...A LOT!! I disagree with them often but they have done more for habitat in this state than ANY other organization...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Numbers will continue to decline until the point mule deer are in zoos and seen on rare occasion all the while the UDWR


This statement makes me laugh every time. I guess I must be scouting the Mule deer zoos because I have no problem finding mule deer and nice bucks on public land.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

The solution to this is simple and our human nature prevents us from accepting that things are simple. If we manage our herds and habitat properly and the herds grow the rest will fall into place. Hunting is only a benefit we obtain from the intervention we make into our wildlife. Therefore the wildlife as a whole should be the only focus; not hunter sightings, harvest or experience. When we have a healthy, high quality herd we will have a quality hunt. If there happens to be monster bucks then cool if not still cool!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> SFW as much as you all hate them have done a lot...A LOT!! I disagree with them often but they have done more for habitat in this state than ANY other organization...


While it might be a technicality, but HUNTERS have done more for habitat than another organization.........


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> SFW as much as you all hate them have done a lot...A LOT!! I disagree with them often but they have done more for habitat in this state than ANY other organization...


I was big supporter of SFW as this link shows until I opened up my eyes, and I saw all the bad decisions they were making based on lining their pockets with more money. They don't have the best interests of average joe anymore because he doesn't make them much money.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6856&hilit=SFW

Yes, they have done a lot of good, but where do you draw the line. I believe treehugger used this analogy.....if a child molester did a lot good service projects and donated a lot a money to charity meanwhile molested little kids can we say that he is still a good person?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Really Tree used that as an analogy? Wow don't think something like that should ever be used for an analogy??? Don't care if the SFW or any other org. took all our money...not comparable!!! Poor choice of words, poor poor choice!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think it's fitting for SFW


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

We should Pay MINIMUM ATTENTION to the actual numbers of deer; and
pay MAXIMUM ATTENTION to the condition of the browse, the range. If you have good browse, you cannot help but have mule deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Im simply stating that the reason hunters are gone or disappearing is this-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote:2j754slz]

I get what you are saying and I also understand your point very much. I am a turncoat, if you want to call me that, on this very subject. I'm sure Goofy remembers me not that long ago pushing for antler restrics and tag cuts.

Some of us are simply saying there is a wolf is sheeps clothing hiding amongst us here. That is we are being sold tag cuts under false pretences and that is that declining deer herds are the reason and the recent changes will grow more deer. We are simply saying....hold the bus, deer populations aren't declining, haven't in almost 20 years other than a few peaks and valleys. Growing more deer is a problem that we KNOW cannot be solved with the recent changes so we feel we are being lied to and it's caused us to try and figure why we are being lied to. If you have a coworker, friend or family member that lies to you how do you typically feel about that situation?

We are discussing and questioning the negative impacts of such decisions. Many may not care or even think those concerns are valid.....we will happily accept your thanks and not hold anything against you if we can expose the wolf in sheeps clothing and turn it around. I will also continue to advocate for tag cuts in areas where deer populations are actually declining.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Really Tree used that as an analogy? Wow don't think something like that should ever be used for an analogy??? Don't care if the SFW or any other org. took all our money...not comparable!!! Poor choice of words, poor poor choice!!!


Muley....again nothing personal but you spend so much time trying to discredit what others say by picking apart words and throwing out half cloaked insults that you never actually spend any time discussing the merits of your point of view. At some point you've got to say something that gives us idea of why you believe you have some answers to help deer herds.

There are a lot of people, me included, that read these forums to get informed because we are passionate and serious about preserving what we have. We want to make it better. We don't come here to bicker, argue, or make someone else look bad.

I have no agenda, I'm just an average Joe. No conservation org in Utah has wronged me personally, the DWR hasn't wronged me personally, I have no vendettas. There are many folks in that fall into this category. Many of us attempt to do on these forums exactly what Goofy has challeneged the RAC's do to and that is seek out answers that are for the betterment of Utah animals and hunters. Many read and never post.

Are you going to be a part of that solution? If you believe what you say you would do much more good for deer by swaying people to believe what you say through facts and sound arguments than your current tactics.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The biggest issue I see is that DWR has management control of a minute portion of the mule deer habitats in the State. And for those that own and manage most of the mule deer habitats - Forest Service, BLM, and private land owners - deer are fairly low on the priority chain. DWR's only real tool for managing deer are hunters. Until managing range with mule deer as a priority, herds will decline.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Yote it ain't happenen period.....this state will NEVER see numbers in the 600,000 again period!!! Numbers will continue to decline until the point mule deer are in zoos and seen on rare occasion all the while the UDWR tells me they have done everything in there power to bring them back...look at population estimates in fifty years....people will continue to destroy habitat, roads will continue to get bigger wider and faster, wolves, coyotes and predators increase (it's just to inhumane to deal with predators in these times even according to guys on this forum) it's a long spiral and as much as I hate it....I have faced it....just got to do what we can to preserve it!


I think we may see a slow decline, but in the last 20 years, the deer population trend is flat. Human population as I recall, has doubled. This leads me to believe that we have hit a plane that is probably where it will sit for quite some time.

Really, the only thing that is going to bring mule deer numbers significantly up is 3 million sheep and an all out assault on predators.

Neither of these things is going to happen, it was a lack of stewardship that caused the mule deer explosion in the first place. So now as a whole we are more responsible about our wild things and wild places and deer are returning to a more natural population. Sure, 5-10% population spikes will occur, mostly due to things beyond our control, such as weather and we can supplement these things with habitat work etc. But at what cost? Seriously, we spend MILLIONS of dollars on deer every year, trying to boost their populations. To what result? If we really had a tangible way of measuring results I'd wager that the net result of X amount of dollars per deer would be astronomical.

If we didn't spend millions a year on habitat, highway fencing, aerial gunning etc. every year, would there be less deer? If so, to what degree?

Also, does the public as a whole want to go out and hunt artificially elevated numbers of game?

Doesn't hunting become more like the video games we hear everyone complaining about if we control the variables more and more?

Would doing nothing as far as "management" other than keeping female harvest and male over harvest be an option? Wouldn't it make the successes that much more fulfilling?

Isn't a big part of the mystique of hunting the unknown?

Just some thoughts and questions I find me asking myself, so I thought I'd ask you guys as well.

Again, these are mostly questions, not opinions.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Really Tree used that as an analogy? Wow don't think something like that should ever be used for an analogy??? Don't care if the SFW or any other org. took all our money...not comparable!!! Poor choice of words, poor poor choice!!!


Haha, that's a fairly obtuse version of my analogy. :lol: The gist is that the good shouldn't ever give us reason to overlook the bad.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Sometimes this site reminds me of Tombstone. :lol: 

Treehugger as...Curly Bill...I guess I'm what ya call the founder of the feast.

Bullsnot as.....Johnny Ringo...I want your blood.

Coyoteslayer as......Ike ...Clanton...Slap somebody on the beazer and get a little respect around here.

I need to start waterfowl hunting again to pass the time after the big game hunts end. :lol:


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

W..T...F WHAT HAS SFW DONE FOR YA? Love to see what will show up if there is ever an audit..


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Sometimes this site reminds me of Tombstone. :lol:
> 
> Treehugger as...Curly Bill...I guess I'm what ya call the founder of the feast.
> 
> ...


Yet you never post any substances to the forum.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Maybe you can ask your dad to give you some ideas Muley73. Please enlighten us with your great wisdom. You haven't even been able to answer any questions directed towards you.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

OK. I thought I'd lock this thread down but I changed my mind. 

I will offer this warning though - lets get back on topic, as it is a very worthy topic. Stop the name calling and recess playground garbage. Or, I will lock it down. 

Back to subject.

Thank you.

GaryFish


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> W..T...F WHAT HAS SFW DONE FOR YA? Love to see what will show up if there is ever an audit..


SFW has poured millions of dollars into wildlife and our deer herds are booming.   :lol: Tags are being cut, but you can bet that SFW won't see one tag cut from their pool.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I know two hunters (teenage girls!!) that each killed an elk this morning. Maybe that's where the hunters are going? More emphasis on elk, less on deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> The biggest issue I see is that DWR has management control of a minute portion of the mule deer habitats in the State. And for those that own and manage most of the mule deer habitats - Forest Service, BLM, and private land owners - deer are fairly low on the priority chain. DWR's only real tool for managing deer are hunters. Until managing range with mule deer as a priority, herds will decline.


That's the song I've been singing for a while now.....if we want to really grow more deer we need to improve interagency cooperation. I think it can be done and it should be done......but it's also easier said than done.

Our success on growing more deer will be built upon our ability to navigate the current social climate that exists outside our little world and sway these agencies to get on board a little more with our goals than they are now.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thing is bullsnot - the BLM is charged right now for providing access to energy resources - that is their top priority. And acres upon acres of quality mule deer habitats throughout the State are being changed in a big way to gain access to oil, gas, and coal bed methane resources.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> Thing is bullsnot - the BLM is charged right now for providing access to energy resources - that is their top priority. And acres upon acres of quality mule deer habitats throughout the State are being changed in a big way to gain access to oil, gas, and coal bed methane resources.


Yep....we will have to learn how to be good politicians.

There are lobbyists on the hill today for conservation orgs, the problem is they are focusing on hunting regulations and species classifications. By focusing some of that effort in other areas, such as lobbying for habitat critical issues with the right agencies, there could be some ground gained in those efforts.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lock it down??? Wow...I've come on here and listened to a lot of crap and been called many many and that gets a threat??? No thanks... Keep living in your bubble guys. This site is amazing and motivating to me all at the same time. Funny how most of this site is made up of guys that have been run off of other sites. Keep it balanced for the sake of entertainment at least!!!

Bull,
I'll stick to my tactics...they seem to have gotten more results than most!!! Enjoy the games gents...I'm sure the war is never over!!! Until then I'll see how the Option 2 thing works out. You know the option that y'all said would never pass.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

One final thought. It is actually sad that the actions and attitudes and personalities of other "sportsmen" are probably a major reason for lose of hunters. That includes but is not exclusive to the SFW, UBA or many others I will agree on. The fighting amongst ourselves is our greatest enemy. As a whole we all want the same thing. To be able to continue to hunt. Yet we can not become organized enough to set our personal views aside long enough to make this happen. Good luck to all, I hope we win the fight.

Coyote,
Don't understand why you want to drag my dad into every discussion we have. I don't think I've ever brought your family into anything??? If so my bad???


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Lock it down??? Wow...I've come on here and listened to a lot of crap and been called many many and that gets a threat??? No thanks... Keep living in your bubble guys. This site is amazing and motivating to me all at the same time. Funny how most of this site is made up of guys that have been run off of other sites. Keep it balanced for the sake of entertainment at least!!!
> 
> Bull,
> I'll stick to my tactics...they seem to have gotten more results than most!!! Enjoy the games gents...I'm sure the war is never over!!! Until then I'll see how the Option 2 thing works out. You know the option that y'all said would never pass.


thanks for sharing your point of view about our mule deer.   :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote,
> Don't understand why you want to drag my dad into every discussion we have. I don't think I've ever brought your family into anything??? If so my bad???


Sorry, I didn't mean it to be personal. You spend more time talking about the forum as a whole and labeling people then adding to the forum. Thanks for my character name. Maybe you need to spend more discussing mule deer issues and less time finding fault with the forum members.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Where have all the hunters gone? I know that's the question, but most of us have turned this discussion into where have all the deer gone. And rightfully selfishly most of us (I think) are asking where is all the opportunity going.

That being said there is so much opportunity to be outdoors now it's mind blowing.
I think about all of the elk hunts, turkey hunts, shed hunting, scouting, tagging around on great LE hunts, extended archery Hunts, cow elk hunts, camping, hiking, photographing, filming, out of state hunts, etc, etc...

I guarantee that most of us spend more time outdoors hunting and doing hunting related activities than hunters ever did during the "good old days" of utahs deer hunting. Even with fewer tag numbers being sold, utahs hunting industry is as healthy as it's ever been. In fact, I'd say that holds true across the entire country.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Coyote,
My views will be shared....check the proc this coming year!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> One final thought. It is actually sad that the actions and attitudes and personalities of other "sportsmen" are probably a major reason for lose of hunters. That includes but is not exclusive to the SFW, UBA or many others I will agree on. The fighting amongst ourselves is our greatest enemy. As a whole we all want the same thing. To be able to continue to hunt. Yet we can not become organized enough to set our personal views aside long enough to make this happen. Good luck to all, I hope we win the fight.


A lot of hunters do not trust groups like SFW anymore. They don't have the best track records when it comes to explaining where the money is being spent. It's SFW's own fault that hunters don't trust them. They are viewed as a greedy group that do not have the best interest of the average joe hunter in mind nor the wildlife that we have in this state. We have awesome elk hunting in this state, but we don't give out enough big bull tags because the value of that permit would be worth less at SFW auctions.

Don Peay said once if you just want to kill a bull then go to Colorado.....what kind of message is that sending the average joe hunter? Sometimes it's better if Don doesn't even speak publicly.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Coyote,
> My views will be shared....check the proc this coming year!!!


Why would you support something that isn't going to help our mule deer? Hidden agenda?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> One final thought. It is actually sad that the actions and attitudes and personalities of other "sportsmen" are probably a major reason for lose of hunters. That includes but is not exclusive to the SFW, UBA or many others I will agree on. The fighting amongst ourselves is our greatest enemy. As a whole we all want the same thing. To be able to continue to hunt. Yet we can not become organized enough to set our personal views aside long enough to make this happen. Good luck to all, I hope we win the fight.


I have grown weary of the round and round, and so I rarely get on here anymore. But, this type of post stirs the fire within me. I agree that division amongst the hunting community is the single biggest threat to hunting. The question is, why so much division and who is causing it? Is it the hunters who just want to hunt, or is those who make MILLIONS of the hunting in this state? Is it the hunter who likes hunting close to home, or is it the guy who wants it to be easier to find a 'trophy' animal? I was once an ardent supporter of SFW, I defended them with vigor, I went to a dozen banquets a year, I helped 'pimp' their auction tags, I did many conservation projects that were funded by these auction permits, I went to meetings held by SFW, and I sat on the Board of Directors for UBA where I did loads of projects, fought for more archery friendly policies, and sat on several DWR committees. I also was a guide for deer/elk/sheep/lion in Utah/Colorado/Idaho for 20+ years, and I guided many hunters who had purchased auction tags. Then I started to see things from a different paradigm, and I started to see the true costs of the current management mentality. I started to see how much the 'normal' guy was paying for the policies that benefit the few. I couldn't have a clear conscience and continue doing/supporting the things that had consumed most of my time year in and year out. I will NEVER take money to guide someone in the future, I will NEVER support any special interest group that gets so much as a penny from the sale of public hunting permits, and I will NEVER support policies that are based on ideas/concepts that are NOT biologically based/proven. I still love hunting, I still love conservation, and I still love being an active participant, but I have changed how I do so. So, in the end, for me it comes down to doing what is best for the wildlife above ALL else, and then what is best for the future of hunting. That is why I do NOT support the new deer management plan, as I contend it is NOT based on sound biology, nor is it based on what is best for the deer herd.

I hope that the mentality that is driving the wildlife management in this state switches to concern for the animals FIRST in the near future. Otherwise, I fear it will reach a tipping point that will make it impossible to correct in my lifetime.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I have grown weary of the round and round, and so I rarely get on here anymore. But, this type of post stirs the fire within me. I agree that division amongst the hunting community is the single biggest threat to hunting. The question is, why so much division and who is causing it? Is it the hunters who just want to hunt, or is those who make MILLIONS of the hunting in this state? Is it the hunter who likes hunting close to home, or is it the guy who wants it to be easier to find a 'trophy' animal? I was once an ardent supporter of SFW, I defended them with vigor, I went to a dozen banquets a year, I helped 'pimp' their auction tags, I did many conservation projects that were funded by these auction permits, I went to meetings held by SFW, and I sat on the Board of Directors for UBA where I did loads of projects, fought for more archery friendly policies, and sat on several DWR committees. I also was a guide for deer/elk/sheep/lion in Utah/Colorado/Idaho for 20+ years, and I guided many hunters who had purchased auction tags. Then I started to see things from a different paradigm, and I started to see the true costs of the current management mentality. I started to see how much the 'normal' guy was paying for the policies that benefit the few. I couldn't have a clear conscience and continue doing/supporting the things that had consumed most of my time year in and year out. I will NEVER take money to guide someone in the future, I will NEVER support any special interest group that gets so much as a penny from the sale of public hunting permits, and I will NEVER support policies that are based on ideas/concepts that are NOT biologically based/proven. I still love hunting, I still love conservation, and I still love being an active participant, but I have changed how I do so. So, in the end, for me it comes down to doing what is best for the wildlife above ALL else, and then what is best for the future of hunting. That is why I do NOT support the new deer management plan, as I contend it is NOT based on sound biology, nor is it based on what is best for the deer herd.
> 
> I hope that the mentality that is driving the wildlife management in this state switches to concern for the animals FIRST in the near future. Otherwise, I fear it will reach a tipping point that will make it impossible to correct in my lifetime.


That's the best post you've ever made, Bart! (And you've made a lot of great posts.)



goofy elk said:


> :roll: :shock: Ya think Finn?


I do my best with what I got... :lol:



goofy elk said:


> Right now the wolf groups are pushing to release Mexican greys in
> central/southern Utah...............


Yes, I can read the newspapers, too. But wolves didn't make me wait 17 years to draw an elk tag on the mountain I grew up on. Wolves won't be keeping me home from the deer hunt next year, or the year after that, or the year after that. Wolves aren't yanking 1500 tags from our kids.

Ain't saying it isn't an issue, but it isn't an issue of such proportion that it should distract us from anything else. Hell, if the Gov and his cronies get their way and peddle off our public lands to China, the game's over anyway.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thank you Finn! Your words mean a lot to this cowboy.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

This article is bang on the money. I've seen this state evolve and take shape over the last 30 years of my life and I called it 20 years ago when SFW set up shop and started whoring our wildlife away. Now, we're nothing more than a state full of wanna-be whiny trophy hunters with an entitlement complex. For those of you who don't like the article, Waaaaa! That's the way it is, the truth hurts dont it. For those who agree with the article and have for years, see you in Montana. For those who read the article and are just now seeing the light for the fist time since the fuzz and haze wore off from the green coolaid that SFW fed you, get used to it, you asked for it, now you got it!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Coyote,
> My views will be shared....check the proc this coming year!!!


And shared by the 75,000 (or so) deer hunters who don't frequent this forum or any other wildlife forum and who don't belong to any wildlife group and who never attend RACs or WB meetings and who have little or no clue that these changes are coming! Let's see how many of them share your views!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I only have one comment. If you want your views known, attend the meetings and make a difference. I did!!!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> I only have one comment. If you want your views known, attend the meetings and make a difference. I did!!!


If you think you made a difference you are wrong. You made a mess of things (or helped make it). In all actuality you made things different instead of making a difference and there is huge distinction between the two.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> For those of you who don't like the article, Waaaaa! That's the way it is, the truth hurts dont it. For those who agree with the article and have for years, see you in Montana.


See you in Montana Tex.

I just read in this month's issue of Alaska magazine, that in the coming years, they too will be moving to a statewide draw for all big game (save a few caribou shoots on the north slope) even for residents. In my mind, that leaves Montana as the truly last best place for hunting.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Madhunter,
Thanks for your opinion. I know that my opinion is not a popular one on this small sampling of Utah sportsman. I'm ok with that. I'm ok enough with it that I attended meetings I stood up and spoke, I prepared power points. I jumped on forums and expressed my views. I didn't buckle when called names or was accuses of wrong doings. I put my name out there and stood by my views!!! The system IS broke any way you look at it, whether I get my own way or others get theirs. So call it what you like I got involved because I cared enough to ask for change and not be a voiceless tag buyer in the 75,000 mix. 

So let's all fight for what we believe in....and be thankful that we can!!!!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I only have one comment. If you want your views known, attend the meetings and make a difference. I did!!!


I think you give yourself more credit/blame than you deserve, but one thing I can say for you is that next year's procs will wake a sleeping giant. And you just may get your wish. Up 'til now, many of those 75,000 (or so) hunters on the sidelines who haven't had hunting as a high priority and ,thus, haven't been actively involved in the process are going to crank it up a bit. And it's gonna get fun! :O•-:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Madhunter,
> Thanks for your opinion. I know that my opinion is not a popular one on this small sampling of Utah sportsman. I'm ok with that. I'm ok enough with it that I attended meetings I stood up and spoke, I prepared power points. I jumped on forums and expressed my views. I didn't buckle when called names or was accuses of wrong doings. I put my name out there and stood by my views!!! The system IS broke any way you look at it, whether I get my own way or others get theirs. So call it what you like I got involved because I cared enough to ask for change and not be a voiceless tag buyer in the 75,000 mix.
> 
> So let's all fight for what we believe in....and be thankful that we can!!!!!


Well put.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > I only have one comment. If you want your views known, attend the meetings and make a difference. I did!!!
> ...


Mmmm, from my experience and observation, I think he and his ilk had a huge impact on the direction that was taken.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> TEX-O-BOB said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who don't like the article, Waaaaa! That's the way it is, the truth hurts dont it. For those who agree with the article and have for years, see you in Montana.
> ...


Montana is great but there are SOOOOO many other opportunities out there to be had. The whitetail deer is an American success story right along with the Turkey and a lot of species of waterfowl. I used to think that Elk, Mule Deer and Pheasants were the only things worth chasing. I've since evolved into a hunter with a very broad outlook on what is available if you just branch out a little and look at other resources. I'm addicted to whitetails now and will be hunting them every year till I die. Mule Deer are still king in my mind, but the powers that be (politically driven, money grubbing, trophy rifle hunting bias, special interest groups) in this state has all but ruined it for me. I'll continue to get a tag when I can and hunt where they tell me, but it just aint the same any more. My kid doesn't even want to hunt because it's such a crock of sh*t. I cant plan family outings any more, I cant hunt several areas any more, and my wife cant plan her vacations any more because it's not clear if she'll even have a tag. (she works for the school district and has to plan her vacations several months in advance) Utah will always be my home, but that doesn't mean I have to wast my time and money *trying* to hunt here.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I hear ya Tex. Living just two years in Montana opened my eyes to the many other opportunities out there. Whitetail hunting is a totally different ballgame, and one very worth playing. And as prices in Utah continue to go up and up, I can hunt in Montana for less money. I can see more game, have more opportunities, plan better and more accurately, and have a far superior hunting experience than I can in Utah. And I can do it just about every year. I probably won't be shooting any 400 class bulls up there, but that isn't what hunting is about for me.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Mmmm, from my experience and observation, I think he and his ilk had a huge impact on the direction that was taken.


I agree that they had a huge impact but the questions here are... Was is for the better good? Was it based on sound biology? Will it actually help our deer herds? Will we be able to correct the course when we see that it's not working? :-? :?: :-? :?:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

trophy rifle hunting bias???? Last time I checked the state also sold Archery only tags in the conservation tag mess???? Guess those are ok cause they are archery??? I believe that archery hunters have been given more in the past 20 years than the rifle hunters could dream of!!!!! I am an archer and a muzzleloader and rifle and even chase a lot of birds with my dogs. The truth is chasing my dogs around has become my favorite because there is less crap to deal with. But to only name rifle hunter is a load of crap!!! We are all to blame!!!! Not just rifle hunters!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> But to only name rifle hunter is a load of crap!!!


I'm not "blaming" anyone! The powers that be, (the politically driven, SFW bias wildlife board) has set the tone for draw only, micro managed, money making, rifle bias, high percentage trophy hunting to the very few and the rich. THATS what I meant, and THAT"S how it is. Period! If you cant see that, you're part of the problem, not the solution.



> I hear ya Tex. Living just two years in Montana opened my eyes to the many other opportunities out there. Whitetail hunting is a totally different ballgame, and one very worth playing. And as prices in Utah continue to go up and up, I can hunt in Montana for less money. I can see more game, have more opportunities, plan better and more accurately, and have a far superior hunting experience than I can in Utah. And I can do it just about every year. *I probably won't be shooting any 400 class bulls up there*, but that isn't what hunting is about for me.


Hell, you won't be shooting them here either! Unless you have a truck load of money or a rabbits foot up yer arse.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

There is certainly much validity in the idea that bickering amongst hunters is a major problem we face. For a sport made up mostly of men that claim to be one of the toughest groups around we sure can become emotional wrecks sometimes.

To start with at some point we are going to have to trust the best available science that we have. The source of the fighting, IMHO, is simply based on the disagreement of what works and what doesn't. That is rooted in the fact that many call the best science we have "hogwash". 

I think the first agreement that we should all make is that we will trust the best science we have. That doesn't mean it will always be right and we shouldn't question it at times....it just means it will be right much more than any other method we can use. 

Science tells us that focusing on the buck portion of the herd isn't going to grow us more deer, period. The recent changes will make the hunt a tad better for a certain segment of our hunting fraternity that desire larger antlers and don't care what they have to give up to get it. For those folks that recent changes will be a small success. It may make the hunt slightly better for most that draw but the trade offs will more than offset that for many hunters. If it were actually going to benefit deer herds I wouldn't care, but we know it won't.

But the larger question is shouldn't we be making policy changes that improve things for the greater good? In other words shouldn't they be based on sound biology first and foremost (backed by science) and if the changes are purely social shouldn't they benefit the majority rather than the minority.....or even both?

Maybe rather than trying to agree on management strategies we should first agree on the philosophy that we are going to use to determine management strategies. Perhaps that means the system needs to be looked at in the process.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

And for the record I have no issues whatsoever with any individual or group that shows up to a RAC meeting and makes a proposal and states that it is for no other purpose than to grow bigger antlers. I have zero problems with that. 

The issue that we face today in the policy making is there are a lot of folks that are selling one thing as something else i.e. selling trophy strategies and biological strategies. IMHO that is the biggest source of contention amongst hunters right now. It creates confusion and arguments like lighting off fireworks in the middle of a dry July field.

BTW Muley...I am not in any way pointing the finger at you in this post.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bull,
I agree...however money has always over powered the science!!!! Whether it was from tag sells causing too much unchecked pressure or special intrest causing to may tag cuts!!!! Science has never been the front runner!!! You can find science that says buck doe ratio does matter...you can find science that say for the most part it does not. The crazy thing is the DWR does not even listen to it's own science. I have talked with state biologist that will tell you that decision that have been made in the past were not based on their data!!!!! That is my #1 concerne...show me that the DWR will follow TRUE science and I will follow along. Because the model we have been following has not been one that has grown our deer herds.....period!!!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

My impression of the division right now is that they are like a candle that is being burnt from both ends. Until we create a situation where they can speak freely then they never will. If the WB feels burnt they have the power to cut them off at the knees so to speak so they are very careful not to say anything that angers the WB. The WB is made up of citizens with varying degrees of knowledge but they wield a lot of power. 

I don't disagree that the division doesn't always make its recommendations based on science but I can also see they are under a ton of pressure not to piss any one off. If the WB gives them a directive to dress up mule deer bucks in high heels and a ****tail dress because they believe it will grow more mule deer then they have to do it. 

The division needs to be in a system where they can speak freely without fearing their jobs and funding.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Because the model we have been following has not been one that has grown our deer herds.....period!!!!


This is a different problem altogether. You are right in that we haven't been succesful at growing more deer over the past 20 years. BUT....would you even be willing to consider that perhaps we have been looking at this problem backwards? What do you think the deer herds would look like without the work of the division, and others, with the human population growth and social changes that have happened over the past 20 years? Would mule deer populations be in much worse shape than it is now? Is the fact that we have been able to sustain populations at the level we have actually a big success?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bull,
Please do some research and have a look at the past. The WB has voted with what the DWR has recommended far more often than they have voted against it. With that being the case it would seem to me that the DWR has burnt the WB and us as sportsman along with the WB with poor recommendations in the past. Yes there have been demands put on the DWR by recent WBs, but please go look at the past and see for yourself how often the WB has gone against the RACs to support the DWR and then ask yourself if the science was being followed. Again I'll support the SCIENCE when we are actually using it!!!!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bull, 
In some areas yes I agree we have sustained. Look at the front. We have taken all winter range and yet still produce and offer a great area to hunt. Hats off for a job well done. Overall....poor job. Down south there are areas that have not lost any winter range the herds are but shadow of what they were in the past. That is why if we use micro unit management correctly we can look at what is actually hurting each unit. I know some say we were doing that already. Ok maybe we were...but not with the focus that we obviously need to!!!! Yes that will cost extra dollars yes some areas may never be back to what they were in the past but it needs to be done regardless of cost if we want to try and turn this trend around. Let's remember that is special intrest groups would have not put pressure on the governor the DWR would have continued to sell unlimited permits. Ask yourself where we would be had that occurred??? Pretty scare I think!!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Believe me Muley....I've done my homework.

What the division says at RAC and WB meetings is well screened and choreogrpahed so of course the WB is going to agree with them more often than not. 

We can sit here all day and speak in vaguities and get no where. Here are some details that we can discuss. The division, in 2010, gave the RAC's and WB 3 options for deer hunting changes. They were not based on science but rather based on direction from the WB to provide these options with specific guidelines. 

The division recently changed the Nine Mile Anthro Unit to an any bull unit. This was not based on science but rather based on direction from the WB and subesequent feedback from sportsmen. 

You see where I'm going with this? I'm not saying that the WB is spoon feeding the division everything but at the same time the division is very careful to not say something out of bounds. If the WB can tell the division what recommendations to make how can you say what came from the division/science and what didn't?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> That is why if we use micro unit management correctly we can look at what is actually hurting each unit.


I definitely agree with your intentions here. We certainly have a lot to learn as to what is hurting mule deer herds. Maybe the range is there but we also have to consider range conditions. With changes in grazing and fire practices range conditions as far as mule deer go have changed greatly. Let's not forget about elk and changes in predator poisoning practices. I was told by a bio that historically there was no P&J in Utah below 6,000 ft. Clearly that's not the case now. What about roadkill? All indicators say there are more roads and more people traveling them than ever before. Certainly we have to say that deer are being hit a higher rate than ever before. How do more roads effect migration patterns? What good is lots of range in great shape if the deer can't get there or have to run a guantlet to get to it?

My point is wouldn't we be better served putting our time and effort into those issues? How can we say the division has done a bad job nearly anywhere when these are all new challenges that have never been a problem before?



Muley73 said:


> Yes that will cost extra dollars yes some areas may never be back to what they were in the past but it needs to be done regardless of cost if we want to try and turn this trend around. Let's remember that is special intrest groups would have not put pressure on the governor the DWR would have continued to sell unlimited permits. Ask yourself where we would be had that occurred??? Pretty scare I think!!!


You're right that we certainly could not have sustained unlimited tags. The division certainly needs a check and balance in place. I'm certainly not suggesting they shouldn't. But is it possbile we have taken it too far? Special interests fixed a problem in the past but now seem to be the problem. It doesn't do any good to fix one problem with another.

We can't expect anyobdy to spend more money on a smaller budget. I have seen the projections for 2012 and there is a 3.6 million dollar shortfall esitmated. A big part of that is the mule deer tag cuts.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> ....Down south there are areas that have not lost any winter range the *herds* are but shadow of what they were in the past. ......


So what is the problem? Are you guys down there shooting all the Does? The first question I ask in seriousness, the second in jest. This sentence you wrote says a lot. It is the core of the issue. So what has changed in this area?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

bull,
Budget that has increased and increased. With good reason. Now let's see some results. BTW how much were they intending on selling those extra tags for??? 13,000X35.00 = 455,000.00. Does there budget count the 609,000.00 they just received a few weeks ago from a special intrest group?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Hunt,
I say it is lack of focus on each unit and more focus on just the region. Reading Dir Karpowits letter last year made me believe this even more so. Truly and thoroly focusing on what is hurting each unit is the best way of fixing each individual deer herd that inhabits our state!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Hunt,
> I say it is lack of focus on each unit and more focus on just the region. Reading Dir Karpowits letter last year made me believe this even more so. Truly and thoroly focusing on what is hurting each unit is the best way of fixing each individual deer herd that inhabits our state!


That is why I asked you the question. Where are we to focus for the herds sake?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> Budget that has increased and increased. With good reason. Now let's see some results. BTW how much were they intending on selling those extra tags for??? 13,000X35.00 = 455,000.00. Does there budget count the 609,000.00 they just received a few weeks ago from a special intrest group?


I'm sure bullsnot will post the actual numbers, but the tag fee is actually a fraction of the loss, if that's what you were asking. We are looking at several million dollars.

And, if the consensus is more or less that buck harvest has a minimal to no impact, why not hand out 120k tags? 150k? Why not test the waters and find out actually how many people want a deer tag in Utah? The tag fees, hunting license fees and P & R money would put millions of dollars on the ground, if indeed we believe that money=more deer. Or, does money not equate to more deer?

I have a question; at what point do we quit? At what point does a mule deer become a fiscal irresponsibility? I get that a deer tag doesn't just equate to 35 bucks. We get the aforementioned funds, along with economic impact. So when does it all granulate into a worthless investment? 500 bucks a deer? 300?

It would sure hurt the business model of a few folks if deer became too expensive to invest in.........


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Well that would depend on the unit.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> Budget that has increased and increased. With good reason. Now let's see some results. BTW how much were they intending on selling those extra tags for??? 13,000X35.00 = 455,000.00. Does there budget count the 609,000.00 they just received a few weeks ago from a special intrest group?


Don't forget about the Pittman Roberts federal dollars. That will equal $500k or so as well from the lost deer tags and the loss in revenue from people that will no longer purchase a hunting license to put in for the draw. The economy is down and so have fishing license sales. Don't forget about inflation as well. A $45 tag now is roughly the same as selling a tag for about $5.85 in 1955. They were I believe sold for $7 back then.

Yes the budget takes into account all the dollars they expect to recieve from special interest groups.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley- The State has managed deer herds on a unit basis. They had a directive in the last Mule Deer Plan to make even more of a focus. You claim they never did manage the herds by unit. Therein lies the problem. I would love for you to answer how the "Micro-buck" plan you passed will grow our herds? How will "Antler Restrictions" (which your allies keep proposing) grow herds?

The UDWR collected data on a unit by unit basis. We already had predator management triggers for struggling herds. We already had micro-management triggers for struggling buck units within a region. We already had listed goals for habitat work for units. There are already directives for the UDWR to work with municipalities. UDOT has been a focus for the last few years on lowering roadkill. The UDWR was already mini-micro-managing the doe herd where the bios deemed the herd was hurting the habitat. The Forest Service and BLM had already been in discussions on how to lower pressure on vulnerable herds through access management. There are many more in place already.

What you guys did was just throw all the focus on the buck herd for 3 years, rather than helping the UDWR implement the current objectives. Too bad some of your supporters, who could have expressed their concerns on the Deer Committee, remained silent during the process.

We all know that cutting tags and buck-micro-management will grow more bucks. There are many of us (I believe you are one) who want to grow more deer- IF that is even possible - which would lead to more opportunity for everyone and possibly increase the expansion of hunter numbers.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


Touche'! I just didn't want him to get the idea that he alone is responsible for this situation and that to reverse it, we'll have to go through him! And also to let him (and others) know that the direction we've taken isn't favorable to the 75,000, and they will soon come to realize that and hunting will become a higher priority.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Hunt,
> I say it is lack of focus on each unit and more focus on just the region. Reading Dir Karpowits letter last year made me believe this even more so. Truly and thoroly focusing on what is hurting each unit is the best way of fixing each individual deer herd that inhabits our state!


This is already being done...again, all of the work done in the past has been done on a unit-by-unit basis. In fact, you can find unit-by-unit game management plans that have detailed what the limiting factors of the unit are...the problem is fixing those limiting factors. In some cases, for example, the limiting factors of the unit are things like depredation and poaching--factors pretty tough to fix. Also, currently, they are running collar studies on several units, the continually do range trend studies on a unit-by-unit basis, and they have done tons of habitat work on a unit basis. I can promise you this: the DWR is just as concerned about the drop in deer numbers as you are. In fact, they closely monitor all of the western states (who are seeing the same trends) and trying to find real solutions. The problem, though, is that the factors leading to the decline in numbers are so complex, interrelated, and varying among states, regions, and units that the solutions are very difficult to pinpoint. NO state has figured this out...

You seem to think that sense buck/doe ratios are averaged out per region and hunting was region based that all work was averaged out...but that isn't true and not even close to the truth. Also, the plan that was quickly abandoned last year had in place a mechanism to help struggling units within regions...but that was lost also.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> Muley- The State has managed deer herds on a unit basis. They had a directive in the last Mule Deer Plan to make even more of a focus. You claim they never did manage the herds by unit. Therein lies the problem. I would love for you to answer how the "Micro-buck" plan you passed will grow our herds? How will "Antler Restrictions" (which your allies keep proposing) grow herds?
> 
> The UDWR collected data on a unit by unit basis. We already had predator management triggers for struggling herds. We already had micro-management triggers for struggling buck units within a region. We already had listed goals for habitat work for units. There are already directives for the UDWR to work with municipalities. UDOT has been a focus for the last few years on lowering roadkill. The UDWR was already mini-micro-managing the doe herd where the bios deemed the herd was hurting the habitat. The Forest Service and BLM had already been in discussions on how to lower pressure on vulnerable herds through access management. There are many more in place already.
> 
> ...


+1...looks like you beat me to it!

It is really sad that so many hunters equate buck numbers and buck sizes to healthy herds...


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
The Mule Deer Committee did put some very good plans together. I still do not understand why people feel it has I be thrown out and can not still be used on a more focus basis with the micro units???? I understand that each unit was looked at. I also read the letter that the Director wrote that states concern over units that had not been addresses as of last winter. More focus on each unit is NOT a bad thing. There has been some focus on each unit....but not enough. If the only thing that is addresses is only hunters numbers then yes I believe we will all lose out!!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > bull,
> ...


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

It is really sad that so many hunters equate buck numbers and buck sizes to healthy herds...

To not equate that in the equation would be scientifically unsound!!!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Ok enough of the round and round on micro units. I'll get back to the original question with a question.

If deer numbers maintained at 300,000 yet tags were cut to say 30,000. But success rates increased and average size of bucks harvested increased would hunter applications increase or decrease from current levels??? And NO I would NOT support tags being cut to 30,000. My point is what would happen with applications and money generated???


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Still didn't get an answer to the questions. Ah well, we've asked the same questions for over a year and never have gotten a response...... 

Scientifically unsound? Really? I guess that is the disconnect. The studies have been performed, by many biologists in many different states and all show that the "Scientific Soundness" of bucks in herds is below 10, yet we are managing for 15-25. How has the Book Cliffs lost 15-20% of its herd with 35-40 bucks per 100 doe? Or the lack of growth on the San Juan, Vernon, etc. It goes back to what Bullsnot said about hunters not believing the biologists. Or only believing them when it is convenient.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> If deer numbers maintained at 300,000 yet tags were cut to say 30,000. But success rates increased and average size of bucks harvested increased would hunter applications increase or decrease from current levels??? And NO I would NOT support tags being cut to 30,000. My point is what would happen with applications and money generated???


Of course applications would increase. Just like they did with elk. People would put in everyone for the off-chance of going hunting. Then you'd have less hunters and all that goes along with that. More applications, yet less hunters. Hey, that sounds like the discussion we had in the Elk Committee! Yeehawwww (sarcasm intended)


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Whoa whoa whoa. I did not ever put a number on that statement!!!! All I said was to not have that equated would be scientifically unsound...which is a fact!!!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> If deer numbers maintained at 300,000 yet tags were cut to say 30,000. But success rates increased and average size of bucks harvested increased would hunter applications increase or decrease from current levels???


To me all you are talking about with this statement is whether we wait 10 years to draw or 20 years.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

So more applications and more money would not help??? More applications equal more license sales. Is this not hunter recruitment? I've been told that is how the state measures hunter recruitment...license sales??? More money to put into the herds. More money to fix the problems? What if this did bring our herds back to 600,000 and tags were increases back to 100,000? Just thoughts. That's what the original post asked for.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Ok enough of the round and round on micro units. I'll get back to the original question with a question.


Yeah...the micro units does not worry me near as much as the tag cuts. I don't necessarily like the micro units but personally I can live with it.



Muley73 said:


> If deer numbers maintained at 300,000 yet tags were cut to say 30,000. But success rates increased and average size of bucks harvested increased would hunter applications increase or decrease from current levels??? And NO I would NOT support tags being cut to 30,000. My point is what would happen with applications and money generated???


My personal opinion is you'd have less applicants...I know Packout you say different...but today we have roughly 95k applicants for general deer. If tags were cut to 30k I would say we are going to lose AT LEAST 20%-25% of those applicants if not more. The reason I say that is back in the 80's we sold 250k deer tags with less people in the state. Obviously with the caps and loss in tags we don't have 250k applicants today.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> It is really sad that so many hunters equate buck numbers and buck sizes to healthy herds...
> 
> To not equate that in the equation would be scientifically unsound!!!


Well that's true to a point.....BUT I don't think we are talking science when going from 15 to 18 bucks per 100 does. That is not a scientific adjustment.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

10 years???! 20 years???? What are you talking about? There are not currently 300,000 applicants??? Nor 600,000 applicants? I believe there are currently around 150,000 applicants. That means if tags cut to 30,000 you should get a tag every five years??? If it increased past 5 it would mean more hunters were applying. Why would they do that??? Is that a bad thing??? To have more people buying hunting licenses??

And I agree 100% with Packout on this. Applications would increase...significantly. Just like they did for elk.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> 10 years???! 20 years???? What are you talking about? There are not currently 300,000 applicants??? Nor 600,000 applicants? I believe there are currently around 150,000 applicants. That means if tags cut to 30,000 you should get a tag every five years??? If it increased past 5 it would mean more hunters were applying. Why would they do that??? Is that a bad thing??? To have more people buying hunting licenses??
> 
> And I agree 100% with Packout on this. Applications would increase...significantly. Just like they did for elk.


In 2011 there were 98,502 applicants for general deer. You can verify the numbers here or let me know if I missed something:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... e_odds.pdf

If we use the logic that applicants would increase with tag cuts why hasn't that worked so far? We've cut tags for 20 years and there are less and less people participating?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Ok so every hunter would get a tag every 3.3 years if you cut tags to 30,000. And if we lost applicants even more often. So again were does the only getting a tag every 10 years come into play????? 
I still think Packout is correct. Antler size and success matter more than getting to hunt every year to a large portion of hunters out there more than any poll will ever show!!!!! Many don't want to be demonized as trophy hunters but there applications show different.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Ok so every hunter would get a tag every 3.3 years if you cut tags to 30,000. And if we lost applicants even more often. So again were does the only getting a tag every 10 years come into play?????


In the fact that tags will continue to be cut because that is the trend and agenda that we have been seeing for the past 20 years pushed by the special interest groups. It is not going to change unless the system as a whole changes.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Antler size and success matter more than getting to hunt every year to a large portion of hunters out there more than any poll will ever show!!!!! Many don't want to be demonized as trophy hunters but there applications show different.


Care to guess how many LE deer applicants there were in 2011?

Remember that nearly all 98,502 general deer applicants were eligible to put in for LE deer. Granted some put in for other LE species but not a ton.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> 10 years???! 20 years???? What are you talking about? There are not currently 300,000 applicants??? Nor 600,000 applicants? I believe there are currently around 150,000 applicants. That means if tags cut to 30,000 you should get a tag every five years??? If it increased past 5 it would mean more hunters were applying. Why would they do that??? Is that a bad thing??? To have more people buying hunting licenses??
> 
> And I agree 100% with Packout on this. Applications would increase...significantly. Just like they did for elk.


I guess in the perfect world you are correct.

Using your 150,000/30,000 numbers, 60% of the 150,000 would be rifle hunters only. Of the 30,000 permits available 40% after all is said and done would be available to those rifle hunters. 90,000 applicants appling for 12,000 permits. That right there is 7.5 years wait for the average hunter. Now we all know that all units will never be total equal. So while some units may hang around the 5-7 year mark, my bet would be more would be on the 10-15 year wait. Now start adding in your new comers and point creep.

I would be curious to know the revenue difference between when we did not have to buy a license versus having to buy a license to apply for permits.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I think it will take a few years to go up and at the peak I doubt they'd go up "significantly" and after a few years applications will trend down. Just like elk......

Is this what Muley73 really wants? More applications and less hunters? Hunt every 3-5 years? For 50-80% success rates? Sounds like his Nevada desires are coming to fruition! I can't wait to tell my boys that they'll get to hunt every 3-5 years. That will fuel their passion for mule deer ......

One can only assume that since he does not want to answer my previous questions that he believes growing more bucks and waiting longer to hunt is the answer.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
Not at all....I have boys that love to hunt too. I truly believe that some units should be high tag numbers to ensure multiple tags over a 5 year period. Sure maybe these units would be low success and young buck harvest. That's fine...I surely agree there is a place for this on some units that carry higher numbers of deer and that are healthier overall.

Assume all you want about what I want. I would not support tag cuts to an extreme. I do support however control of each unit through out the entire year. I don't need easier hunting or more bucks. Me and my boys seem to do just fine as is....that does not mean that I don't believe it could or should be better in the future with stronger and healthier herds.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Antler size and success matter more than getting to hunt every year to a large portion of hunters out there more than any poll will ever show!!!!! Many don't want to be demonized as trophy hunters but there applications show different.


I call BS! When a product/service is SEVERELY rationed, the appearance of increased demand is simple to create. However, if one looks deeper into human nature you can see this is very misleading. Look no further than Black Friday, stores use the scarcity mentality most human have and make huge one day profits. If people are lead to believe their only option is to apply for LE elk or LE deer, is it accurate to conclude that this is what they 'really' want? I will concede that the majority of hunters dream of harvesting a mature buck, but I strongly disagree that the majority of them are willing to hunt ONCE every 3-5 years to see fruition of their dream. This same 'logic' is used to 'prove' how thousands upon thousands of elk hunters prefer to hunt spikes, after all the spike rifle hunt sells out year after year.......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

My question to Muley73 is: Colorado/Nevada and a few other states have been 'micro-managing' just as you advocate, yet their deer numbers are struggling as bad or WORSE than Utah's, so what makes you think this will increase deer populations in Utah?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 what a fantastic plan. :roll: People draw every 3 to 7 years depending on the unit. If you're selling 30,000 permits then tag prices will need to be raised to make up for the lost revenue. This will sure help the deer herds in utah :roll: :roll: :roll: Why not just be honest and say this is a trophy hunters dream come true?

Muley out of the 30,000 tags then how many of them will be youth tags? I know you just used the figure 30,000 as an example but Im sure it will come close this number so that means that some youth hunters won't draw a tag until they turn 15 to 17 years old if they have wait 3 to 5 years because of the preference point system. I bet they will stay interested after being really excited to hunt their first deer when they are 12 and then find out they will probably need to wait a few more years.

I hope you and SFW realize that hunter recruitment is important in this state. Cutting tags should have been one of the last opinions, not the first option in YOUR master plan.


----------



## rdoggsilva (Apr 6, 2011)

My son and I are talking about going to Montana this next season to hunt whitetail. I am in my mid sixties and not getting any younger. I have grandsons that enjoy going with us and can not wait to hunt. So why not give my money to another state and be able to hunt or give it to Utah and wait to hunt every 3-5years. This to me is a no brainier, I will go out of state.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> I would be curious to know the revenue difference between when we did not have to buy a license versus having to buy a license to apply for permits.


Though there was a drop in General Season deer hunt applicants this year, the prices of the licenses and tags doesn't seem to make much of a difference to hunters in the long run at this point. However, I personally think that not being able to hunt regions will cause a notable drop out next year And the lost revenue from federal and state coffers based on the number of tags available will also make a difference in total revenue.

Counting points purchased, GS tags after the draw, and Buck/Bull combo tags, and assuming all GS tags were taken, and counting all tags as adult resident we have:
Year license tag applicants
2007 none $40 107,025
2008 $26 $35 104,720
2009 $26 $35 105,810
2010 $26 $35 107,939
2011 $26 $35 100,502


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

I've hunted Montana for years. You guys do realize how much nonresident deer and elk tags cost in Montana?

I love hunting up there, but it ain't cheap that's for sure.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> Still didn't get an answer to the questions. Ah well, we've asked the same questions for over a year and never have gotten a response......
> 
> Scientifically unsound? Really? I guess that is the disconnect. The studies have been performed, by many biologists in many different states and all show that the "Scientific Soundness" of bucks in herds is below 10, yet we are managing for 15-25. How has the Book Cliffs lost 15-20% of its herd with 35-40 bucks per 100 doe? Or the lack of growth on the San Juan, Vernon, etc. It goes back to what Bullsnot said about hunters not believing the biologists. Or only believing them when it is convenient.


This is the whole problem and the root of which most hunters simply just don't get...we don't have to have huge bucks roaming the hills for the herd to be in good shape. Until hunters understand this, we will continue to have people push for tag cuts when tag cuts aren't necessary...

...as far as I am concerned, we could give a lot more tags than what we do and still not be having a drastic effect on deer numbers. But, hunters don't get it. Too many--like Muley73--think bucks give birth to fawns.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Antler size and success matter more than getting to hunt every year to a large portion of hunters out there more than any poll will ever show!!!!! Many don't want to be demonized as trophy hunters but their applications show different.
> ...


Nobody guessed but I thought I'd answer the question. In 2011 there were 33,726 applications for LE deer compared to 98,502 applications for general season deer. 3 out of 4 deer applications are for general season, if applications tell the story I'm failing to see that trophy hunting and success is more important to Utah hunters. Looking just what folks are applying for tells a much different story in fact.

I was surprised at how much effort and science goes into the division surveys. I sat through an hour long presentation on the matter given by their survey people. Aside from all of that an individuals responses are not tracked therefore there is no chance that someone will be demonized for stating they are more interested in trophy and success than anything else. The survey results tell the story and give us an accurate picture. Incidentally they have been saying roughly the same thing since the 70's.

Most Utah deer hunters are interested in getting a tag and going hunting above all else. I know we are all popular guys but I don't think any of us have enough friends to say we know what 150,000 deer hunters really want based on our personal conversations. I trust the science in this case and yet again I'm saying we've got to start trusting it at some point to stop the division amongst hunters.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I was surprised at how much effort and science goes into the division surveys. I sat through an hour long presentation on the matter given by their survey people. Aside from all of that an individuals responses are not tracked therefore there is no chance that someone will be demonized for stating they are more interested in trophy and success than anything else. The survey results tell the story and give us an accurate picture. Incidentally they have been saying roughly the same thing since the 70's.
> 
> Most Utah deer hunters are interested in getting a tag and going hunting above all else. I know we are all popular guys but I don't think any of us have enough friends to say we know what 150,000 deer hunters really want based on our personal conversations. I trust the science in this case and yet again I'm saying we've got to start trusting it at some point to stop the division amongst hunters.


A couple other notes on these surveys--they are not DWR surveys. An outside company is hired to conduct the surveys and compile the results. The same company is used by many wildlife agencies across the US. Interestingly, the results of the Utah survey are essentially the same as the results of other states in our area...including Arizona and Colorado.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> An outside company is hired to conduct the surveys and compile the results.


Sure they probably outsource the actual conduction of the survey and consult with other agencies/companies. I'm not sure if this is just sematics here but my impression was that at the end of the day the division writes the questions and selects the type of survey to be used i.e internet, phone, snail mail, etc. They are even involved in determining the correct sample size and types of questions asked based on the units, species and subject matter in the survey.

In any case they have folks on staff that are VERY knowledgeable about their surveys and are very involved in creating them.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

just out of curiosity did the WB ever give an explanation on why they chose too go with Opt 2? I thought I heard that Opt 2 was not the popular one amongst the RAC's. Is that correct? Just curios how Opt 2 was chosen over others, when the DWR flat out said it would do nothing to help the herds.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

USMARINE,
Out of the 5 Regional RACS, Option 2 was voted for in 3 RACS. Option 1 was voted for in 2 RACS. 

As a note. Option 1 also cut tags 7,000, I believe???
Option 2 cut 13,000.
Option 3 cut zero and left things the same.
My point is that all 5 RACS voted to cut tags!

As another note, ALL 3 OPTIONS were written by the DWR not the WB. The WB only told the DWR that they wanted a fix. The DWR was the one that wrote up the options, including the increased buck doe ration and tag cuts. Many on this forum will argue that and claim pressure and all sorts of evil doing. However that is the truth! The DWR wrote them all, the WB and the RACS chose Option 2 because it was the Option they liked the best out of what the DWR suggested. 

Fire away Cowboys 

o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-||


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> just out of curiosity did the WB ever give an explanation on why they chose too go with Opt 2? I thought I heard that Opt 2 was not the popular one amongst the RAC's. Is that correct? Just curios how Opt 2 was chosen over others, when the DWR flat out said it would do nothing to help the herds.


Per their requirement to explain their actions, this is their explanation:

"*Statewide Deer Management Plan Amendment:* *NRO and CRO voted for option #1 rest of the RACs voted for option #2. Board passed option #2 by a 4 to 2 vote.

Board Motion:* I move that the Wildlife Board pass Option 2 and establish a comprehensive mule deer management system that establishes individual mule deer herd assessment wherein the many diverse, unique and dynamic factors that affect the mule deer growth and sustainability will be identified and pro-active interventions will be implemented to assure long term health and viability of the geographic area where the herd members are born, live, and die, including their year round migration locations. The number of units shall be established, by the Wildlife Board consistent with well-established and well known herd units throughout the state.

*Reasoning:* A Board majority felt that the advantages stated in the DWR presentation under option #2 are very important in determining the reason our deer herd is in decline. The Board Motion adds to the amount of data Division biologists collect in the field. The Board has a deep concern for the current health of our deer herd, we are trying to get a handle on reasons for the decline as soon as we can, so we can work with the Division by giving them the tools to reverse this downward trend."

I could pick this explanation apart big time, but I'll let you guys do it.

FWIW, The motion following this one was the elimination of statewide archery that only the Southern RAC voted for. The WB passed it. And the motion following that one was for a 3-point or better hunt for two years that only the Northeast RAC voted for. The WB didn't pass it. So apparently, the number of RACs voting for an issue doesn't mean much to the Wildlife Board.

Edited; Also FWIW, There is an update, as of Monday, to the agenda of today's WB work meeting that includes a discussion by Anis on a possible reconsideration of statewide buck to doe ratios. Hold onto your hats, folks!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Funny that you bring up statewide archery and RAC voting. I have not seen alot posted on here about this which does not surprise me at all. But from what I saw statewide archery was revisited by all 5 RACs this past month. Anyone want to guess what each RAC voted for??? I'll give you a hint, they all voted for the same thing!!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

No hint necessary. They more or less don't want to revisit statewide archery.

UWC, MDF, UBA and BOU all went in with a joint proposal in support of restoring it, (Drafted by UBA) but I can see why they would be apprehensive.

On another note. If you have any wish to see some opportunity restored to the deer hunt, please attend the wildlife board meeting tomorrow in support of the changes to the statewide buck to doe ratios that will most likely be presented tomorrow. It won't be an action item, but public comment will go a long way to restoring lost opportunity. 

IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE HEARD!!!!!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> As another note, ALL 3 OPTIONS were written by the DWR not the WB. The WB only told the DWR that they wanted a fix.


the Wildlife Board _mandated_ that the DWR submit 3 options. The DWR was forced to write those 3 options. They didn't necessarily support Option 1, 2, or 3. They were simply required to write them up. The did not "suggest" them.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Funny that you bring up statewide archery and RAC voting. I have not seen alot posted on here about this which does not surprise me at all. But from what I saw statewide archery was revisited by all 5 RACs this past month. Anyone want to guess what each RAC voted for??? I'll give you a hint, they all voted for the same thing!!!!


How could you expect them to do anything else. Option 2 was sold as *hunter* management on each individual unit. It would look bad if a unit was looking to only harvest, say 100 bucks and then have 3000 archers show up out of the blue.

The loss of State Wide Archery is a direct result of option 2.

Now somebody might put a program together that would allow State Wide archery hunting with some kind of reporting so that when the quota of archery animals harvested that unit would be closed to archers. Kind of like what they do with the wolfs up north. Just a thought.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Good point! Maybe?? Well I guess??? What??? They still wrote the options!!! If they had a better fix why did they not offer it as an option?????


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Good point! Maybe?? Well I guess??? What??? They still wrote the options!!! If they had a better fix why did they not offer it as an option?????


Say what you want but they wrote the options based on SPECIFIC direction from the WB as what the options should accomplish. Based on the goals, what the options had to accomplish, they wrote the best ones they could.

In other words they had no other options! Ok that was a weak attempt at being funny. :O•-:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that you bring up statewide archery and RAC voting. I have not seen alot posted on here about this which does not surprise me at all. But from what I saw statewide archery was revisited by all 5 RACs this past month. Anyone want to guess what each RAC voted for??? I'll give you a hint, they all voted for the same thing!!!!


How could you expect them to do anything else. Option 2 was sold as *hunter* management on each individual unit. It would look bad if a unit was looking to only harvest, say 100 bucks and then have 3000 archers show up out of the blue.

And that is why Option 2 is a good thing!!! Because this very thing could happen, even in the region system!!!!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


I think most people can "live" with unit/hunter management (except for most archers who love statewide) of making you choose one unit out of 30. I can't live with the buck to doe ratios that were put out there and the consequences if they drop below those new buck to doe ratios. I really hope some changes are made to those as the loss of tags was not needed, just to grow a few more bigger deer. We really should be focusing on growing the herd (something that option 2 does little of since unit management was already addressed in previous plans).


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Kudos to John Bair! In the work session, he is speaking directly to the difference between today and 30 years ago and more or less said it is non-sensical to compare the two due to predator eradication, livestock grazing and 75MPH highways.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


Even though in the real world it doesn't happen...it's good we changed everything up to have a plan in place that addresses a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> Even though in the real world it doesn't happen...it's good we changed everything up to have a plan in place that addresses a problem that doesn't exist.


I was going to use the annology of "trying to hit the bullseye by aiming at the ground"


----------

