# Tag Frustration



## Fish1970 (Nov 19, 2013)

Is it just me or are tags hard to come by this year. Of the eight people that I hunt with, not one of us drew a Deer or Elk tag this year. Literally no deer hunt this year. I am trying to get my son interested in hunting and talk all year about going and we could not even get one tag. It's hard to keep his interest up. The funny thing is that we hike a lot and visit our spots often. I have seen more deer this year than most previous ....Sure, I could get a left over archery and wait for the Extended, but he can't pull back a 40lb draw....Guess we will go over the counter Elk. 

Thanks for listening!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Always ML. Did you put in as a group or have him youth seperate?

And seeing as the only elk so far were LE, can't get too discouraged. Antlerless and OTC are all I ever count on.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

There are some cool OTC opportunities in neighboring states. If you want to hunt every year, you must learn how to play the game and you must have a plan.----SS


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I went through the same last year. No good draw results across the board.

We did the OTC Spike elk hunt and picked up a couple converted ML deer tags for an unfamiliar unit. Had a great hunting season nonetheless.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You have to figure that all the western states where you hunt mule deer it is draw only. Granted there are some that you are almost guaranteed a tag but it is still a draw and you run the risk of not drawing. If you want to get you kids into it you have to think outside the box. Get them interested in muzzle loader hunting or archery. 

Now if you are talking elk, then that is a different ball game. There are areas that you can hunt over the counter for some good bulls in other states, you just have to put forth the effort.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Keep raising buck to doe ratios and catering
To the trophy mindset, and ya land exactly where
We are. 

It's a **** shame.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Hell ya! We need the free-for-all, kill-em-all management plan back.:blah::blah:-------SS


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ha Ha SS cause believing that bucks give birth has
Worked SO well since the bullshiz started back in 94'

Still buying the myth after all this time. So sad.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

fish1970

bring your kid down to datus and he will be pulling 40 lbs in no time. When my daughter was 9 and only weighed 40 lbs she could pull back 40 lbs.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> fish1970
> 
> bring your kid down to datus and he will be pulling 40 lbs in no time. When my daughter was 9 and only weighed 40 lbs she could pull back 40 lbs.


^^^^^^^ Yeppers, this feller is talkin' the truth!


----------



## stick&string89 (Jun 21, 2012)

I have be surprisingly happy with utahs deer setup the past few years. The only thing that would make it better is 3 point or greater with the exception to youth hunters and possibly a first time adult. The deer are looking good


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

GBell said:


> Ha Ha SS cause believing that bucks give birth has
> Worked SO well since the bullshiz started back in 94'
> 
> Still buying the myth after all this time. So sad.


I ain't buying nothing.....just saying that previous plans have not brought about ideal results IN MY OPINION. I'm not ignorant enough to come on here and claim to have all the answers, but I'm dang sure willing to try something else for a while. I know it's way too soon to give the new plan credit for any kind of benefit but the deer herd is looking awesome to me. I say we ride this plan until there is an obvious reason to change. A few spoiled people who don't think they have enough opportunity is not justification in my book. I don't get a tag every year....so what. I wish I could kill five bucks per year too and that's not reality either. Bottom line is that changes had to be made. No matter what plan is implemented there will be a percentage who aren't happy. I think we have a decent plan going and I am encouraged by the committee that is in place to continue pressing forward.

California still has general OTC tags....in fact you can buy two over the counter. You could always go hunt there.-----SS


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Springville, 

The issue here is not that there is not enough opportunity it is that there is no hunter recruitment. Just like the original first time poster has mentioned on here he is frustrated that he cannot pull a tag in his own resident state. 

I don't care if the buck to doe ratio is down to 7:100 or even 5:100 because the does still get bred. The issue is that these borderline hunters sit out on the sidelines because we are more interested in breeding trophy animals. When people give up on hunting or never give it a shot then when issues come up in politics that require a vote, guess what happens to the hunters voice.... 

If hunters become a small enough minority life for hunters is really going to suck. I would not be surprised if someday the entire Wasatch Front just got shut down forever and gets turned over to some private wildlife management agency. 

We are not even managing the wildlife with the limited tag quota and 30 unit management, we are only managing hunters and limiting outdoor leisure. 

Lastly Nonresident hunting is only for enthusiasts that can afford the tags, licenses, and gas to go out of State. Do you think someone just trying the sport out is going to drop 2500.00 for a weekend of learning the ropes? That doesn't even include the price of a gun,rifle, bow or whatever method they plan on using to try hunting. I can jump on board with option 2 as long as we commit to issuing some more tags and loosen up a bit. I have managed to draw every single year since option 2, but I sympathize for those who are just getting their feet wet.

The issue is that would be hunters and hunters both will get discouraged and hunting will become a thing of the past.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Has anyone ever thought that perhaps if we get the buck to doe ratios up then there might, now I say just might be more tags offered? 

It is hard to offer a 1000 tags in a unit that only has 500 bucks.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

stick&string89 said:


> I have be surprisingly happy with utahs deer setup the past few years. The only thing that would make it better is 3 point or greater with the exception to youth hunters and possibly a first time adult. The deer are looking good


Yep,,,, More and more getting on board with the currant plan..:!:..

It's NICE to go out and see better bucks and MORE of them....

I'd love to see point restic's put back into action .

Wyoming has employed A/R's on a whole bunch of units,
hope it's successful......
That might shut-up some of the A/R nay say'ers.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> .....................
> 
> It is hard to offer a 1000 tags in a unit that only has 500 bucks.


What? That's seems reasonable. In Wyoming we offer an unlimited number of tags for an area with 500 bucks.

.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Hahahahahahaha Micro-buck management is the reason we have "bucks" today. Hahahahahahahaha Thanks for the laugh. 

All those 1-10 year old bucks shot in 2012 were produced under regional buck management. All those 2-10 year old bucks shot in 2013 were produced under regional buck management. All of the yearling bucks were birthed by doe grown under regional-buck-management.

We had one of the highest success rates last year as we have ever had in recent memory and some people want to claim Micro-Buck-Management as the reason? Crazy talk. Absolutely misleading.

Mother Nature blessed us with incredible fawning conditions from 2010-today. Micro-Regional-Mini-Maxi-whatever is not the reason our herds are on the increase. MOTHER NATURE. 

As for tags- yes, when you manage herds for high buck to doe ratios you will cut opportunity to hunt. When you cut opportunity to hunt you end up cutting out the fringe hunters. I don't know many who advocate unlimited hunting. 

Micro-Buck-Management is here to stay. Just don't be foolish enough to think that is the reason why herds have rebounded some. Give thanks to Mother Nature. We will all be cussing her some time down the road.

Goob- It isn't completely unlimited-- you guys keep the riff-raff out with limiting non-resident quotas. haha


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Packout......I read back through and don't see where anyone gave micromanagement credit for the current upswing we are enjoying. Goofy might have inferred it but I hope he is smart enough to realize the biological fallacy of that logic. 

I simply have not yet given up on the micro system yet. I've seen it work in areas where nature has provided boom and bust cycles in more specific locations allowing managers to adjust and maximize opportunity accordingly. Take a look at zones X3A and X3B in California. They are roughly the size of our units, are adjacent to each other, and are managed completely different because of geographic and habitat differences. X3a has 275 tags and X3B has 795 tags.If they were one unit there would either be too much pressure for one area or not enough opportunity provided by the other. Splitting them up allows for maximization. Just a thought.-------SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No QUEASTON Mother nature is the biggest factor helping deer heards..:!:..

The funny thing here is, the group REFUSING to give opt 2 OR added coyote controll any credit what so ever ....

And it's all the added 2-3 year old bucks I'm talking about....


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I am sorry, but you can hunt EVERY SINGLE YEAR in Utah, even if you only owned one weapon. I am sorry we don't get our first choice, or an LE every year... Sometimes settling or compromise is necessary. 

It takes about 23 minutes for a newbie to learn how to swing a tag in Utah. No one wants to compromise or see any plan through. This is gettin as bad as the 2 party crap we got swingin on capital hill.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Fish1970 said:


> Is it just me or are tags hard to come by this year. Of the eight people that I hunt with, not one of us drew a Deer or Elk tag this year. Literally no deer hunt this year. I am trying to get my son interested in hunting and talk all year about going and we could not even get one tag. It's hard to keep his interest up. The funny thing is that we hike a lot and visit our spots often. I have seen more deer this year than most previous ....Sure, I could get a left over archery and wait for the Extended, but he can't pull back a 40lb draw....Guess we will go over the counter Elk.
> Thanks for listening!


Hey there's always landowner permits for sale if you have an extra $7,500-$15,000. You will have to come up with a little extra though to tip the guide.:roll:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> I am sorry, but you can hunt EVERY SINGLE YEAR in Utah, even if you only owned one weapon. I am sorry we don't get our first choice, or an LE every year... Sometimes settling or compromise is necessary.
> 
> It takes about 23 minutes for a newbie to learn how to swing a tag in Utah. No one wants to compromise or see any plan through.* This is gettin as bad as the 2 party crap we got swingin on capital hill.*




Ha! Utah is and has been for 20 years a ONE party wildlife management state. Long live the king!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> Packout......I read back through and don't see where anyone gave micromanagement credit for the current upswing we are enjoying. Goofy might have inferred it but I hope he is smart enough to realize the biological fallacy of that logic.
> 
> I simply have not yet given up on the micro system yet. I've seen it work in areas where nature has provided boom and bust cycles in more specific locations allowing managers to adjust and maximize opportunity accordingly. Take a look at zones X3A and X3B in California. They are roughly the size of our units, are adjacent to each other, and are managed completely different because of geographic and habitat differences. X3a has 275 tags and X3B has 795 tags.If they were one unit there would either be too much pressure for one area or not enough opportunity provided by the other. Splitting them up allows for maximization. Just a thought.-------SS


I hear what you are saying Shooter, and agree to a point. There are definately SOME areas that can use specific hunter management as you suggest. I'm more than familiar with X3A and X3B, hunted them both along with every other X zone in Northern CA, some several times. The thing is, THIS SYSTEM is a bastardization of the last 5 year plan that lasted what, 3 years before being gutted. And how many of the other 5 year plans were gutted mid-stream before that? All of them! That is Utah's m.o., and it happens for only one reason, to grow more and bigger bucks, to he!! with the deer herds.

Goofy eludes to the micro units being God's saving grace to mule deer all the time, but more specifically, more and better bucks. Sorry, but no, he isn't smart enough to know the biological fallacy of that logic you spoke of. Him and all the other sychophants that puff up their already bloated 'mule deer savy egos' whenever there is an upswing in deer pop's and thumb their noses with that in-your-face bullcrap are the ones who end up getting things changed for their own benefit, time after time, only because they scream the loudest.

Hunter management, whether by unit or by region or by state will NEVER grow more mule deer, which is the ONLY thing I want: grow the herd and the bucks will follow. I can live with the unit management as is, but in all reality it will NOT stay as is, or change to help the herd. It will change to grow more antlers and thats it. They are already talking about making more LE units, so more of the same chit.

There are some smart, dedicated folks on the committee, and there are some freaking idiots who only care about making more bucks and more cash for the coffers, but I always have a little hope tucked away in hopes the science will win the day and the deer will be the beneficiaries, not the horn hunters.

Sorry for the rant, too much coffee today.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Nope, good info. I've only been involved for the last 6 years so I am lacking knowledge regarding much of the history that you speak of. I only comment on what I see and what makes sense to me. Like I said before, I never claim to know it all and I learn new things every day. I understand the passion on all sides of this issue and try to contain my own to a level where I can be part of a rational discussion.....including disagreement. 

Anyway, regardless of this discussion, I am thankful for the prospects that I see for this season. Still too many animals dying on Hwy 6 though. There were 2 nice bucks, an elk, and a half dozen new does/fawns today. I am thinking about contacting the DNR regarding the road kill numbers. They have a crew that picks them up so they must have some records. What a shame.-------SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Goofy eludes to the micro units being God's saving grace to mule deer all the time, but more specifically, more and better bucks. Sorry for the rant, too much coffee today.


Read post # 19 Ten times plz.................May-be it will sink in.......


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Hopefully the opt. 2 plan will pay off soon and we can start increasing tags. (I doubt that was ever the hope of many opt. 2 advocates, they seem to believe there is no way the herd could improve, and we must adjust to limited, trophy management.) 

Hunter costs and point creep are getting silly on the simplest of hunts. 

I accumulated 4 doe points and stopped buying them a few years ago. At the time you could draw anything with a point. I thought 4 points was plenty to carry a couple of kids for a fun outing. Well my oldest turned 12 this year. The doe hunts I saved for require 3+ points - can't even carry a kid with 4 points. I figure by the time we draw application/licenses/tag costs will be $70/doe tag. Compare that with a $10 doe tag / $2 application fee in the early 90's and then give me a lecture about inflation. 

I'm so ready for one sfw policy/recommendation to net result in one additional general deer tag.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Although I have vented on the point system, I have some advice for others who are frustrated. Weapon selection on some units can be the deciding factor. 

I like the muzz hunt on my favorite unit. I can't draw it without a point. My brother-in-law drew the same unit this year with rifle on 1st choice - no points. (He would not have draw with it as a 2nd.) A lot of units are the opposite where it is easier to draw muzz than rifle. Just take a look at drawing odds and pick your 1st unit well.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Critter said:


> Has anyone ever thought that perhaps if we get the buck to doe ratios up then there might, now I say just might be more tags offered?
> 
> It is hard to offer a 1000 tags in a unit that only has 500 bucks.


Sure just like they raised the tags on the Henry's this year when all the criteria was meet? Never mind they didn't, all of the folks that agreed to the criteria of when to raise tags fought to again move said criteria. This is a major problem people have with the current system, many don't seem to want anymore opportunity in even the best of situations.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Goofy is no dummy.. I agree with what he has to say most of the time. Alot of thoughts on antler restrictions are right on. Ya can argue that until your face turns blue. won't change my mind.or his. Oh well. But Gods Saving Grace.. uh don't know bout that.. To Draw for a General Archery Tag...Is and always will be a bunch of CRAP!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Alpinebowman makes a great point. Another point is that hunters have a bad habit of only looking ahead to the next hunt. Some don't even see that far and only know what they "seen" today. We can't even stick to a 5 year plan. I wish we could look at the bigger picture. But then, I wish I was rich instead of good lookin', too.

I'm hearing the complaint that started this thread a lot and I constantly hear it said that hunter recruitment is suffering as a result. True enough. My question is, anyone ever think that just maybe that's by design. After all, one con tag can bring in more revenue than a hundred "occupy" tags. So if you got the doh-rey-mee, well...


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I attended the Southern RAC in the Spring of 2013. Numbers were up in the Panguitch unit and so were the ratios and there was a proposal to increase tags. The discussion transformed into how awful all of the hunting pressure was - worse than the "old days" and unsafe. 

Tag numbers were not increased.


----------



## High Desert (Sep 25, 2007)

It's more than a little ironic that hunters are using the anti-hunters' playbook on themselves. Thirty years ago, we all worried about HSUS and PETA destroying hunting either outright or by a "death by a thousand cuts". They failed at the former objective. The latter is the notion that you chip away at hunting by reducing opportunity and increasing barriers to entry and participation. As hunter numbers decline, their political influence and societal relevance declines. At some point, hunters would become politically impotent and unable to protect themselves. Their thousand cuts game plan against hunting was sound but they never accomplished much. It never occurred to us that we would use the game plan on ourselves, quite effectively. 
We have raised the cost. We have created a labyrinth of procedural complexity that we expect teenagers and new hunters and less committed hunters to navigate (in February) for a fall deer hunt that may only happen for them every third year. We have reduced the number of tags. We have created unrealistic expectations of size and the number of mature animals. We are now told that to go hunting, we have to apply for a dozen tags in half a dozen states. (That certainly sounds appealing to the budget conscious or first time hunter.) Sit out of the application game for a year and your odds decline dramatically. If you have three teenagers you want to take hunting, multiply all of the above by three and then hope when they are 25 and starting a new family, they will be committed enough to deal with the hassle and make the financial sacrifice to continue the process. I will hazard a guess that most of us came from families of casual hunters or no hunters. If these parents had given up under the procedural burdens and limits that we now face, we wouldn't be on this forum. 
For most hunters in the 1970's (when I started hunting), quality was going hunting and seeing deer. Campgrounds overflowed, ridges were dotted with orange, buck:doe ratios probably sucked air - but guess what, most of us were just glad to hunt. As a hobby, I have collected deer (and then big game) proclamations since 1973. The increasing complexity and density of regulations and reduction of opportunity is breathtaking. In 1973, most were happy to bring home some venison. (Yes, there was more winter range and fewer cars but also a lot more hunters shooting in either sex units during three seasons.) Now, quality is defined by a number. Heaven forbid you should drop a forkhorn and bring shame on you and your family for generations to come. 
Just let people go hunting. Get over the notion that you are entitled to a certain number, a certain size or that you should be able to choose - during a two day hunt - from three 170+ class bucks. If hunters continue to selfishly protect the current notion of a quality experience for the remaining vestigial remnant of the ultra-committed, we will find that in 20 or 30 years, all those limits and barriers really did work to preserve a quality herd - but there will be few if any hunters under 50 left who care.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

The above should be sent to every member
Of the mule deer committee, Division, wildlife
Board and legislature. 

Perfection.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

High Desert, my question to you since in your last paragraph says "Just let people go hunting." is how many tags should the division issue every year? 300,000 400,000 or more? How long do you think that the resource could sustain that kind of pressure?

You also say that people should "Get over the notion that you are entitled to a certain number, a certain size or that you should be able to choose - during a two day hunt - from three 170+ class bucks." Where is it written that anyone is entitled to a certain size of deer? Even if you draw a LE deer tag you can shoot any buck that you see from a spike to as large as one that you can find. That is up to the hunter that pulls the trigger. Or are you suggesting a unlimited number of tags but only a two day season?

In my opinion Utah has a long ways to go before you can say that the deer hunt is a quality hunt besides perhaps those who draw a Henry Mountain or Paunsaugunt hunt. All the rest of the units and even the other LE units have a ways to go for a "quality" type of hunt.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Critter said:


> In my opinion Utah has a long ways to go before you can say that the deer hunt is a quality hunt besides perhaps those who draw a Henry Mountain or Paunsaugunt hunt. All the rest of the units and even the other LE units have a ways to go for a "quality" type of hunt.


 What defines a quality hunt? Great big antlers? Spending time with family and friends, Shooting a 2 point? Quality can be defined in many ways, and differently by each individual.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Critter, you struggle with trying to define what quality
Is for me. That's the problem. Quality to me does not
Include staying home instead of having a permit to hunt
With my friends and family. 

Quality to me does not include drawing 1 tag in 3 years
To stockpile irrelevant EXCESS bucks for your definition
Of quality. 

If you have no problem drawing a tag every 5 years then
Apply for the limited entry units and leave the general 
Season units alone. This will help with point creep and separate
Those who just want to hunt from those that define quality
By a number as was mentioned above.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

In fact, that's a great idea. Let's propose that you either
Apply for a LE or GS hunt. Not both. Either
You are going to build deer points or you are going to
Hunt, not both. 

Great idea!!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Quality hunts are in the eyes of each and every one of us. I like seeing deer plain and simple. Now whether or not I shoot one is dependent on me. In the last 25 years of hunting Utah I have perhaps shot less than 10 deer. They have been spikes, two points and three points, and in those years that I didn't shoot one it was because I decided not to shoot one, I was just enjoying being out with someone else that had a tag and wanted to shoot a deer. 

You don't have to have a tag every year to enjoy the hunt and some of the funnest hunts that I have been on are ones that I was helping someone else get their deer. In my opinion there are way too many hunters out there that determine the enjoyment of the hunt by what they bring home independent of the size of the deer and not for the sheer enjoyment of the hunt alone.

If you have kids that you want to get into hunting, think outside the box. Get them evolved in archery or muzzle loading and put them in for the youth hunts. Forget about your tag and do what you can for your kid that you would like to see get into hunting.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Um pre 1080 ban hunters were the number one tool to keep deer numbers in check. 

But here in the west we decided to bring back predators. In most cases managed them to their maximum capacity.

That there is what has changed. It's not about hunting going away or not. It has little to do with private lands. It has everything to do with supply and demand. East of the Mississippi humans are the number one tool to control deer populations. It's not that whitetail are super deer. Or habitat is so awesome back east. Or that private land owners are cool back east. Supply and demand. 

Put 2000 cougar in Pennsylvania and watch what that does to the 500,000 deer hunters there.


----------



## High Desert (Sep 25, 2007)

I can't give you a specific number but I do know that we used to have over 200,000 deer hunters. Even though we had more deer the number of tags was probably more than double the number of bucks in the state at the time. The pendulum has swung too far in favor of the trophy curmudgeons and against the average guy who decides one day it would be neat to take his son deer hunting (like he remembers his father doing when he was a kid) only to find out that he has to accrue points for several years and buy a license every dry year. By then, life has moved on. As an example, I recall being on a deer hunt in the Hoback Peak country in Wyoming in the early '90's. My friend and I had shot a couple of very average size four points that morning (we weren't much for turning down any four point) and were basking in our great good fortune so we went for a ride on the horses along a ridge before starting the pack out. There we were having a great hunt in wild country, looking out over mountains dotted with stands of gold aspens and green pines and looking north to the Tetons, northeast to the hazy Wind Rivers in the distance and seeing some deer on the hills. Another hunter rides up on horseback (coincidentally also from Utah) muttering about how he and his friend were having a crummy hunt because they hadn't seen anything bigger than a "170". He needed to open his eyes and realize he could be having a 200" hunt regardless of the size of the deer he saw. Like anyone, I would rather shoot a big deer than a little one, but not to the exclusion of future generations riding those same ridges and having their hearts jump when the deer break from the golden aspens.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I actually don't know of a unit in the state of Utah besides the Henry Mountains and the Paunsaugunt that are being managed for trophy deer. The rest of the state and even the other LE hunting areas are not being managed for trophies depending on what you call a trophy. Even with a management strategy of getting the buck to doe ration up to even 20:100 isn't going to create trophies but will give more hunters a chance if the division raises tags to maintain the ratio, it just needs to get there first before they can do it. 

As for larger deer, when was the last time that you saw someone with a 2 pt in their truck complaining that it wasn't a larger deer. 90% of the hunters out there will shoot the first buck that they see whether it is a 200pt 5x5 or a 100lb 2pt. As I have said hunting isn't all about the killing but the enjoyment of the hunt itself.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

High deseret, in the 80's we had a year that there were 250,000 hunters and more deer were harvested then the number of tags that we currently give out. This type of harvest success mixed with devastating weather in the early 90's is where the draw came from. 

What this means, I don't know. What I do know is that despite all these complaints, we have tags that go unsold EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So... Take it for what its worth. I don't know the answers, but erratically blaming LE hunts and BD ratio's doesn't seem to be the answer. It really sounds like some of you want to go back to unlimited tags. I know before opt 2, I had been a guest on any weapon hunts(not my style) and seen deer turned into swiss cheese, fought over with threats of violence. Areas were being over crowded, it was plain to see. An unlimited hunt under 5 region nowadays would result in numerous hunting accidents.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Alpine havent they increased managment tags on the henry mountains. I think they have so im not sure saying the division hasn't increased tags isnt misleading to an extent.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Like I've always said.....if we just went to statewide archery only, all problems would be solved. Don't argue with me either SW cuz you ain't gonna convince me otherwise!:mrgreen:------SS


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Yep, statewide archery and get rid of the muzzle loader and any weapon hunts. _O\\

I can just see the number of hunters that would be out on the extended. O*--


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Gbell 
im not sure where you come up with this state is a trophy state on our general units. I dont know how you can say a three day rifle hunt with an under 10 buck per 100 doe ratio a hunt. To me that's a way to ruin a resource by killing all the bucks. This is what we had in several areas pre option 2. and was the nail in the coffin for regions. You simply had too many areas that were getting hammered. Dispite what anti option 2 guys say you do in fact have to have bucks to make fawns.

State wide archer went away because its not fare to see archers getting to hunt where ever they want while rifle guys sit and wait to hunt those areas. Option 2is a fair system and was never implemented to increase deer numbers.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Again we can beat this to death :deadhorse: but if antler restrictions were in place it would allow people an opportunity to hunt every year. We have antler restricted areas for elk and it seems to work. 8)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I have no idea how anyone in this state can sit and complain about not hunting. I have hunted ten straight years in a row and killed 8 good bucks. Just put down the bang stick. 

Or say their kid just got his blue card and cant hunt. Its simply a lie. You have mentor hunts, unlimited general elk tags, spike tags, cow hunts, doe antelope hunts, archery youth tags. My oldest has drawn a rifle hunt one out of two years. If she doesnt draw a tag she still gets a bow tag and still gets to hunt. She also gets a point for the next years draw. Its your own fault for not getting a tag for your kid to hunt with. Opportunity everywhere for kids!


----------



## koltraynor (Jun 16, 2014)

Springville Shooter said:


> Packout......I read back through and don't see where anyone gave micromanagement credit for the current upswing we are enjoying. Goofy might have inferred it but I hope he is smart enough to realize the biological fallacy of that logic.
> 
> I simply have not yet given up on the micro system yet. I've seen it work in areas where nature has provided boom and bust cycles in more specific locations allowing managers to adjust and maximize opportunity accordingly. Take a look at zones X3A and X3B in California. They are roughly the size of our units, are adjacent to each other, and are managed completely different because of geographic and habitat differences. X3a has 275 tags and X3B has 795 tags.If they were one unit there would either be too much pressure for one area or not enough opportunity provided by the other. Splitting them up allows for maximization. Just a thought.-------SS


He's not that smart. too much credit is given.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Critter said:


> Yep, statewide archery and get rid of the muzzle loader and any weapon hunts. _O\\
> 
> I can just see the number of hunters that would be out on the extended. O*--


Ha ha who needs one extended unit. With state wide archery only you could have unlimited tags and the whole state could have one looong season.

I think I just felt a bulge in my wranglers ha ha


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

^^^^^^t m i!!^^^^^^^


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

koltraynor said:


> He's not that smart. too much credit is given.


OH BOY^^^^ I Smell Mcfly ....


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

swbuckmaster said:


> Gbell
> im not sure where you come up with this state is a trophy state on our general units. I dont know how you can say a three day rifle hunt with an under 10 buck per 100 doe ratio a hunt.
> 
> Actually back in 08 when that plan was put together
> ...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Gbell
> ...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

One more thing concerning the OP.
The biggest reason people are not drawing out this year is because they didn't know about the PP loophole. 

Packout, I sure hope you guys can put some pressure on getting that PP loop hole closed.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

There not stock piling bucks on the henries to grow more deer. Thats a premium unit. There stock piling bucks for top end quality guys are willing to spend up to eighteen years and counting to hunt. 

Do I want to see more premium units? Hell no and ill fight them tooth and nail if they try and get them. Ill fight them if they try and raise the current buck to doe ration on any unit in this state. I think utah is good right now with the way things are being done. 

Nothing can grow more deer in utah if lonetree is correct with all his asumptions. This includes shooting all the bucks down to sub 10 per 100 on ever unit. In fact If killing every buck would grow more deer we would have had the last 20 years of proof sub fifteen to below ten bucks per hundred would grow them out of control on our general units. It didnt happen and people spend too much money and get tired of going on a snip hunt for non existant bucks. People get tired of three day hunts or even five day hunts.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Ok, two more things. 
I think a lot more people would loose interest in deer hunting if the B/D ratios dropped below 10. 
Look at the pheasant hunt, I stopped hunting pheasants because there are very few birds to hunt. Although its still statewide over the counter.
Now if the DWR would close a few WMAs to LEs on pheasants. I would be all for putting for those areas. 
People want to be successful or at least have a good chance of being so, over just having a tag in their pocket and a gun in their hand.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> OH BOY^^^^ I Smell Mcfly ....


Let me guess....he smells like a smoky gutpile?-----SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Smells more like a rat with a new user name ......


----------



## Spotnstalk (Jun 25, 2014)

*Just my 2 cents*

A/R is a pain in the butt though it is working great here in Texas without limiting hunter opportunities


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I fought like crazy trying to get huters to realize A/R's would have
been a better option than shorter seasons or staggered openers ....

OR even coverting low buck to doe ratio units to LE.......

That was pre opt 2 ....

I still see how A/R's could be used on certain units and issue more tags though ....


----------



## Spotnstalk (Jun 25, 2014)

It works here. It sucked the first year or even 2 years but seeing bigger bucks without less hunting opportunities. We are allowed 4 deer in my county. 1 buck over 13" inside spread, 1 buck with at least 1 spike antler and 2 does. The deer herd here is different so can't say it's a better option but it does work here


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

But don't you guys kill all the small bucks too. Then let them lay. 

Ask guy around here and that's what they remember about out AR days. 

I remember differently.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> But don't you guys kill all the small bucks too. Then let them lay.
> 
> Ask guy around here and that's what they remember about out AR days.
> 
> I remember differently.


In my years of hunting the Henry's and the Book Cliffs during the antler restriction days, I never did find a deer that had been shot and left and that was from 1982 until they closed them.

Now when I started hunting the general season units I would find deer every year that someone had shot and either just decided to leave it or a person back in camp didn't want to tag it for some reason.

One thing that you did notice during those AR days is that the hunters that were there were aware of what they were looking for and didn't just start taking shots at bucks in the hopes of it being legal.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

A/R are a short term fix that does absolutely nothing positive for the herd population and provides no long term solution of growing more deer. It is simple math. There is no way that it can open a door for more hunting opportunity.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> One thing that you did notice during those AR days is that the hunters that were there were aware of what they were looking for and didn't just start taking shots at bucks in the hopes of it being legal.


That wasn't simply because the AR though.. Now days people would still shoot first ask later.

I get the barrier to entry argument people are going for but even if we had 250,000 tags they wouldn't sell out. Less people hunt now than 30 years ago. It isn't because we have a draw system. I blame them darn ipod shiffles and those mini computer screen thingy's.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I wouldn't write off AR yet. A few years ago I thought there was zero chance it would ever fly again with the DWR. Recently I was reminded of the old saying "never say never" ;-)


----------



## Spotnstalk (Jun 25, 2014)

I guarantee it makes you take a closer look here in Texas. It isn't very easy to judge 13" inside spread at any distance but at least they aren't banging out every deer with first year of antlers. It may not increases population but I guarantee it makes for bigger bucks. I fought it for the first 2 years but I killed the biggest buck I've killed last year and seen plenty bigger but couldn't get my daughter set up on them


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Antler point restrictions​ Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.​ Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.​ Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.​ Wyoming's experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.​ Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.​ _Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points._​ Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.​ Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.​ Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks.​


----------



## Spotnstalk (Jun 25, 2014)

If they have concluded that reduction in harvested bucks is the only way to increase b/d ratios and antler restrictions reduced the bucks being harvested it sounds like it works to me. The problem I see in your post is that it comes down to responsible hunters not shooting illegal bucks. If they quit hunting just cause it got a little harder sounds to me like they weren't hunters at all but just killers. I hunt for the experience and the joy of harvesting exactly what I set out to shoot. When I hunt utah this October if I come home empty handed so be it but I am not coming home with a buck that wasn't ready to be harvested just to kill something. Grocery stores have all the meat my family needs so I don't have to kill a yearling buck to survive so why do it


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

If it is antler restrictions you want let's limit it to yearling harvest only. You guys happy with that? It's the way antler restrictions work for elk why not for deer too?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/online%20version/muledeerinthewest/harvest.html

this is where my post came from.

If it were only legal to marry blonde women would you expect five years from now that there would be more blonde woman available to wed?


----------



## Spotnstalk (Jun 25, 2014)

That's a completely different theory. That's expecting a change in genetics without doing anything to change it. In 20 years yes that would probably be the outcome cause you have bred only blonde women increasing the chances of blonde children. It would however greatly increase the number of single women which is more along the point here


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Actually it quite possibly would increase the number of single blond women, just for the simple fact that if they wanted to get married they would just dye their hair. 

Kind of hard to do with deer thoe.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Nabster,
I'm ok with that too. Idaho does it. 

It's interesting to read the data on AR. It's also interesting to know truth about some of the info. The problem is the truth is not always what has been put in print. Data is funny thing, it's pretty easy to manipulate to get it to back your person views.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

In the 80's I hunted Fillmore, where it was a 3 point or better area. We always saw plenty of bucks of all sizes. The antler restrictions went away and so did the deer. IMO it worked.........8) Always got 3 point or bigger bucks, and there was plenty of opportunity.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I love when someone's first 6 posts are diving into the deep end.

So, for those of you backing AR is it for quality or quantity?


----------



## Spotnstalk (Jun 25, 2014)

Lol I guess that was pointed at me. I'm for quantity through quality. Passing on small deer yes means you may not shoot a deer every year but that's 1 more for next year. Assuming nature cooperates anyhow


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> I love when someone's first 6 posts are diving into the deep end.
> 
> So, for those of you backing AR is it for quality or quantity?


 For me personally I would say it's for opportunity....8) From what I experienced hunting the 3 point unit there was quantity and quality as well.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Fowlmouth said:


> Again we can beat this to death :deadhorse: but if antler restrictions were in place it would allow people an opportunity to hunt every year. We have antler restricted areas for elk and it seems to work. 8)


Works for who? Those who want to only hunt mature elk once in their lifetime? Are you proposing we only hunt spike deer so that I'll get to try for a mature deer only once or twice in my lifetime?

If so, this is a horrible idea.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

nocturnalenemy said:


> Works for who? Those who want to only hunt mature elk once in their lifetime. Are you proposing we only hunt spike deer so that I'll get to try for a mature deer only once or twice in my lifetime?
> 
> If so, this is a horrible idea.


 You can hunt mature elk every year if you like. Just purchase a OTC general season any bull area permit.

As far as deer goes, no it doesn't have to be spike only. Sorry I should have been more specific. The antler restrictions could be for 3 or 4 point deer. 8)


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Fowlmouth said:


> You can hunt mature elk every year if you like. Just purchase a OTC general season any bull area permit.
> 
> As far as deer goes, no it doesn't have to be spike only. Sorry I should have been more specific. The antler restrictions could be for 3 or 4 point deer. 8)


And right now, you can hunt for mature deer in any of general units, nearly every year, especially if you're flexible with weapon choice. And if you want an especially great chance at a big deer, you can apply for one of the many LE units.

I guess I just don't see the purpose of AR.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

nocturnalenemy said:


> And right now, you can hunt for mature deer in any of general units, nearly every year, especially if you're flexible with weapon choice. And if you want an especially great chance at a big deer, you can apply for one of the many LE units.
> I guess I just don't see the purpose of AR.


 It would create more opportunity because it would be unlimited permits. You wouldn't have to draw. You know just like in the olden days when there was 200,000 hunters in the field. 8) I know........ nobody likes the idea of letting everyone have an opportunity to hunt.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Does Colorado have the largest Elk population in the United States? Do they now and years back have some areas that had 4 point or better restrictions? Wiscoinson has gone to antler restrictions. Has it worked? U Bet. People were pissed when first implemented. The payoff, More deer , larger Bucks.. Am I a trophy hunter Nope> Last time I drew A archery tag, I passed up 14 2 points. WHY? ya kill off all the small ones. chances you will never have any big ones..Just the way I feel, But I'am kinda nuts.. It's an age thing..:grin:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Here is a strange thought that popped into my head. Perhaps the reason Utah has so many elk is the general season spike only hunt and LE hunts on the mature bulls. Colorado has the largest elk herd in the US and for the majority of seasons and units they restrict the bull tag to 4 pt or better, and the elk herd keeps on growing.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Spotnstalk said:


> Lol I guess that was pointed at me. I'm for quantity through quality. Passing on small deer yes means you may not shoot a deer every year but that's 1 more for next year. Assuming nature cooperates anyhow


 Mother Nature loves our Management plans and always follows suit. Read my response to the below quote...



Fowlmouth said:


> It would create more opportunity because it would be unlimited permits. You wouldn't have to draw. You know just like in the olden days when there was 200,000 hunters in the field. 8) I know........ nobody likes the idea of letting everyone have an opportunity to hunt.


 Spotnstalk says "one more for next year... Unless 200,000 people manage to kill every 3 and 4 point.. Then we actually have less deer. Everyone can hunt, every year(Bet you $1000 we have Big game tags go unsold this year). Also, Utah's wildlife habitat has shrank in the last 30 years... I know some people ignore this, but we have less huntin' ground then the 80's.... 



Bucksnort1 said:


> Does Colorado have the largest Elk population in the United States? Do they now and years back have some areas that had 4 point or better restrictions? Wiscoinson has gone to antler restrictions. Has it worked? U Bet. People were pissed when first implemented. The payoff, More deer , larger Bucks.. Am I a trophy hunter Nope> Last time I drew A archery tag, I passed up 14 2 points. WHY? ya kill off all the small ones. chances you will never have any big ones..Just the way I feel, But I'am kinda nuts.. It's an age thing..:grin:


 You realize that some 2 pts, especially mature 2 pts, will always be that way? And will pass along gen.... oh wait, this site proved before that genetics don't exist in deer. Carry on.



Critter said:


> Here is a strange thought that popped into my head. Perhaps the reason Utah has so many elk is the general season spike only hunt and LE hunts on the mature bulls. Colorado has the largest elk herd in the US and for the majority of seasons and units they restrict the bull tag to 4 pt or better, and the elk herd keeps on growing.


You do know elk are different from deer and CO is not Utah right? They also have disease among their elk.

People forget that young bucks, old bucks, big bucks, small bucks are all capable of breeding. And that our selection will always fall short of natural selection right?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

why are guys comparing a species that is thriving versus a species that is not and has not in twenty years? 

Furthermore the AR that were in place in the 70's are a mute point. The deer population was much much better and certainly not because of a few areas that had AR in place. Wintering grounds were far more abundant and there wasn't a new subdivision in every place one could point. There were far fewer roads, no ATV's to really speak of. Every state in the Rockies were loaded with deer of all shapes and sizes. 

If somebody has historical proof and data that AR actually work............ie. GROW MORE DEER thereby creating more opportunity I would like to see it. Printing more tags with the same amount of deer and putting more restrictions on the hunt is NOT more opportunity. In it's simplest form it is inflation. The value of a deer tag declines the same as a dollar.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

AR not for this guy. Saw it in action on the Fishlake
Unit years ago and it didn't do squat. 

MVR, now we're talking. As in Motorized Vehicle
Restrictions. We don't need a road on every ridge.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Gordy,
Please explain "didnt do squat".


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm surprised the DWR doesn't want to bring back AR for the mere fact if would save more of the DWR's preferred breeders. 2 pts.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Gordy,
> Please explain "didnt do squat".


http://www.createstrat.com/media/MuleDeerintheWest.pdf
Page 29:



> Antler point restrictions
> Creating mule deer harvest sea-
> sons with antler point restrictions is
> popular amongst hunters who think
> ...




-DallanC


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Muley73 said:


> Nabster,
> I'm ok with that too. Idaho does it.
> 
> It's interesting to read the data on AR. It's also interesting to know truth about some of the info. The problem is the truth is not always what has been put in print. Data is funny thing, it's pretty easy to manipulate to get it to back your person views.


Well since you apparently back the AR, understand the data and seem to know some truth that the rest of us may not............by all means manipulate away.

If you have some kind of proof that it creates more opportunity by growing more deer (which in fact is the only way to have more opportunity) I will change my mind in a flash.

Let er rip.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wyoming is using A/R's on 16 deer units ....

Hope they are successful and achieve useful data that can be applied esle were.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Let me clarify, when I talk about "more opportunity" I am only referring to allow more people to hunt, not necessarily kill. I would rather hunt every year instead of every 3 years on general units. I am not saying AR's will grow bigger or more deer, just more opportunity for people to hunt. If you can only shoot 3 point or bigger bucks who cares how many people are on the unit hunting? You can sell more tags than deer because you can't shoot all the bucks. Everyone keeps saying, "the smaller bucks breed too" okay, so what's the problem?

I would rather have a reduction in harvest than a reduction in opportunity......


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Do you really want the smaller bucks left to do the breeding?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Nambaster said:


> Do you really want the smaller bucks left to do the breeding?


Smaller bucks turn into big bucks. How do you know a small buck won't turn into a big buck? If he has the genes it will happen. Do you think big bucks get that way the first year of their life?

And I highly doubt every 3 point and bigger deer will be killed during the hunt. How many times have you rifle hunted an area and didn't see many bucks? A couple of weeks later you return to the same area during the rut and there are big bucks everywhere? I have witnessed this many times......


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Mule,
Here's a sample. During AR one of the biggest negatives discussed was the illegal kills. There were reports and newspaper articals that referenced the increase of illegal kills. It talked about increases of 200% even 300% increase of illegal kill on some units. Now if you see those number and only those numbers than WOW that is a very high price to pay. I would also not support AR with those kind of numbers.

Soooo here's a little deeper look. On those units the previous year there was zero or one illegal kills. Sooo AR is implemented and that year there are 2 or 3 illegally kills (2 points shot and left). Now don't get me wrong nobody like illegal killing and especially wasting wildlife. But the actual number of 2 or 3 is a lot different than a 200% or 300%. Yes both numbers are accurate but the message is much different depending on how it's reported. Remember at the time the UDWR did not support the idea of AR. The controlled the data and information passed to the Salt Lake Tribune and other media outlets. Maybe this time around the UDWR has some diffenent ideas and would support AR?


----------



## BIG (Nov 12, 2009)

We already have antler restrictions for Spike elk and we seem to do okay. There is no reason we cant try for deer again, at least on a few units.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Fowl, if you want "false" opportunity then don't carry a tag. Your last statement that you don't want more harvest, actually less, while having more hunters afield is ridiculous. Why have a tag if true "opportunity" decreases??


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley73- Can you please provide the information you are talking about? Maybe the article in question, year, news outlet, news-release, etc.... Thanks


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Cody, I hunted Han****, Boobe Hole and 7 mile
Before during and after the restriction. 

I saw no effect.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Sounds like a good thing if you saw no effect and it gives endless opportunity for opportunity type guys.

I however could care less if we had antler restrictions and would rather keep the system we have now. I dont want to see 200,000 hunters on every ridge taking up every camp spot. Sounds like a nightmare

I like the system we have now and dont think there is a magic bullet to growing more deer.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Fowl, if you want "false" opportunity then don't carry a tag. Your last statement that you don't want more harvest, actually less, while having more hunters afield is ridiculous. Why have a tag if true "opportunity" decreases??


But that actually happens with the antlerless cow elk. If you charted it out, you more tags = more kills to a point, when there are so many hunters the elk scatter into nasty areas that the majority of hunters cant or wont access. At that point adding more tags doesn't significantly increase harvest.

A prime example of this was that stupid Avintiquin hunt. My boy drew a late cow tag the year he first turned 12, it was the only hunt he could make due to his late birthdate. The DWR offered a crazy number of tags in the draw, a different season every few weeks. Then after the draw... they added another 900 tags over the counter. That place was mobbed with hunters nonstop for 4 months and success stayed really low. They could have sold another 10,000 tags and it wouldn't have mattered in the over all harvest rate.

IMO if you don't have access to a guaranteed honey hole, or private property, cow elk tags are one of the biggest ripoff's in the state. Success is so low but people spend tons of money on them. DWR must absolutely love it.

-DallanC


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> Fowl, if you want "false" opportunity then don't carry a tag. Your last statement that you don't want more harvest, actually less, while having more hunters afield is ridiculous. Why have a tag if true "opportunity" decreases??


I suppose it's all in how one defines opportunity. I would rather be out hunting every year than sitting home on my couch during the hunt. Maybe you define opportunity as killing a deer every year, having the whole mountain to yourself, shooting big bucks, and that's okay if that is how you see it. I just see it differently, I don't have to kill a deer every year, I don't mind sharing the mountain, I would just like an opportunity to go and take my family every year if we want to go.

Did you get to hunt in the 80's and 90's when you could walk into a sporting goods store and buy your tag the night before the hunt? I ask this because a lot of guys started hunting during the draw system and they don't know anything different.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

1980 population- under 1.5 million. Today- over 3 million. This has a massive impact on the amount of huntable land and wintering geound there is. You HAVE the opportunity to go camping during the hunt every year. You can do so now with a tag. In your scenario though, where success goes wayy down, I am just curious why you need a tag to do it? You have the opportunity to be in the mountains any time. If killing something isn't what you are after, why complain about a tag?

I ask this questions still reminding people that big game tags go unsold every year.. I hunt, every year. And I am a pretty unlucky person when it comes to the hunt.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> 1980 population- under 1.5 million. Today- over 3 million. Mostly along the Wasatch Front This has a massive impact on the amount of huntable land and wintering geound there is. You HAVE the opportunity to go camping during the hunt every year. Camping isn't hunting. You can do so now with a tag. In your scenario though, where success goes wayy down, True, but the way it is now I am limited as to where I can go. The leftover tags dictate that. I am just curious why you need a tag to do it? Uhmmm because you need a permit to hunt. You have the opportunity to be in the mountains any time. If killing something isn't what you are after, why complain about a tag? Again... because I can't hunt without a tag. Opportunity is being there, having a weapon and participating in the hunt. I can't participate if I don't have a permit.
> 
> I ask this questions still reminding people that big game tags go unsold every year..Again, these permits dictate where you HAVE to go, not where you want to go. I hunt, every year. And I am a pretty unlucky person when it comes to the hunt.


****************************************************


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

It's said that the only constant in the universe is change, it is inevitable. Yet, I find the other adage just as true: "The more things change, the more they stay the same", especially when it comes to hunters. We have been repeating these same 'debates' for decades and still, our deer suffer. All of these issues have been looked at, over and over again by every single western game agency and numerous independent researchers but we still shout "let's do it again! It will be different this time!" I can't for the life of me understand how game agencies get any actual wildlife management accomplished while they have to deal with the likes of us...

What stands out blatently in dark bold in this thread is the overwhelming lack of honest, unmitigated true concern for the mule deer. Are their champions really so few? I can't help but imagin the positive accomplishments that could be attained should we hunters ever choose to put as much effort into helping the mule deer as we do in figuring out how best to kill it...


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
I believe the article was in the Salt Lake Tribune? I was young then my early teens. You know who can answer the specifics. Maybe ask him the specifics next time you're at a committee meeting. 

GBell,
I spent some time on the Fishlake during that time. However most of my time was spent on Monroe and Pahvant mostly archery hunting at that time. I know that the weekend before the archery hunt during AR we counted 60+ 4 or better bucks from Paradise to Goat Spring in one morning. As I reread your post I noticed specifically you mentioned Hand**** Flat. I did spend time chasing bucks with a bow there. 30+ bucks out in the Flat during AR. Maybe that was the norm before AR but it sure didnt seem like it to me.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> It's said that the only constant in the universe is change, it is inevitable. Yet, I find the other adage just as true: "The more things change, the more they stay the same", especially when it comes to hunters. We have been repeating these same 'debates' for decades and still, our deer suffer. All of these issues have been looked at, over and over again by every single western game agency and numerous independent researchers but we still shout "let's do it again! It will be different this time!"
> What stands out blatently in dark bold in this thread is the overwhelming lack of honest, unmitigated true concern for the mule deer....


I call BS ..
1)Road closeurs---motorized access roads closing on FS and BLM --Never done before..
2)Option 2----Never done before in Utah .
3)Millions and Millions of dollars poored into habitate and projects--Never done before.
4) Extended preaditor controll, coyote ( $50 ) bountys--Never done before..
5) Heres a link : http://wildlife.utah.gov/helping-deer-herds.html


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

stillhunterman said:


> What stands out blatently in dark bold in this thread is the overwhelming lack of honest, unmitigated true concern for the mule deer. Are their champions really so few? I can't help but imagin the positive accomplishments that could be attained should we hunters ever choose to put as much effort into helping the mule deer as we do in figuring out how best to kill it...


BS. I see a plenty of concern for the mule deer. There is just a lot of difference in beliefs in how to manage the relationship between the hunted and the hunter. Don't presume because your opinion may differ that your intentions are any more noble than that of the next guy. Change a word here and there and your statement has Lonetree all over it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The deer herd is in good health. Deer aren't struggling. 

Hunters are. Deer will be just fine. 


Now what are we going to do to fix deer hunting?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Can someone please tell me how many GENERAL SEASON deer permits were issued last year. Also, the total number of hunters that applied for GENERAL SEASON deer. I was looking through the reports on DWR and I'm either blind as heck or it's not there. :mrgreen: I want to know how many people did not draw.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Here is the data for 2013

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2013/13_general_deer.pdf

103640 res applicants
6618 non res applicants
total of 110258 general season deer applicants

65077 successful res applicants
2052 successful non res applicants
total of 67129 deer tags

so 43,129 didn't draw if my math is right.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Springville Shooter,

PM sent regarding deer collisions.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> Here is the data for 2013
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2013/13_general_deer.pdf
> 
> ...


Doesn't seem right. I think we approved some 84K or so tags... After my edit, it could be that your numbers are the draw only, not including OTC. I don't know if there were 17K OTC though to make up the diff.

Edit:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment2/57761956-223/deer-permits-biologists-hunting.html.csp

"More than 25,000 of the *84,600* general season deer hunters in 2013 returned home with meat for the freezer. Success hasn't been that high since 2007 when 97,000 hunters managed to kill 28,000 bucks."

The whole article is worth a read.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I noticed that the amount of deer habitat now versus way back then keeps coming up as an issue. I don't know how far "way back then" is, but after having done some research for the Mule Deer Committee discussions, I found that in 1958 the Division begin printing annual Big Game Range Inventories/Trend Studies on our *72 units *and, later, a few not so regular Big Game Investigations and Management Recommendations. The Range Studies don't give the acreage, but the Investigations reports do.

Several things stood out:

1) Micro-management of habitat isn't new with Option #2.
2) We have less than 1/2 the number of management units we had then.
3) Our current units, in general, are large compared to back then.
4) In 1976 we had approx. 27,511,020 acres of deer habitat, while we now have 28,638,969, so we actually have nearly *1,128,000* *more* acres of deer habitat now.

I also researched the deer proclamations to see how we handled hunters and in the 1950's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, we also had individual units that had restricted hunter numbers, different opening dates, different season lengths, antler restrictions, all season buck only, split either sex (3 days)/buck only (8 days)seasons, public hunting on "Indian" lands, "Trophy" buck hunts, High Country buck hunts, River Expedition hunts, various control hunts, muzzy permits, archery seasons, closed units, etc. Except for the general seasons, we've been managing hunters on specific units at least since 1930 for all the reasons we want them regulated now. But now we are regulating them even on the general season hunts which means there are now no more general seasons, permits, hunts or units even though we call them that! It's time for the pendulum to swing the other way!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Doesn't seem right. I think we approved some 84K or so tags... After my edit, it could be that your numbers are the draw only, not including OTC. I don't know if there were 17K OTC though to make up the diff.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> ...


There is the possibility of what I had didn't include second or third choice hunts either. It was taken from the link that I posted so it quite possibly didn't include any tags sold over the counter. But that goes to show that there were around 13,000 tags not taken either as a first choice or were left over one way or another.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

4) In 1976 we had approx. 27,511,020 acres of deer habitat, while we now have 28,638,969, so we actually have nearly 1,128,000 more acres of deer habitat now.

I don't see how.. We have sold land, not bought. Did you see the Wasatch front in the 70's? Have you seen it lately? Morgan county? Seen it lately? I don't see habitats growing and it looks like wintering grounds are shrinking. Our neighboring property just sold from 1,000 acres into 40 acre parcels. New roads, more people, more recreation... The result =less deer, in the area at least. This isn't isolated...

Where did you get your range study saying we have more habitat now? Just curious...

Obviously, the majority of land that is shrinking is private grounds, but that has a major impact on the overall herd health. Finding the answer of developed land from then till now seems impossible. Best I can find from BLM is this:

"The Bureau of Land Management is an agency within the U.S. Department of Interior that administers more than 245 million acres of America's Public Lands - nearly 23 million of which are located in Utah. "


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> 4) In 1976 we had approx. 27,511,020 acres of deer habitat, while we now have 28,638,969, so we actually have nearly 1,128,000 more acres of deer habitat now.
> 
> I don't see how.. We have sold land, not bought. Did you see the Wasatch front in the 70's? Have you seen it lately? Morgan county? Seen it lately? I don't see habitats growing and it looks like wintering grounds are shrinking. Our neighboring property just sold from 1,000 acres into 40 acre parcels. New roads, more people, more recreation... The result =less deer, in the area at least. This isn't isolated...
> 
> ...


Utah Archives Research Center
346 South Rio Grande St (The old Rio Grande Railroad Station)
Salt Lake City, Utah
801-531-3867

Over the last 2 or 3 years I've spent about 200 hours looking over and copying and taking notes on old (and recent) documents, including Proclamations, Big Game Control Board/Wildlife Board Meeting Minutes, Harvest Reports, Range Trend Reports, Legislative Reports and Minutes, Code Books, Director's Correspondence, etc. In fact, the Center has 94 series/categories listed for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and a few of the records go back to the late 1800's, though most are from 1930 on.

Additionally, some of the Big Game Control Board meeting minutes come in audio form including reel to reel tapes and cassettes, which Gina, a staff member, is trying to get organized, digitalized and transcribed per my GRAMA requests. (They were just dumped in 6 boxes). She found a source/company in Maryland that could digitalize them, but at $80 per recorded hour and there are about 100 tapes at 3 to 4 hours each and neither the Center, per their current budget, nor I nor UWC could afford to have them digitalized, let alone transcribed. But we're still trying to get it done cheaper.

In any case, the information is out there if you dig around a bit (or a lot!).

FWIW, In behalf of UWC, I donated a refurbished Uher Reporter reel to reel tape recorder to the Center that would play the S L O W tape speeds the Big Game Control Board Meeting minutes were taped in, but we found that even the 15/16" per second speed was too fast and I haven't been able to find one that plays 15/32" per second. At least not yet! Is there anybody out there that knows where I could find one?

Also, FWIW, The Center is also a possible source for Family History research.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Doesn't seem right. I think we approved some 84K or so tags... After my edit, it could be that your numbers are the draw only, not including OTC. I don't know if there were 17K OTC though to make up the diff.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> ...


I think he forgot to include archery tags and youth tags



Critter said:


> Here is the data for 2013
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2013/13_general_deer.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

elkfromabove said:


> Utah Archives Research Center
> 346 South Rio Grande St (The old Rio Grande Railroad Station)
> Salt Lake City, Utah
> 801-531-3867
> ...


Thanks for the info!

Since you have spent such extensive time, then in short how do we have more habitat now than we did in the 70's?

Does that answer include public and/or private land?

Also, any idea on the amount of developed land then vs now?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

RandomElk16 said:


> Thanks for the info!
> 
> Since you have spent such extensive time, then in short how do we have more habitat now than we did in the 70's?
> 
> ...


The acreage numbers surprised me too, but there is no indication that I can see as to why the increase and what few maps I find in the reports are small and are mostly biologically oriented regarding forage species.

There are several possible reasons for the numbers:
1) There may have been a different definition or different criteria for counting acreage as deer habitat in 1976 than in 2013.
2) Technology has allowed us to be more precise in our count. (Note that the later numbers are calculated to the exact acreage).
3) Deer are forced to use more marginal habitat than they previously used thus making it deer habitat simply by using it.
4) Farming and ranching have created habitat with water and crops where none existed before.
5) Deer have adjusted more than we think to the changes we've made.
6) Other options I haven't thought of.

And keep in mind that increased habitat doesn't necessarily translate into increased populations nor healthier deer nor more hunter accessible acreage. In fact any "new" habitat is likely to create the opposite effects.

Also, the acreage numbers are biological numbers not political numbers. If the deer use it, it's considered (and listed as) deer habitat regardless of who owns it, whether private or public.

Additionally, I'm sorry but I don't have any idea about "developed" land., then or now. And with the daily rate of land being "developed", I don't think anyone could answer that question with any precision. It depends on the definition of "developed" and what impact that development had on deer. Utah has a total of 52,587,520 acres of land mass and 28,638,969 (about 55%) of that is considered deer habitat and it's impossible to keep track of all of it.

Finally, that current 28,638,969 is broken down into 3,275,080 year-round habitat, 12,091,236 summer habitat and 13,272,653 winter habitat, (The older figures also included transitional habitat) so the deer are limited even more depending on the season and where the developed land is. And since we tend to develop winter range (valleys, lower elevations) more than summer range (mountains, higher elevations), we impact the deer populations and health disproportionally to the simple number of acres of habitat. We may have lost more winter range while gaining more summer or year-round range and thus lost more deer (starvation/malnutrition, road kill, poaching, disease) while gaining more habitat. Additionally, the quality of the habit we do have is generally deteriorating and we haven't even talked about predation or hunting yet! It ain't just a matter of acres of habitat = acres of deer.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Couple points.

We are losing agricultural land and have been doing so for years. All indications are that this trend will continue. Projections are that Utah's population will double again in the next 50 years.

As for habitat, I know that with other wildlife (predators), habitat definition includes only those lands that can be effectively managed by the agency. If that's also the case here, then the increased acreage only indicates expanded stewardship (access) on the part of the DWR and NOT an increase in overall habitat acreage. I'd bet that's due to improved relations and partnerships between the DWR and private landowners.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> Couple points.
> 
> We are losing agricultural land and have been doing so for years. All indications are that this trend will continue. Projections are that Utah's population will double again in the next 50 years.
> 
> As for habitat, I know that with other wildlife (predators), habitat definition includes only those lands that can be effectively managed by the agency. If that's also the case here, then the increased acreage only indicates expanded stewardship (access) on the part of the DWR and NOT an increase in overall habitat acreage. I'd bet that's due to improved relations and partnerships between the DWR and private landowners.


 Thanks Finnegan,
That's why I included "6) Other options I haven't thought of."


----------

