# The trophy fixation: a threat to hunting?



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/7761972.html

http://www.eastmans.com/blogs.php?reque ... ogref=mike

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09poach.html


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

sad but true


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Very interesting reading. o-||


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Eastmon should not allow such short sighted views in what I felt to be an otherwise good magazine.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Oh ya very true ....I like how he picks out SFW I wonder why? At least I'm not alone about my judgments about them.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Eastmon should not allow such short sighted views in what I felt to be an otherwise good magazine.


One mans' "short sight veiws" sounds a lot like the truth to others.

IMO, those hunts should have to take place on private land, its public land and public owned animals why should someone be able to buy them?

There are better ways to finance wildlife maganement than those tags. Others states get it done without doing it that way.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I think that every hunter wants the biggest animal that they can get, I would think that the writers of this especially the one in eastmons would agree. What I took out of it was that some people arent happy unless they get that trophy animal. I always think a hunt is successfull whether or not I get a animal or not, it is a good time being where I love. Last year I took a 3 point for the archery buck season. Didnt hunt elk which I will do this year and I loved it. Would I have loved to get a trophy buck, heck yeah who wouldnt but that didn't stop me from taking him down and loving every minute of it. They did kind of make it out to be a bad thing that hunters strive to get trophy animals. I don't think that has ever changed, my grandpa always wanted the biggest buck, so did my dad and so do I.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree the trophy fixation is what is wrong with SFW and what is wrong with hunting these days. The SFW know they need the trophy-only crowd, and the money that comes with it, and so that is where thier focus is. Next year Utah will have a fight over the deer management plan and it is going to be trophy versus opportunity. You would think a group such as SFW would fight for opportunity but time will tell if that comes true. My call today is that they will fight for trophy over opportunity. I hope they prove me wrong. 

In years passed you could count on hunters to congratulate you on a nice buck even if it was just a yearling two point. Now days there are many who look down on you for shooting a small four point because it won't make book. Which is ironic when it is the deer that grew the antlers not the person who shot it. The honor belongs to the animal not the hunter.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

> A few years ago the famed ungulate biologist Valerous Geist stated in a Bugle article that the reason hunting and game management works in the US vs. Europe is that even if you are the 'Emperor of China,' you have an equal opportunity at participation. These tags defy that principle and cause successive generations to quit hunting. The parasitic special interest groups advocating this type of tag distribution have become the most effective anti-hunting organizations in America.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

> A few years ago the famed ungulate biologist Valerous Geist stated in a Bugle article that the reason hunting and game management works in the US vs. Europe is that even if you are the 'Emperor of China,' you have an equal opportunity at participation. These tags defy that principle and cause successive generations to quit hunting.


----------



## north slope (Sep 8, 2007)

This kind of "hunting" is not hunting. Some guy with a lot of money buying animals and having a pack of goons guide him around is not hunting in my book. Hunting is about the hunt the time in the hills and doing it 1 on 1. Since when did hunting become a team sport? Since when did our trophy animals get sold to the guy with the thickest wallet? Wrong....Wrong....Wrong :evil:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job.
Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting.


----------



## flint (Sep 13, 2007)

This has been a major concern of mine for some time. Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago:

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Pol ... 00508.html


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Good article flint, you hit a lot of the ISSUES right on the head. Being a man good with recognizing real issues what is your stance or solution to this $trophy$ v.s. opportunity?


----------



## soules2007 (Oct 29, 2007)

Flint good writing! all these articles are good reads. funny after reading these articles you really can see the changes as a young hunter you always dream about bringing home the moster muley, or the ghost of the mountain. but if you shot a a buck at all you were really excited. Now we train people to think that if you shoot anything not considered book quality you are just an undisiplined, not willing to work for your animal hunter. In hunting camps you all remember stories like he brings one home every year! he always has meat in the freezer! It did not matter the size of the animal it was about the hard work and consitesny of the hunter. If you are only hunting trophy quality animals, great pass up smaller animals and risk going home empty handed, but do not snigger at the hunter who does not pass up the small raghorn bull or the two point. Passing on a animal has become the earmark of a great hunter. I believe this is wrong. That being said there are times when passing on animal is the way to go when i draw a coveted LE tag. I hope i will have the self restraint required to wait for the big one! Actually a good guide would help with that. but really like will primos says most of the expierence is not getting an animal at all its just being their and trying, and getting into the great rocky mountains.(paraphrased)


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

This is an email that just came in. My hat is off to this kind of Sporstsman taking care of future Sportsman. Like I said before Some are near sighted. Look a bit further than our noses and we have a bright future for our kids. Not to take away Hot Rods signature, but "You gotta love it Baby!"

A great way to start the new year!



9 rams and 13 Ewes were captured from Antelope Island (AI) and released today onto the Stansbury Mountains, 30 miles west of SLC. The goal is to capture 2 more Ewes and 11 Rams for the Stansbury and turn them loose tomorrow. After the spring lambing season, that should put the total population over 125 sheep in just 3 years. A good fire on this mountain last summer will produce excellent forage over the coming years. The DWR is working with the Federal Land agencies to get more water guzzlers put in to expand useful range on this high desert mountain.



Utah FNAWS negotiated two separate deals and invested over $75,000 in habitat work to clear the way for bighorns to be released on the Stansbury Mts. Two years ago. The initial transplant of about 35 bighorns has had excellent lamb survival the last two years.





After filling the quota of the Stansbury Mts. 20 Rams will then be captured on AI and released onto the Newfoundland Mts, about 75 miles NW of SLC. There are about 150 bighorns on the Newfys. Utah FNAWS negotiated a deal and invested over $80,000 to clear the way for this transplant 8 or so years ago. Transplants from Nevada and Antelope Island, along with excellent lamb survival has this herd well on its way, and in fact two hunting permits a year have been taken for the past two years on this range. Within a couple of years, the number of annual permits should jump to 6 to 10.



It used to take from 10-15 years from an initial transplant to be ready to hunt. However, with a substantial increase in available cash, and transplant stock, the herds are up and “running” within 5-7 years now.



Helicopter capture costs will be close to $25,000, and they will be covered by annual conservation permit funds raised by FNAWS. All sheep are equipped with a radio collars, and BYU graduate students majoring in wildlife management will monitor the expansion and survival of these transplanted herds. Another $35,000 a year project funded by sportsmen. If any lion mortality is observed, lions are removed on the second strike, you’re out policy. So far, in 3 years, only one male lion killed bighorns, and it was removed.



Thanks to all the generous donors.



Thanks to all the volunteers who helped on a cold day.



Thanks to the DWR staff for getting it done, and thanks to Pathfinder Helicopter 



For any interested parties going tomorrow, the capture site is located just west of the State Park administrative offices on the NW side of the Island.



Several major newspaper and TV stations were on hand to cover the capture and transplant. 



FNAWS – putting and Keeping sheep on the Mountains.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Hat's off to you, Flint. That's an excellent article. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elk22hunter, I got the same e-mail. I was out there helping today. I didn't notice anyone from Eastman's there, I didn't notice any 'meat' hunters there, I didn't notice wyo2ut there. I DID notice SFW *volunteers* there, I noticed 'trophy' hunters there, I noticed several thousand dollars raised from these 'evil' tags being put to use. Strange isn't it? :? :roll:

All of you agreeing with these BS articles, do you think the animals "just happen"? Eastman's has issues with SFW, so I expect them to publish one-sided articles singling them out, to offer BOTH sides would mean they are not biased and they want the whole story to be told, since they DIDN'T, it should be easy enough to see they have their own agenda in mind, and guess what it is NOT any more 'honorable' that what SFW is doing and has DONE.

Today there was 20+ volunteers there, none of which are likely to EVER obtain a tag for one of these sheep. The money for this transplant came from where? All you naysayers, did you pony up any money to help fund this or other conservation projects that benefit ALL wildlife? That's what I thought! :roll:

Who is leading the fight against wolves? Who is funding the introduction of bison on the Book Cliffs? Who is leading the fight to get the rifle deer opening day law changed that will benefit ALL hunters? Who is responsible for MILLIONS of dollars spent on habitat restoration/improvement? Who is looking for ways to make the deer herds stronger and higher in numbers AND quality?

This whole topic ticks me off to no end. Why? Not because I see ANY validity to the *absurd* claims, but because apparently there are an awful lot of hunters who are CLUELESS on what it takes in TODAYS world, not 50 years ago, to manage wildlife AND hunters alike! :evil: I will not bother reading this thread started by who else again, feel free to slam me for being part of the 'demise' of hunting. I'll be busy freezing my butt off again tomorrow helping transplant more sheep! What a freakin joke. :x


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Awsome post pro! I think that was your best ever. I love it when someone speaks with passion! 

No excuse is a good one but I'm in the middle of a root canal today and tomorrow. Wish I could have been there. Transplants are fun!

Its nice to rub shoulders with guys who care and aren't just a lot of talk.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

> Today there was 20+ volunteers there, none of which are likely to EVER obtain a tag for one of these sheep.


Doesn't that kind of defeat your entire argument or at least strengthen the other side? I think that is the point that all the "nay-sayers" are trying to make. And it is a simple point. When there is no potential return on an investment, it might cause a loss of motivation. what's the point?

If these volunteers are not going to ever get to hunt these sheep, what's in it for them? Is it the revenue from the tags, and what it could do for their cause? Something like that doesn't help me sleep better at night. Lately things have followed a steady trend of, take, take, take, for the alleged greater good. Limited this, limited that. I know that lobbyists are currently gunning for one of my favorite hunting oppurtunities. I don't need that.

At this point in my life, I'm for oppurtunity.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

idiot with a bow said:


> > Today there was 20+ volunteers there, none of which are likely to EVER obtain a tag for one of these sheep.
> 
> 
> Doesn't that kind of defeat your entire argument or at least strengthen the other side? I think that is the point that all the "nay-sayers" are trying to make. And it is a simple point. When there is no potential return on an investment, it might cause a loss of motivation. what's the point?
> ...


At this time I would like to quote someone who has a wonderful perspective on this and even posted it earlier in this very thread.



elk22hunter said:


> Like I said before Some are near sighted. Look a bit further than our noses and we have a bright future for our *kids.* .


I'm sorry that you feel that way my "buddywithabow" but my time is over and it's time that I live for my kids.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

But i don't have kids....me me me me me


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I have read this post and the hole time I feel sick. I hate the inches or money management. Although, without these some of these groups I don't things like this sheep transplant would even be happening. 
I will likely never hunt a sheep in my life. The draw odds are against me to say the least. I'm sure some of the special interest groups will receive a tag for this and make some money. No not off the auction of the tag That will likely go to help with more projects. But the 200 dollars per plate to sit at the banquet, or the membership fee to be part of the group. Somehow that just seems wrong to me that they make a dollar off the animals that "do not belong to them" or anyone for that matter. Even if it is indirectly.



idiot with a bow said:


> If these volunteers are not going to ever get to hunt these sheep, what's in it for them?


I would also like to know this answer. I did not even know that they were doing this and that there was a possibility of volunteering or I may have been inclined to be there. I have looked and couldn't find it on the dwr site. (maybe I'm just www iliterate) Maybe they wanted to be able to say that they were there. Maybe they just care like me or others and are doing for the animals.

I guess my point is that these groups seem to do some good for our wildlife. There are some that are disliked but, they may be a necessary evil in order to get some things done that otherwise would never get funded.

I am definately an oppurtunity over trophy hunter any day. But I am one of the few who will put in time to find an animal of trophy quality, even on an open/general unit. As long as we as residents or non-residents are receiving more permits than these groups, are not having to pay small fortunes to get a tag and have semi decent access to hunting lands. I think we are on the winning end of them making a few bucks off our herds. But, it still sucks.



elk22hunter said:


> I'm sorry that you feel that way my "buddywithabow" but my time is over and it's time that I live for my kids.


I'm not quite to tha point but I do think the oney they spend will only help my kids future.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am definately an oppurtunity over trophy hunter any day. But I am one of the few who will put in time to find an animal of trophy quality, even on an open/general unit.


I like that post. I'm in that same camp truemule. One thing I should add is that I love my hunting situation in Utah. That is part of the reason that lobbyist motivated legislation worries me. I wouldn't care to have my current oppurtunities taken from me. It's happened before.

That is why the "I believe the children are our future" argument doesn't have a lot of legs with me. I am at a young age, and have not filled my hunting canteen yet. Elk22, you have, so it's kind of easy for you to say. No offense, but I'm right. Not to say that I am totally insensitive to the next generation. Even though I don't have children of my own, I have nieces and nephews that I try to get involved in the outdoor life. Plus, I am a pretty good guy and would like to leave things better then I found them. It seems to me, that we can increase current oppurtunity and hand it off to the youngsters in great condition.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> I'm sorry that you feel that way my "buddywithabow" but my time is over and it's time that I live for my kids.


these kinds of quotes kill me...they are so full of BS that I can smell the stink from my computer. How can you claim to be in it for your kids when all we are doing is taking more and more opportunity away and constantly making it more and more difficult to hunt?

IF you were truly in it for your kids, you would be doing one of two things: 1) managing an ever-increasing savings account that will help pay for the ever-increasing cost to buy your kids tags in the future because we all know that hunting is becoming a rich man's sport or 2) fighting to maintain high levels of cheap opportunity.

I love it when Veile says, "Advocates point out that one deer tag sold for $150,000 is worth it. But thousands of hunters must give up their hunts to produce an experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase. Additionally, the misconception is it's 'just one tag'. In Utah, it has grown in one form or another to hundreds. When game agencies eliminate hunting for thousands, they in turn must increase public tag and licenses cost. Utah has more conservation tags than all other states combined, as well as the highest resident tag prices coupled with depressing drawing odds. Sadly, other states seem poised to follow."

If these sportsmen were truly interested in the future of their sport, why don't they find alternative ways of raising money instead of eliminating thousands of tags so a few rich guys can kill an animal?

Sure, some of these special interest groups do some good things that benefit wildlife...but at what cost? Again, why do these groups have to have tags to auction off to get the funds to benefit wildlife?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

A few comments, Elk22 and Pro I respect both of you alot and know I would enjoy a day of fishing or a campfire with either of you but to make the point that, "only SFW, trophie hunter.....volunteers were at the transplant" and make them out to be the only group that cares about hunting is pretty weak.

If you didn't noticed the only people to go picket and protest George Bush when he came to Salt Lake were the Rockie Anderson Cronies. The rest of us were at work and taking care of business.

Not to pool either of you in with Rocky but the point I'm trying to make is the minority seems to always be the loadest and has freed up the most time on their hands. Alot of us would love to spend six hours a day on five diffrent wildlife forums, scout animals every evening, go to every SFW, UBA, TLC....meeting and every wildlife project but other very noble and equaly important things demand our time. It doesn't mean I care any less than you do.

Pro, choose any one of the ISSUES brought up in flints article and explain to me why it is *ABSURD*.

Making everyone feel like we need to continue to limit hunting opportunity to allow more animals to reach trophy size and bring in big $$$ tags and appease the big $$$ hunting industrie is the only way for it to survive is *ABSURD*.

I'm a *trophy hunter * who wants more opportunity (general season) on public land.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sounds like we have a bunch of "naysayers" on this forum. SFW raises millions of dollars to help habitat projects, animal transplants, fighting for hunters rights, wolf issues, etc and everyone of you slap them in the face because you are sooo blinded an uneducated.



> IF you were truly in it for your kids, you would be doing one of two things: 1) managing an ever-increasing savings account that will help pay for the ever-increasing cost to buy your kids tags in the future because we all know that hunting is becoming a rich man's sport or 2) fighting to maintain high levels of cheap opportunity.


Rich folks are keeping the cost of tags down because of the money they pay for these tags. Where else is the money going to come from? Maybe out of Wyo2ut's behind. If the rich guys doesnt pay the money then either the DWR will have to raise the price of tags to fund such projects or the DWR would simply not do them because of lack of funding. The DWR benefits greatly from the efforts of the SFW. The Henry mtns is a prime example of conservation dollars at work. The sheep transplanting projects and the bison transplanting projects. These projects will benefit hunters and the future of hunting.

SFW bought a bunch of land on Tabby Mtn which benefits hunters. They have drilled many water resources for wildlife. Install countless guzzlers, but yet people hate this organization??? Are they blinded or mislead or are they just completely stupid?

*So without SFW then many of these projects wouldn't get done because the DWR lacks the funding*


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

"Advocates point out that *one deer tag *sold for *$150,000 *is worth it. But *THOUSANDS OF HUNTERS* must give up their hunts to produce an *[ONE]* experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase".

WY2UT, that quote does say it all. And lets not limit it to the "$150,000 tag" but how many hundreds of hunters must give up their hunts for every *1* LE tag holder.

Are we wanting to preserve hunting opportunities for our children or OIL 400 class bulls and OIL 200 class deer.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Advocates point out that one deer tag sold for $150,000 is worth it. But THOUSANDS OF HUNTERS must give up their hunts to produce an [ONE] experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase".
> 
> WY2UT, that quote does say it all. And lets not limit it to the "$150,000 tag" but how many hundreds of hunters must give up their hunts for every 1 LE tag holder.
> 
> Are we wanting to preserve hunting opportunities for our children or OIL 400 class bulls and OIL 200 class deer


Only one person can get that tag or draw that tag. If they pull that 1 tag and selling for $150,000 to improve habitat. Its not going to affect you or the odds of drawing the remaining tags. One animal gets killed and someone pays $150,000 to harvest him and yet because that 1 animal is harvested then it benefits the whole herd.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> The Henry mtns is a prime example of conservation dollars at work.


I can see aspects of both sides here, but I think the Henry Mountains are a prime example of what's wrong with the system.

My deer hunting teeth were cut on Mt. Ellen, and most of my childhood deer hunting took place there. That country is the epitome of deer hunting to me, and harbors countless treasured memories. There is not a single year that goes by that I don't wish I could hunt the Henry Mountains, and it's not because the unit is probably the best trophy mule deer producer in the world right now. Rather, it is because the place itself is important to me.

Instead, it's now one of those spots where very small numbers of people can ever hunt deer in their entire lives, and where the rich gladly pay huge sums to aquire tags. This is what is meant by the "cost" of managing for low pressure, extreme trophy units. Yes, funds reach the DWR because it's the top notch buck producer -- but managing the area for nice deer instead of world-class B&C tropies would result in the PUBLIC occasionally being able to hunt there. That's the whole problem.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*"DWR benefits greatly from the efforts of the SFW. The Henry mtns is a prime example of conservation dollars at work. The sheep transplanting projects and the bison transplanting projects. These projects will benefit hunters and the future of hunting."*

But at what cost Coyote, a whole mountain range has been closed off so only a couple hundred people will be able to hunt it in the next 25 years.

Tell me who I should address the letter to to thank for that!

It is short sided for any of us to think that we as hunters don't need to do more and be creative in finding ways to rais money but it is even more short sided for those of you to think that the current direction is the only way.

I think some of you think if you chum around with enough "highups" in these hunting groups somehow it will preserve your future opportunities but face it, opportunities are slipping away for even you. But then again some of you don't care as long as you get your chance at the 400 bull.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Advocates point out that one deer tag sold for $150,000 is worth it. But THOUSANDS OF HUNTERS must give up their hunts to produce an [ONE] experience that a $150,000 deer tag bidder will purchase".
> 
> WY2UT, that quote does say it all. And lets not limit it to the "$150,000 tag" but how many hundreds of hunters must give up their hunts for every 1 LE tag holder.
> 
> ...


Coyote, I just realized why this is such a battle to help some of you understand the "opportunity concept", you completley missed the whole issue. *IT IS NOT JUST ONE TAG*! It took thousands of tags to produce that *ONE TAG*


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Only one person can get that tag or draw that tag. If they pull that 1 tag and selling for $150,000 to improve habitat. Its not going to affect you or the odds of drawing the remaining tags. One animal gets killed and someone pays $150,000 to harvest him and yet because that 1 animal is harvested then it benefits the whole herd.


One Tag would probably not make a difference. My question is because I truly don't know. How many tags besides the goveners tag are raffled or auctioned at special interest group events?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Coyote, I just realized why this is such a battle to help some of you understand the "opportunity concept", you completley missed the whole issue. *IT IS NOT JUST ONE TAG*! It took thousands of tags to produce that *ONE TAG*


When you put it like that one tag makes a huge difference.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

How much money would the DWR need to raise the price of tags to raise like 6 million dollars without SFW?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> How much money would the DWR need to raise the price of tags to raise like 6 million dollars without SFW?


Another question cause I don't know. How much does SFW raise and give to Utah alone on an average year? Also, how much of that comes from tag raffles or auctions assuming that any comes from such events?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Coyote I'm not going to pretend to know things that I don't but being a very fiscally conservative person I don't beleive that some of the bright minds of our state department and thousands of everyday hunters could not come up with a way to fund our wildlife management. 

Do remember if you dismantled particularly some deer and elk limited areas how many thousands more general season tags could be sold to the public? How many millions of dollars might that account for? I'm not going to pretend to know numbers and speculate I'm, just not buying in on the whole SFW or any other special interest group has saved the hunters way of life and preserved hunting for our children and with out them hunting would hang by a thread, garbage.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Coyote, I just realized why this is such a battle to help some of you understand the "opportunity concept", you completley missed the whole issue. *IT IS NOT JUST ONE TAG*! It took thousands of tags to produce that *ONE TAG*


+1

The Henry Mts are again the classic example because the range is very rugged with few roads. This is the perfect recipe to support relatively high numbers of hunters AND trophy class deer. Areas close to roads and access points get a fair amount of pressure, but just like any such area, few are willing to distance themselves over 2 miles from the roads. When I was growing up, thousands of hunters had the chance to hunt in the Henries. There were still huge bucks there, the only difference was you had to HUNT them! Getting one was HARD WORK, requiring such activities as HIKING. Now it's a turkey shoot for the few & the proud. The last time I visited Mt. Ellen, I glassed around 250 4-point or better bucks from or near the Bull Creek Pass road in a 3-day period. Getting a world-class buck should require, simply put, a world-class effort. One without the other produces a meaningless trophy, at the expense of tremendous opportunity.

If anyone doubts this, look at a place like City Creek Canyon. Here is a place with record book buck mule deer, within an hour's drive for most of Utah's population. It is general season. Drive up the canyon on the rifle opener and you will see hunters everywhere, out enjoying themselves. Few will harvest trophy bucks. Ahh, but if you hike 5-7 miles into the back country you won't see hunters anymore, and you will see big mule deer. The opportunity is right there for people that put in the effort to take it.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Truemule - The number is about 550.

This is a topic which will draw people to opposite ends with little compromise in the middle.

My opinion is simple. The habitat projects being done are very beneficial. The tags generating some of the monies are very controversial. One fact is certain, to generate the monies from the tag sales (or give-aways in some cases) the quality must be such to warrant a high dollar price. To maintain high quality, tag numbers are kept artificially low (compared to the opportunity the units could produce). By limiting the tag numbers, opportunity to hunt is cut drastically. It isn't fully about the loss of 300 or so big game permits to auction, but the thousands of tags lost every year due to keeping tag number artificially low.

It is no secret that most all of Utah's limited entry elk herds are over objective. Why? Because the groups have lobbied to keep tag numbers low, which makes their permits worth more. Biologists say we could double permit numbers on most units for 5 years..... Why? Because the groups have successfully lobbied low permits for so long there has been a surplus of bulls created, which, ironically, is starting to HURT herds more than help them. If auction tags are the answer, why don't we auction off all the tags, to anyone in the world who wants to bid? 

As for the Sheep transplant, the PUBLIC as a whole is not invited to paticipate. The DWR (nor the organizers) does not want hundreds of volunteers out there "helping". They want a few people to help and the rest of the public is asked to stay almost 1/4 mile away from the real action. It isn't fair to say people aren't involved when they aren't even invited to the party. (I was invited, but couldn't get away)


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Do remember if you dismantled particularly some deer and elk limited areas how many thousands more general season tags could be sold to the public? How many millions of dollars might that account for? I'm not going to pretend to know numbers and speculate I'm, just not buying in on the whole SFW or any other special interest group has saved the hunters way of life and preserved hunting for our children and with out them hunting would hang by a thread, garbage


If you opened up the Pahvant or the henry Mtns to the General public then you would slaughter the elk and deer herds. Could you imagine the number of hunters who would flock to that area and in just one year the unit would be destroyed. Is that what you want? 10,000 we have plenty of land of general season already. You are greedy and you want more.


----------



## hikein (Sep 19, 2007)

Of course some won't read this because of all the absurdities from the clueless, but the fact that the majority on this thread agree with huntings demise due to trophy, boone and crock, to the highest bidder sale of our game animals gives validity to the subject. People, and their ideas give validity to things. It is how things are validated. What is absurd is to think that your world is the same as everybody else's. If you spend time around guides and moneyed hunters, then that become *your* framework and mindset. Same as lawyer are friends with lawyers and think and talk lawyer.

Today's world and volunteers. We all volunteer. Everybody. All of us! To high horse your own efforts to belittle others and attempt to invalidate is, well, you know what it is. Next thread: How you VOLUNTEER! make MOM proud! Some just need to think they are doing more than anyone else. I respect all views but source is important; todays world of game management can't exist without conservation groups and big money? Maybe we've taken on the views of the people we play with. Me, and the people I associate with, my friends don't believe it for a moment. Our license fees put tires on the DWR trucks, pay salarys, fund projects and improvements. Groups suppliment these funds but also grow big, powerful and eventually become as bureaucratic as the agency they try to emulate. People get involved and start groups or join groups for many reason; personal agenda, make money, because they can and because they want to help. You old saying about fooling the fan but not the players is what this thread is about. Some of us see a serious problem on the horizon and trophy fixation, team hunting, and hunt to the highest bidder are the threat.

By the way it's not suppose to be that cold tommorrow.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Do remember if you dismantled particularly some deer and elk limited areas how many thousands more general season tags could be sold to the public? How many millions of dollars might that account for? I'm not going to pretend to know numbers and speculate I'm, just not buying in on the whole SFW or any other special interest group has saved the hunters way of life and preserved hunting for our children and with out them hunting would hang by a thread, garbage
> 
> 
> If you opened up the Pahvant or the henry Mtns to the General public then you would slaughter the elk and deer herds. Could you imagine the number of hunters who would flock to that area and in just one year the unit would be destroyed. Is that what you want? 10,000 we have plenty of land of general season already. You are greedy and you want more.


COme on dude, that isn't what he said at all. I believe he meant if you would have left it general season in the first place then it would have been just fine the way it was. Of course if you opened it up now every one would go. Don't go putting words into his mouth. I have never hunted LE hunts, I enjoy my general season hunts, all I care about is that our kids have the same chances as we have to hunt in the future.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Do remember if you dismantled particularly some deer and elk limited areas


dudette, that is what he was talking about. A little while ago 10,000 wanted the Wasatch unit to be over the counter which would cause tons of stress on the DWR.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> If you opened up the Pahvant or the henry Mtns to the General public then you would slaughter the elk and deer herds. Could you imagine the number of hunters who would flock to that area and in just one year the unit would be destroyed. Is that what you want? 10,000 we have plenty of land of general season already. You are greedy and you want more.


No one is suggesting an extreme action like the one you just mentioned. It would be foolish to simply open up a deer population unaccustomed to any signficant hunting pressure for a general season.

What is being said is that a unit like the Henry Mountains could easily support many, many times the numbers of tags currently available. There would still be world class deer there with 10 times the number of tags (phased in over time), the only difference is they wouldn't lounge around 200 yards from the main road if they got hunted and were afraid of human beings. The range is largely roadless and very rugged. It's public land. All we are saying is managing for extreme trophies and a few high dollar tags eliminates tremendous opportunity. The fact is, the extremely rich don't pay $150,000 to hunt City Creek Canyon. There are huge deer there, but it requires an exhaustive physical effort to hunt it. Tags that bring in big dollars are those where the buyer can go, see large numbers of trophy deer with few if any other hunters and light to moderate physical activity.

In short, being able to auction 1 tag for $150,000 means that you need a couple hundred nice bucks to go unhunted so that a few with the best genetics can survive and the rest can be eye candy as the lucky few look over 50 mature bucks per day ruminating over which of them will score the highest.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Do remember if you dismantled particularly some deer and elk limited areas
> 
> 
> dudette, that is what he was talking about. A little while ago 10,000 wanted the Wasatch unit to be over the counter which would cause tons of stress on the DWR.


you have some sort of complex don't you?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> No one is suggesting an extreme action like the one you just mentioned. It would be foolish to simply open up a deer population unaccustomed to any signficant hunting pressure for a general season.


10,000 has been applying this on other threads. He wants more general season opportunity which is fine, but we shouldnt destroy units to get it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> you have some sort of complex don't you?


and you don't?


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > you have some sort of complex don't you?
> 
> 
> and you don't?


I might, but I also don't go talking tough to strangers on line, putting people down just to make myself sound better.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I


> might, but I also don't go talking tough to strangers on line, putting people down just to make myself sound better


haha that not what im doing, but thanks for the entertainment. Im laughing my guts out :lol: :lol:


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > No one is suggesting an extreme action like the one you just mentioned. It would be foolish to simply open up a deer population unaccustomed to any signficant hunting pressure for a general season.
> 
> 
> 10,000 has been applying this on other threads. He wants more general season opportunity which is fine, but we shouldnt destroy units to get it.


What is wrong with wanting more general season tags, and it wouldn't destroy units if you did it right. I promise you if this happened I would still hunt the same area I do now. I might go over to diamond mtn. more but I would for the most part stay where I am. I now I can get a nice buck or bull and I enjoy my self. Not everyone needs to validate there experiance with a trophy animal. If I saw one and I could get him heck yah I would take it down. I love hunting and I just want it to be around long after I can't hunt any more. I think there is a reason you pay lots of money to hunt and that is fine, I would just rather pay my over the counter fee and still enjoy hunting. And there is no reason to bag on that.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> What is wrong with wanting more general season tags, and it wouldn't destroy units if you did it right.


How would you do it right?


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I
> 
> 
> > might, but I also don't go talking tough to strangers on line, putting people down just to make myself sound better
> ...


you do it any time someone doesn't agree with you. you are right no matter what and you like to put people down that don't agree with you.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

you're right Bowhunter3 and Im wrong. Do you feel better now???


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

The problem with the tags is that the wildlife groups are addicted to the money that is rasied by these tags and they focus more on raising money then on improving opportunity. The fact that they force a person to attend a trade show to even apply for a tag is proof of this.

These wildlife groups are involved in reducing hunter opportunity instead of increasing hunter opportunity and are more and more answering to only the trophy crowd instead of representing hunters and hunting. And to be clear, the person who holds out for a trophy instead of shooting a small buck isn't the trophy hunter i'm talking about, it is the guy who looks down on the guy who shoots the small buck who these groups are pandering too.

It's a shift from supporting hunting to discourging hunting, instead of more deer these groups want bigger bucks, instead of supporting wildlife managers efforts they are replacing the wildlife managers and questioning every move they make. SFW's response to extending the southeastern deer unit to 10 days is a prime example of that. 

These groups do a lot of good with other peoples money and are so addicted to the money that they think money first.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > What is wrong with wanting more general season tags, and it wouldn't destroy units if you did it right.
> 
> 
> How would you do it right?


I don't know how to do it right, I wish I did. I don't get paid money to figure that stuff out. I know back in the day when my dad and grandpa hunted they went about any where they wanted and if they put some work in always got a good buck. The system was a lot better before big money ruined things. And you can say that about almost anything in this world not just hunting. But to answere you question I don't have a answere on how to make it right. Wish I did bud. But it does seem like there is less and less land for the general public to hunt on. ANd it is only going to get smaller


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> you're right Bowhunter3 and Im wrong. Do you feel better now???


Thats the problem with you. I am not saying I am right. NO one is really. The system is jacked up. I am sorry, but it is. This is public land that we are hunting on and to sell a tag for that kind of money limiting the amount of hunters on that land is not right. What they are doing is forcing more and more hunters that don't draw out into smaller areas that everyone knows about that is still general until there is so much activity that they make that region LE as well. At this rate everything will be based on a price tag and a lottery system.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> He wants more general season opportunity which is fine, but we shouldnt destroy units to get it.


I'm also not saying LE is bad or that it should be eliminated. There is a concept in the finance industry that is similar. When someone is a "fiduciary" they hold assets on behalf of another, and are required to make decisions that are in the best interest of the owner.

Management of public lands should be performed in such a way as to benefit the owners. Tag numbers should be balanced with quality at a reasonable point that produces sufficient opportunity for the public to benefit from the land. World class trophy units do not meet this burden, because by definition opportunity must be minimized in order to produce a very small number of extremely large animals.

Public lands should mean equal opportunity. No one should be able to bypass the tag lottery on a public unit! Everyone should have the same chance regardless of means! I liked the quote from Wyoming's governor in the Eastman article, "Hunting should involve not only the principal of fair chase, but also that of fair CHANCE." Special interest groups and the wealthy few should not receive any more consideration in tag allotments than you or I.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

threshershark said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > The Henry mtns is a prime example of conservation dollars at work.
> ...


*AMEN!*

I've only read this far into the post, so bear with my LACK of information in the possible horse sh*t, that has spewed forth from the mouths of others.

Conservation groups have done good things, but IMO it way too lop sided at the present time. The point being made about how many restrictions/opportunity loss that had to be put in place to maker a tag worth 150k, is spot on.

When I'm working, I represent the "rich guys" who buy these tags, and often times purchase these tags for them. So I see what the mentallity is that drives a lot of this. Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of hard working middle class folks that contribute and whole heartedly believe in these orgs. I believe, to a point. BUT, these guys don't work with the same mentallity as the rest of us commoners, 30k is nothing to spend on a tag/hunt, and it is nothing to pay for the GUARANTEE and convenience. It's not about conservation.

The bottom line for me is that I would rather be able to hunt less, mediocre animals every year, than great animals every 10-20 or longer and have it cost an arm and a leg. There is a chance, if we stay at the current pace, that we will have a state full of world class animals, that for the most part, none of us can hunt. This saddens me.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

threshershark said:


> I'm also not saying LE is bad or that it should be eliminated. There is a concept in the finance industry that is similar. When someone is a "fiduciary" they hold assets on behalf of another, and are required to make decisions that are in the best interest of the owner.
> 
> Management of public lands should be performed in such a way as to benefit the owners. Tag numbers should be balanced with quality at a reasonable point that produces sufficient opportunity for the public to benefit from the land. World class trophy units do not meet this burden, because by definition opportunity must be minimized in order to produce a very small number of extremely large animals.
> 
> Public lands should mean equal opportunity. No one should be able to bypass the tag lottery on a public unit! Everyone should have the same chance regardless of means! I liked the quote from Wyoming's governor in the Eastman article, "Hunting should involve not only the principal of fair chase, but also that of fair CHANCE." Special interest groups and the wealthy few should not receive any more consideration in tag allotments than you or I.


Good post...I agree 100%!


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

threshershark said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > He wants more general season opportunity which is fine, but we shouldnt destroy units to get it.
> ...


+1 very good post


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The bottom line for me is that I would rather be able to hunt less, mediocre animals every year, than great animals every 10-20 or longer and have it cost an arm and a leg. There is a chance, if we stay at the current pace, that we will have a state full of world class animals, that for the most part, none of us can hunt. This saddens me.


This thought saddens me as well...and, with a new deer management plan due in the next year, the SFW's and trophy hunters in the world will voice their opinions loudly to even further decrease our opportunity at the benefit of only a select few.


----------



## hikein (Sep 19, 2007)

It saddens me too. There's been talk of kids on these forum but if our kids don't go to med school, or become make it rich entreprenuers they'll see the real outcome of this system gone corrupt. Frankly, the scoring systems and record books out may be more to blame than anything. Maybe innocuous in their conception B&C, SCI are hunting us with trophy watch and such.

I remember a friend coming to a school dance in October, huge smile and very excited about the *four-point* he'd taken; want did it score? Who cares.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > The bottom line for me is that I would rather be able to hunt less, mediocre animals every year, than great animals every 10-20 or longer and have it cost an arm and a leg. There is a chance, if we stay at the current pace, that we will have a state full of world class animals, that for the most part, none of us can hunt. This saddens me.
> ...


This is true. Many of the RAC members feel the same as the SFW and next year is going to be a interesting year for deer hunters. SFW has more money and is more vocal then general joe public and I fear what will come becuase of it. I'm already alerting my friends and family to get prepared and voice thier opinions.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

The process has already started to happen. The general public will continually have less and less chances to hunt. Look how it was 10 - 20 -30 years ago. I am telling you my kids or there kids aren't going to have a chance to hunt unless they can fork out some serious dough. I would rather spend my hard earned money on my family doing family activities than trying to ger a world class bull or elk. I take my whole family on hunts. We go to the sport we camp at all summer and just have a good time. I wouldn't trade it for the world. And that includes spending tons of money for a world class animal.


----------



## SingleShot man (Dec 24, 2007)

Lots of really good points raised here,guys- Some well thought-out OPINIONS as well. I think Threshershark nailed it on the head bringing up 'fiduciary interest'.

Something we may be forgeting here though, is that this is not our Grandpa's or Dad's world.
Back in the day, some 40-30 years ago, most folks could drive 30 -60 minutes in any direction, find a hillside at dawn, and take their pick of any number of respectable bucks. I've got family albums dating from the 50's, 60's, and 70's with pictures of 'deer poles' sagging under the weight of half a dozen respectable-to-massive 4 points. Management wasn't an issue because, hell-they were everywhere. Everyone and their dog shot at these bucks with reckless abandon, and before long, they disappeared.
we also have the problem of the American West becoming a center for development and mass migration. Back between 1910 and 1935, migration trends focused around urban centers; the agriculture industry floundered, and people moved in search of work.
With fewer people in rural areas, deer thrived- feeding on abandoned orchards and wheat fields. Wildlife biologists attribute this exodus to the population explosion of deer and elk, and ultimately, their recovery. The good ol' days of deer hunting is directly attributed to a temporary increase in range because man went off in search of gainful employment, rather than hacking a living out of the fields.
This is no longer the case-
With the technological advancements in transportation and communications, it is no longer necessary for man to live within 10 miles of his employer. The average commute for Utahns is now 30 miles, each way. This has prompted the desire to 'get away from it all', to live away from the urban centers in a more relaxed atmosphere. Or, in a measure to show affluence, live in 'the highest/biggest house on the hill'.
Well, each house built on the hill pushes vital winter deer range further and further back- away from better browse. Sure, there are some huge bucks wintering on the benches, but they are unhuntable except with an extended archery tag and a sh*tload of patience for recreational hikers and anti-hunters.
Everyone wants a piece of the American dream, and with these technological leaps and bounds, and sub-prime mortgage rates, more people can afford it. Migration trends have shifted back to rural, or suburban trends. The more people you cram into the suburbs, the further the line has to be pushed back. But in an effort to keep what is THEIRS, to protect what they fought tooth and nail for, and won fair and square, well- lets put up a fence and raise h*ll when someone crosses it. Regardless of the public land BEHIND their property. People have 'bubbles', and no one likes a stranger stepping into their bubble. It's the world we live in.
So, as a consequence, in order to protect the resources and little winter range we have, and to promote opportunity (and lets be real here- give the local economy a shot in the arm), the State must manage its resources in a manner that balances things out.
we can't accommodate 30 bucks per 100 doe numbers anymore because the range available will not provide sufficient subsistence to support it. EXCEPT in some areas that remain rural, or downright wild. In order to promote these wild places, management costs a lot of money- not just monitoring these herds; but fighting encroachment of low-value forage (cheatgrass and junipers), Bullthistle and mustard, wildfires, drought, legal battles involving lobbyists and developers etc. This all costs money. The privilige to put crosshairs on a monster bull has to be paid for by SOMEBODY, and the Federal government doesn't consider it much of a priority, so we get a rather small stipend for management that just doesn't cut it. Honestly, do you think the average Dick and Jane would want their tax dollars going to maintaining roads and building schools, or keeping some monster buck healthy in the wild?
Personally, I drool over the chance to hunt the Henry Mtns or Paunsaugunt- just for the thrill of seeing such vast numbers of well managed ungulates. Whether I shoot one or not. But, a $280 LE tag is so far out of reach that I prefer not even dwell on the fact.
Every LE tag sold or auctioned off brings us closer to well balanced management everywhere. Someday, with forthright study and management, maybe we'll all have the OPPORTUNITY to shoot a TROPHY again- like the good ol' days. We have to be patient, quit b*tching about the guys (and girls) making the decisions, and fork over our $75 whether we like it or not. Let's concern ourselves with teaching our kids to be responsible and ethical and quit concerning ourselves about "B&C Gross". If you don't have kids- find a niece or nephew, or a Scout Troop, or the neighbor kid whom never sees his dad. Hunting is about fair chase, the One Match Fire, the ghost stories, the 4-wheelin', reading weather patterns, being prepared, and passing these skills down to those whom would otherwise never know these things.
So- I'm not real happy that it's become a matter of 'means', either. But somebody has got to fork over the money- if you've got it, fine. 'Cause I sure as h*ll don't. Maybe if I'd taken college more seriously, this would be a non-issue to me. How many of us kick ourselves for that?
Just keep looking to the future-
Back East, there are more deer (including nice bucks) than they know what to do with. This is a recent development. Back in the 50's, you could hike for days and not see a single deer track. Responsible management practices are what caused this. That, and the Exodus of the Almighty Dollar.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> No one is suggesting an extreme action like the one you just mentioned. It would be foolish to simply open up a deer population unaccustomed to any signficant hunting pressure for a general season.
> 
> *10,000 has been applying this on other threads. He wants more general season opportunity which is fine, but we shouldnt destroy units to get it.[/*quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

[quote="10000ft

Coyote you would like to make it sound like we have made the Henries into what they are, it is irreversable without wipeing out the population. That is a buch of crap! I'm no biologist but I think you could increase tags yearly on an exponential bases over a 5-10 year period until it would support general season preasure , as you could do with any LE unit. But no, you want to scare hunters with the "it would be a slaughter, we can't change it".

Imagine if the general season area you hunt in for elk or even deer had half as many hunters because they were hunting on some other LE unit that had be transitioned back into a general season unit. I can't imagine that though the one in a lifetime quality of the current LE hunts would not be in these areas anymore the overal yearly hunting opportunities on general season areas would increase.

Let the chips fall where they may and the BEST hunter win![/quote]

Amen!!! particulary given that the state is broke up in five regions and the total number of permits is restricted.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

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


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I'm in insurance and I'm convinced that if the general public knew how much trial lawyers were costing them personaly, with increased costs on insurance, medical and many other sercives and goods they would chase them down the streets with pitchforks (no ofense to any who are trial lawers :wink: ). The hardest part about this whole debate is the fact that your average hunter does not realize what opportunity has been taken at the cost of expanding much of the states huntable game to Limited Entry type hunts. I'm only 25, the current system is all I have ever known but I recognize the "*path*" we are on is not ever going to give any "*real*" opportunity back and is only slowly reaching out for more of the hunting pie.

Please don't tell me how many more dozen sheep any conservation group has helped or that 5 or 25 more tags will be availabe inpart because we closed off whole mountain ranges to thousands of hunters. I'm talking *real opportunity* for a lot of people.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote you would like to make it sound like we have made the Henries into what they are, it is irreversable without wipeing out the population. That is a buch of crap! I'm no biologist but I think you could increase tags yearly on an exponential bases over a 5-10 year period until it would support general season preasure , as you could do with any LE unit. But no, you want to scare hunters with the "it would be a slaughter, we can't change it".


Its true, you could add more tags, but if you made the Henry mtns general season 5 to 10 years down the road then the quality would be GREATLY reduced and it would be no different than any other part of the state. The buck to doe ratios will drop down and then people will complain their arent BIG mature muleys like before. How is this going to benefit the average joe who likes to trophy hunt?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Its true, you could add more tags, but if you made the Henry mtns general season 5 to 10 years down the road then the quality would be GREATLY reduced and it would be no different than any other part of the state.


Exactly coyote, you are starting to understand what I'm saying!



> The buck to doe ratios will drop down and then people will complain their arent BIG mature muleys like before.


First, the accusations that everyone complains "there arent BIG mature muleys" is I believe an exaggerated overstatement that conservation/special interest groups would have those who make decisions believe to support their agendas

Second who complains about the trophy class of an animal on a mountain range they will never be able to hunt on?



> How is this going to benefit the average joe who likes to trophy hunt?
> 
> 
> > He will now be able to go down to the Heneries many times and try going after the trophy class animals that will always exist no matter how many people can hunt that mountain.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Well I have an outside box concept for you guys. Instead of wasting all this time and energy championing for or against those conservation tags why can't everyone join together and support a different approach to fund wildlife management. * I know of several states where the DNR gets a sales tax percentage say 1/8% of every penny spent or they share it with other agencies, I don't know the exact numbers but I would be willing to bet the money generated would far exceed what SFW could ever generate with those tags.*

My state of Arkansas has that setup now, the State Parks, Tourism Commission, and the Fish and Game share a 1/8% of every penny sales tax, while it may not seem like a lot, over a year it adds up to a lot of money. After it was voted in our F&G started getting better equipment, more Officers, and most importantly they started buying more land to put in WMA. Down in our part of the world there's not public land around every corner so if you don't own, lease, or know someone your options for places to go are limited.
To my knowledge the only tag the AF&G let's be auctioned is 1 tag to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Yes, we have elk, but they do give a few tags out every year in a drawing.

Yeah I know that everyone will say that will never happen here, but it can with the right sales pitch and support to get it approved. It took a couple of years back home to get it thru, we had to get it on the general ballot and have it voted on by everyone. But with enough support it could go thru even in Utah.

*IMO most everyone enjoys watching wildlife, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, ATV riding or numerous other outdoor recreational activities so everyone shouldn't everyone help support it; not just burden the hunters and fisherman with paying for wildlife and habitat management.*


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Coyote you would like to make it sound like we have made the Henries into what they are, it is irreversable without wipeing out the population. That is a buch of crap! I'm no biologist but I think you could increase tags yearly on an exponential bases over a 5-10 year period until it would support general season preasure , as you could do with any LE unit. But no, you want to scare hunters with the "it would be a slaughter, we can't change it".
> 
> 
> Its true, you could add more tags, but if you made the Henry mtns general season 5 to 10 years down the road then the quality would be GREATLY reduced and it would be no different than any other part of the state. The buck to doe ratios will drop down and then people will complain their arent BIG mature muleys like before. How is this going to benefit the average joe who likes to trophy hunt?


What it would do is make you work a little harder for your *trophy* I am not saying you need to eliminate all of the LE hunts, but if you took away a lot of it then it would spread out the population and the general public wouldn't just hunt a few places. Overall it would benifet most of the hunters which is the general season hunters.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The trophy fixation has led to multiple problems that pose threats to hunting. Watch this 12 minute video:
http://www.real-hunters.com/bellar-trial-video.cfm

I think Teddy Roosevelt was prophetic in his statement: "The rich...who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions, these are the real enemies of game."


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

10,000 the reason we have big muleys on the henry Mtns is because we limit the number of hunters. Once you make it general season then you will slaughter bucks and yes big bucks can be found on every part of the state, but the quality that a lot of people want wont be there and how are you going to satisfy their needs?

The deer population on the henrys is 900 deer or so. Is there enough does to support a large number of hunters? NOPE their wont be enough buck fawns born every year to support the general season. Nebo has 17,000 deer and yet it doesnt have near the quality, but it has more deer. The henry deer herd would have to greatly be increased before it can handle the type of pressure you are looking for.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

> Its true, you could add more tags, but if you made the Henry mtns general season 5 to 10 years down the road then the quality would be GREATLY reduced and it would be no different than any other part of the state.


Boy that would suck for all those trophy hunters, but I can safely say that me and a lot of other hunters would trade those LE trophy areas to increase our chances to haverest average bucks/bulls without all the overcrowding and tag caps just so a few could have their "trophy hunts".

I don't believe that trophy hunts have any business being associated/conducted on or with any PUBLIC land, if a person so desperately needs the big one on the wall they should just go buy the hunt on PRIVATE land/game ranches. It fine if you manage to kill a trophy buck/bull on Public land but that land shouldn't be closed to most hunters just to grow the monsters for a few lucky souls.

Don't get me wrong I like to shoot the big ones too, but not at the expense of other hunters opportunity to hunt.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I don't believe that trophy hunts have any business being associated/conducted on or with any PUBLIC land, if a person so desperately needs the big one on the wall they should just go buy the hunt on PRIVATE land/game ranches. It fine if you manage to kill a trophy buck/bull on Public land but that land shouldn't be closed to most hunters just to grow the monsters for a few lucky souls.


This is why we have LE units so that people who want to shoot a trophy can shoot one and any average joe hunter can put in for these tags or you can hunt general season. Hunters dont want everything general season.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

> Hunters dont want everything general season.


I don't know about the validity of that statement, it seems we hear a lot of dissent with the whole LE system, maybe someone should take a poll of all hunters across the state and see if its true.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> 10,000 the reason we have big muleys on the henry Mtns is because we limit the number of hunters. Once you make it general season then you will slaughter bucks and yes big bucks can be found on every part of the state, but the quality that a lot of people want wont be there and how are you going to satisfy their needs?
> 
> The deer population on the henrys is 900 deer or so. Is there enough does to support a large number of hunters? NOPE their wont be enough buck fawns born every year to support the general season. Nebo has 17,000 deer and yet it doesnt have near the quality, but it has more deer. The henry deer herd would have to greatly be increased before it can handle the type of pressure you are looking for.


Wrong. The deer hunt on the Henrys would only be for buck deer and as such would not affect the number of deer on the unit in a negative manner. However, removing more bucks would make room for more does and thus increase the deer population. Also your mistake is assuming that the Henrys would be over-ran with people. You can still limit the number of hunters but it doesn't have to be as restrictive as it is now. Also, your statement about people wanting the type of quality that the Henrys provides is exactly what many of us are saying. The state shouldn't be providing that type of experiece at the price of all the other hunters. If you want the mountain to yourself, you should be purchasing the mountain not expecting the mountain to be closed down for you.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> *IMO most everyone enjoys watching wildlife, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, ATV riding or numerous other outdoor recreational activities so everyone shouldn't everyone help support it; not just burden the hunters and fisherman with paying for wildlife and habitat management.*


The problem with this is, if non-consumptive users start paying fees, then that gives them a say in managment of the resources. Hunters DO NOT want this to happen, especiall since many non-consumptive groups are also anti hunters. Catch 22.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> > Hunters dont want everything general season.
> 
> 
> I don't know about the validity of that statement, it seems we hear a lot of dissent with the whole LE system, maybe someone should take a poll of all hunters across the state and see if its true.


Dissent or not, I would dare speculate that the amount of acreage tied up in LE elk vs. general elk units, is NOT proportionate to the preferences of the general public.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Wrong. The deer hunt on the Henrys would only be for buck deer and as such would not affect the number of deer on the unit in a negative manner. However, removing more bucks would make room for more does and thus increase the deer population. Also your mistake is assuming that the Henrys would be over-ran with people. You can still limit the number of hunters but it doesn't have to be as restrictive as it is now. Also, your statement about people wanting the type of quality that the Henrys provides is exactly what many of are saying. The state shouldn't be providing that type of experiece at the price of all the other hunters. If you want the mountain to yourself you should be purchasing the mountain not expecting the mountain to be closed down for you.


No, its true that it a buck deer hunt, but what is causing the deer population to be 900 to 1,000 deer total on the Henrys. Are we killing does now? Is the area over-run with bucks? NOPE The henry mtns is pretty big and we only have 900 to 1,000 deer so how are you magically going to increase the deer population by killing more bucks? Can a population of 1,000 deer handle a lot of hunters. Will the recruitment be as high? Many General season units like the Nebo has more deer than the Henry mtns so it can handle for hunters because more fawns are born than on the Henry mtns.


> You can still limit the number of hunters but it doesn't have to be as restrictive as it is now


 If you limit the number of hunters then isnt that the same as a LE unit which "Limits hunters" :roll: :roll:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Catch 22.


You can't catch me, I'm too fast! 

Sounds to me like half of you guys are the same ones that want to drain Lake Powell.

Same thing. Many gain from it but some want it the way it was. Let me tell you, we have many more people needing power than we did in the old days and and many more down streamers that need water. Same holds true with hunting. It can't be managed the same as when there were less people or like in the states that hold less people but have the same habitat as us. Times change and so should we or we wont have a resourse any more!


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Sounds to me like half of you guys are the same ones that want to drain Lake Powell. :wink: :!: I love that place where did that come from. Are you lableing us as tree huggers. Don't think so. I think most of us just want to be treated equal to the highest bidder. Most of the population hunts the general season, so why shouldn't they have the most say, instead it is the almighty dollar.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Elk 22 whats with your signature? SO are you saying that someone who hunts and only gets a two point or a spike is less of a hunter than you even if you don't get one, you are more of a hunter because you passed on a smaller animal? I agree with most of the stuff you say on here, you seem to know a lot about this stuff, I am sure more than me, but the system now does not benifet the majority of the hunters you need to realize this.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Catch 22.
> ...


Good jab. I know your stance on this stuff 22, no one's trying to devalorize the things that SFW or other orgs have done, it's the fallout that is concerning to me.

I'm pretty sure most average hunters in Utah could give two hoots about a few sheep going to Stansbury island, of course sheep tags fetch a pretty penny come banquet time, so I get the picture.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> No, its true that it a buck deer hunt, but what is causing the deer population to be 900 to 1,000 deer total on the Henrys. Are we killing does now? Is the area over-run with bucks? NOPE The henry mtns is pretty big and we only have 900 to 1,000 deer so how are you magically going to increase the deer population by killing more bucks? Can a population of 1,000 deer handle a lot of hunters. Will the recruitment be as high?


Oh come on Coyote...I would hope you understand more about deer management than what you are demonstrating above. It is all really simple...the higher the buck/doe ratio the lower the reproductive potential a herd has. Why? Because the herd has fewer does to be bred. It is very realistic that the herd would actually benefit from having fewer bucks if those bucks are replaced by does. Look at the simple math: if the Henry Mountains had 1,000 deer and a buck/doe ratio of 45/100, the unit would have 310 bucks and 690 does. But, if the unit had a buck/doe ratio of 20/100 it would have 170 bucks and 830 does...which scenario provides the greatest reproductive potential?

The Henry's could certainly sustain much higher hunting pressure without destroying the herd. The amount of pressure the unit can sustain is correlated to the success rates of the hunters. In other words, the unit can handle as much pressure as will sustain enough bucks to breed all the does. Most literature/studies shows that a buck to doe ratio of 5/100 is sufficient...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> It can't be managed the same as when there were less people or like in the states that hold less people but have the same habitat as us. Times change and so should we or we wont have a resourse any more!


Sure times change and we can't manage things like we did in the good ol' days...that doesn't mean, however, that we should keep eliminating opportunity for the sake of appeasing the egos of a select few trophy hunters, that doesn't mean that we must sacrifice thousands of tags so that one rich guy can kill--not hunt--a trophy animal, that doesn't mean that we can only raise money to improve and manage wild game through auctioning tags...Times do change and so must we or future generation, including my own kids, will never have the opportunity to hunt!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> This is why we have LE units so that people who want to shoot a trophy can shoot one and any average joe hunter can put in for these tags or you can hunt general season. *Hunters dont want everything general season*.


I think those with financial ties to the hunting industry, rich playboys and overzelous horn hunters make up a smaller part of hunters in Utah than you might think coyote.

I think your average trophy hunters, family hunters, camping hunters, meat hunters....opportunists would by far be the majority. Do we currently put in for LE and OIL units? Yes. Do we wish we could hunt on these mountains? Yes.

Do we want *everything * general season? I'm sure most of us are not that extreme but lets think about this logicaly. OIL is just what it says, once in a liftime. LE tags are quickly becoming once maybe twice in a liftime (I'm convinced for new hunters many of these tags ar NIYL = never in your life). And then you have general season tags.

I'm 25, I in terms of hunting seasons my hunting pie has another 40 good pieces I hope. If *38* of those pieces will only ever be general season opportunities and *2* LE/OIL what do you think I'm going to lobby for? Expanding and improving GENERAL SEASON OPPORTUNITY!


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

> The Henry's could certainly sustain much higher hunting pressure without destroying the herd. The amount of pressure the unit can sustain is correlated to the success rates of the hunters. In other words, the unit can handle as much pressure as will sustain enough bucks to breed all the does. Most literature/studies shows that a buck to doe ratio of 5/100 is sufficient...


Wyo hits the nail on the head, I agree 100%. The Henry Mountains had trophy caliber mule deer back when Utah had 250,000 statewide deer tags. Why? It's a rugged, remote region with few roads. Many hunters stay near the roads, and success rates are low because bucks quickly learn to avoid the pressure. A road hunter could have spent 10 years there and never seen anything bigger than a 3 year old buck. Get into the remote backcountry, though, and there were big deer there. You had to actually hunt for them in those days, which is really the point.

If you have been there lately, the deer treat people essentially like cougars. In camo, I was able to approach deer to within about 100 yards even if I had been seen or smelled. The animals had a certain comfort zone, but didn't mind me ambling around at 150 yards much at all. Hunting them with anything but a bow is just a matter of picking the rack you like best and shooting straight, which is the result of the current low-pressure, gigantic trophy management strategy.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Oh come on Coyote...I would hope you understand more about deer management than what you are demonstrating above. It is all really simple...the higher the buck/doe ratio the lower the reproductive potential a herd has. Why? Because the herd has fewer does to be bred. It is very realistic that the herd would actually benefit from having fewer bucks if those bucks are replaced by does. Look at the simple math: if the Henry Mountains had 1,000 deer and a buck/doe ratio of 45/100, the unit would have 450 bucks and 550 does. But, if the unit had a buck/doe ratio of 20/100 it would have 200 bucks and 800 does...which scenario provides the greatest reproductive potential?
> 
> The Henry's could certainly sustain much higher hunting pressure without destroying the herd. The amount of pressure the unit can sustain is correlated to the success rates of the hunters. In other words, the unit can handle as much pressure as will sustain enough bucks to breed all the does. Most


Hahaha I thought you would agree with me here, but you are clueless. Wyo2ut the reason the buck to doe ratio looks high is because there is only 550 does to compare the buck population too. The buck population isnt the limiting factor. Now if we had 10,000 deer and 5,000 were bucks then you would have a bigger problem. The problem on the henrys isnt the buck population. A population of 1,000 deer can't provide enough hunters like the Monroe deer herd can which has approximately 7,000 deer.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Elk22,

When you say something on this thread I know it causes many to stop thinking about the response they are typing as they read and ponder a second. When you said..



> It can't be managed the same as when there were less people or like in the states that hold less people but have the same habitat as us. Times change and so should we or we wont have a resourse any more!


Do you really feel there is no other way than to continue limiting tags to the general public to atract high bidder tags and funding from special interest groups? I am the first to say I have a lot to educate my self on before I really get into a deep discusion on funding wildlife management but I, possibly ignorantly, refuse to believe there is only ONE way forward and it is that way or the highway.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > *IMO most everyone enjoys watching wildlife, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, ATV riding or numerous other outdoor recreational activities so everyone shouldn't everyone help support it; not just burden the hunters and fisherman with paying for wildlife and habitat management.*
> ...


Well it would be a concern but it hasn't happened down home yet, or in any of the other states that do it. I don't think that they would have any more say in the management of resources than they could exert now if they attended the RAC's and board meeting.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Oh come on Coyote...I would hope you understand more about deer management than what you are demonstrating above. It is all really simple...the higher the buck/doe ratio the lower the reproductive potential a herd has. Why? Because the herd has fewer does to be bred. It is very realistic that the herd would actually benefit from having fewer bucks if those bucks are replaced by does. Look at the simple math: if the Henry Mountains had 1,000 deer and a buck/doe ratio of 45/100, the unit would have 450 bucks and 550 does. But, if the unit had a buck/doe ratio of 20/100 it would have 200 bucks and 800 does...which scenario provides the greatest reproductive potential?
> >
> > The Henry's could certainly sustain much higher hunting pressure without destroying the herd. The amount of pressure the unit can sustain is correlated to the success rates of the hunters. In other words, the unit can handle as much pressure as will sustain enough bucks to breed all the does. Most
> 
> ...


Think through it a little bit... The limiting factor isn't the bucks but if the region is maxed out then you only have room for a buck or a doe. If you have 33 bucks to each 100 doe and you are only killing 20 bucks a year you don't have a healthy deer herd. Sure it is great hunting for those few that get to hunt but your deer herd will never get any larger unless you make room for the does and improve habitat. The trophy crowd thinks the Henry unit is a great success but in reality it isn't.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Think through it a little bit... The limiting factor isn't the bucks but if the region is maxed out then you only have room for a buck or a doe. If you have 33 bucks to each doe and you are only killing 20 bucks a year you don't have a healthy deer herd. Sure it is great hunting for those few that get to hunt but your deer herd will never get any larger unless you make room for the does and improve habitat. The trophy crowd thinks the Henry unit is a great success but in reality it isn't


.

If the population is max out then you improve the habitat especially when an area is big enough for more than 1,000 deer. You dont shoot bucks to create more room. There isnt 33 bucks to 1 doe on the henrys. Go back to math class. There is about 48/100 do basically 1 buck for every 2 does. The habitat is the limiting factor, not the buck population. If we have 15,000 deer total and 7,000 were bucks then your statement would be true, but not in the case of 1,000 on the size of the henry mtns.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Think through it a little bit... The limiting factor isn't the bucks but if the region is maxed out then you only have room for a buck or a doe. If you have 33 bucks to each doe and you are only killing 20 bucks a year you don't have a healthy deer herd. Sure it is great hunting for those few that get to hunt but your deer herd will never get any larger unless you make room for the does and improve habitat. The trophy crowd thinks the Henry unit is a great success but in reality it isn't
> 
> 
> .
> ...


Should have been 100 doe's not 1, Get a life.

No one ever said the habitat isn't the limiting factor we are saying it is, and when you have that limitation you are better off with a smaller buck population and a larger doe population. This is because once you get the habitat back you will have does to increase the deer herd size. The henrys will stay the way it is until you start managing it to produce the maximum number of deer instead of the largest scoring buck. The point is that the Trophy crowd would like to see more units managed as the henrys where as the opportunity crowd is about maximizing the deer herd and letting quality come as a result of sheer numbers of deer instead of greatly reduced hunting.

The discusion is about the trophy crowd wanting very limited hunters and huge bucks at the expense of the general public and if that is good for hunting. The henrys is an example of what hunting will be like if you follow the trophy crowds approach to wildlife management.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> This is because once you get the habitat back you will have does to increase the deer herd size. The henrys will stay the way it is until you start managing it to produce the maximum number of deer instead of the largest scoring buck. The point is that the Trophy crowd would like to see more units managed as the henrys where as the opportunity crowd is about maximizing the deer herd and letting quality come as a result of sheer numbers of deer instead of greatly reduced hunting.


The last I checked then SFW and the DWR have been doing a lot of habitat work on the Henry Mtns, The objective on the Henry mtns is 2,000 deer. The deer went from 550 deer and in 2005 there was 975 deer so in 2007 there could be close to 1200 deer. You will never have the kind of quality you want either if the objective is only 2000 deer.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

You want more general season areas than what we have right now and you blame everything on the trophy hunters and their high dollars, but what you should be discussing is what is going to happen when they micro-manage units in 2009 which will affect a lot more general season hunters. The number of general season tags will be cut and less people will get to hunt deer. Will archery hunters get to hunt statewide? Will DH get to pick their region and if they don't get the one they want then it what happens?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Well I have an outside box concept for you guys. Instead of wasting all this time and energy championing for or against those conservation tags why can't everyone join together and support a different approach to fund wildlife management.


Not so outside the box...the suggestion is brought up often. Assuming that the issue really is about funding wildlife, it's a good idea, (one of many), that only requires us to get up off our butts, roll up our sleeves and make it happen.



Treehugnhuntr said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with this is, if non-consumptive users start paying fees, then that gives them a say in managment of the resources. Hunters DO NOT want this to happen, especiall since many non-consumptive groups are also anti hunters. Catch 22.


Let's examine that statement. First, the fact is that the non-consumptive public already has a say, morally, legally and practically. We're talking about a public resource and this is America, after all. There are non-consumptive reps on every RAC and on the Wildlife Board. It isn't necessary to have a hunting license to make proposals or speak at the RACs. And there certainly isn't a single organization, politician or legislator who has ever drawn up short, thinking gosh, I haven't made a cash contribution to wildlife so I really should keep my mouth shut. We also need to look away from our own campfire for a minute to see that there are many non-consumptive organizations and agencies that already have a vested and active interest.

But you already knew all that, so let me go a step further. The suggestion that non-consumptive money is somehow unwanted or even a threat supports a political agenda that only those who make direct contributions should have any voice at all. So isn't it then fair to ask, are con tags about funding wildlife, or are they about who gets to dictate management policy?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> Elk 22 whats with your signature? SO are you saying that someone who hunts and only gets a two point or a spike is less of a hunter than you even if you don't get one, you are more of a hunter because you passed on a smaller animal? .


The bad thing about the forum is that you can't see my jest or know my personality. I don't get my nickers in to much of a twist when I read some of these posts. I have very seldom ever tried to upset someone or be too contraversial. I thought that my signature was funny. That's the bottom line. I have kids who play soccer and little league basketball. They give out participation trophies. I hate that. I told my 10 year old kid last year that I would give him 10 bucks if when they tried to give him his trophy at the end of the basketball season that he would say, "I don't want your trophy, you don't even keep score, so what's the trophy in that"? He said, "but I want the trophy". ha ha I just happened to think the same about spikes and two points. If they just get thrown in a pile in the back of the garage or barn then that's like "not keeping score". Sorry, If I hurt any feelings, but that's how I feel. I would just rather let him get big and have something worth saving.

I have kids that are in the same level of hunting as most of you on here. I realize that there are a few of us "old" geezers and then a bunch of young 20's. I have an oppinion and I pass it on. Take it or leave it. Were not going to change the world on this forum. If Don Peay thought that, he'd still be sitting here typing away and arguing with the lot of you. He instead got hundreds of sportsman together and put them on the capitol steps (where I attended and met him for the first time) I liked his enthusiasm and desire to help our sinking wildlife program. I joined forces with him and have been happy with 95% of the things that he pushes. That is the stage of hunting that I am in. If you don't like it, you can either sit on your butts punching computer keys or get your hundreds of believers and get up to the capitol steps. Just don't look for me.


----------



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

> I have kids that are in the same level of hunting as most of you on here. I realize that there are a few of us "old" geezers and then a bunch of young 20's.


You have kids in diapers and adult children in diapers you old fuddy-dud.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> bowhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Elk 22 whats with your signature? SO are you saying that someone who hunts and only gets a two point or a spike is less of a hunter than you even if you don't get one, you are more of a hunter because you passed on a smaller animal? .
> ...


Thats a pretty arogant statement thinking that you are such a better hunter than the rest of us that your kids are even better or equal to us. You have no clue how good of hunters we are if you have never met any of us. Thats like picking a fight with someone on line, telling them to meet you at the flag pole. And when they get there you run like a little girl because you saw the size of the man. Come on dude, I am not 20 or even in my 20's I have an opinion so I speak it. I am sure you are a great hunter and get trophy after trophy animanls. I too pass on a lot of smaller animals, but I don't think lesser of some one because he took one,and if I do get one, like I did last year with my 3 point I am very happy with it. I respect your opinion and agree with a lot of the stuff you say, just not on this subject.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> If the population is max out then you improve the habitat especially when an area is big enough for more than 1,000 deer. You dont shoot bucks to create more room. There isnt 33 bucks to 1 doe on the henrys. Go back to math class. There is about 48/100 do basically 1 buck for every 2 does. The habitat is the limiting factor, not the buck population. If we have 15,000 deer total and 7,000 were bucks then your statement would be true, but not in the case of 1,000 on the size of the henry mtns.


A couple things Coyote: 1) The Henry's population has grown, but growth has been slowed because the excess of bucks has decreased the number of does giving birth and hence the number of fawns recruited into the population 2) the buck/doe ratio is above objective; the objective is 35/100. Therefore, simply by way of objective the DWR should be giving out more tags and opportunity to hunt this unit 3) It doesn't matter how small or large the herd is...does represent the reproductive potential of a herd--if the number of does is smaller than what it should be, growth is slowed or limited 4) habitat is one of the limiting factors listed by the DWR (they list others as well)...the number of bucks is not limiting the herd size, true; however, it is limiting the amount of growth that could take place on a yearly basis and slowing the recovery of the unit 5) your argument about the Henry's unit is exactly opposite to what you argue with our elk units--right now our elk units have too many bulls just as the Henry's has too many bucks!


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Well I have an outside box concept for you guys. Instead of wasting all this time and energy championing for or against those conservation tags why can't everyone join together and support a different approach to fund wildlife management.
> ...


+10000


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr. Bowhunter 3,

I have one big question...........................Where in the crap did you come up with that last statement?

I have read my post over and over and cant come up with me meeting any big guys at the flag pole nor that my kids are as erogant as me................................All I said is that I am at a different stage in hunting..............One that chooses to hunt bigger animals and in all reality, a doe and a two point are the same to me. I don't get excited when I see one AT ALL. That's my stage!!!! I don't know how old you are and I don't think that has anything to do with what I said. My kids ar in their teens and young twenties. I have tried to get them to shoot two points on many occasions. I have never told them to be trophy hunters but the opposite has happened. My son was 18 when I kept telling him to shoot at a buck that I could see through my spotting scope and he thought it looked like a two point through his rifle scope. He was moving through the scrub oak and I finally convinced him that he was a little basket buck. Not big by any stretch of the imagination but a nice little basket buck that I thought to be a three point. He finally shot and when we claimed our animal on public ground, he was a two point. He's still mad at me. My other son had a two point and a spike on the bow hunt at 8 yards from his blind this year. He had never taken a deer with his bow and I couldn't get him to shoot it. When a 3x3 came in, he shot him. I tried to get these kids to shoot and "just get some animals under their belt" but they are the ones setting the standard not me. Thats why I mention diferent stages in hunting. I don't have any problem with others shooting little bucks. To each their own. This thread however is about trophy hunters causing a threat to hunting. That is Bull and I am defending my place. 
If I come accross as erogant then I am sorry. I didn't mean it that way. I am extremly good looking so sometimes people feel that I am erogant but you couldn't see me so now I'm baffeled. ha ha


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> > I have kids that are in the same level of hunting as most of you on here. I realize that there are a few of us "old" geezers and then a bunch of young 20's.
> 
> 
> You have kids in diapers and adult children in diapers you old fuddy-dud.


As Tex knows, I have 7 kids. 11 is my youngest but just barely out of diapers. They then range to 23. He is out of diapers but.................. I am just going back into them................Only at night though................I wear "pull ups". I can still control my bladder but is saves the 10 trips a night to the bathroom.......................It's strange, but I can hardly tell their wet.

When it says "from 20-30 pounds" on the box, they mean that!!! They wont hold any more!


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I have kids that are in the same level of hunting as most of you on here. I realize that there are a few of us "old" geezers and then a bunch of young 20's. I have an oppinion and I pass it on.

That is why I thought you were being arrogant, I may have took it the wrong way if so dont worry about it. You actually sound like a good dad, and sound a lot like I do when it comes to sports. I actually run the recreation programs out here in Vernal and your statement about the trophies is funny. They are useless, but the kids love them, I also hate that we don't keep score, we are to worried about hurting these kids feelings or something. As for hunting you sound like you are teaching your kids well. I only have 2 young daughters but my oldest who is only 5 loves the great outdoors and can't wait until she can go hunting, hopefully she stays into it. Now back to what this post is about. Sorry for the confusion


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> You want more general season areas than what we have right now and you blame everything on the trophy hunters and their high dollars, but what you should be discussing is what is going to happen when they micro-manage units in 2009 which will affect a lot more general season hunters. The number of general season tags will be cut and less people will get to hunt deer. Will archery hunters get to hunt statewide? Will DH get to pick their region and if they don't get the one they want then it what happens?


That is exactly what has me concerned and why i'm frustrated with the trophy crowd and the wildlife organizations. The last RAC meeting I went to the SFW rep was pushing hard to make that change in 2009, many of the RAC members are also pushing for the change and I don't think the average joe hunter even knows it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> but what you should be discussing is what is going to happen when they micro-manage units in 2009 which will affect a lot more general season hunters. The number of general season tags will be cut and less people will get to hunt deer. Will archery hunters get to hunt statewide?


Well, I am not concerned about this proposal cutting tags because the DWR's proposal specifically stated that the exact same amount of general season tags would be offered under their proposal--even if units are micromanaged. Also, the DWR specifically stated that their proposal would allow archery hunters to still hunt statewide.

What does concern me is this idea of SFW's that tries to make more LE areas within the state...this "fixation on trophies" will decrease statewide opportunity and generals season tags. This "trophy fixation" has already severly limited our elk hunting opportunity and now the "trophy" guys and special interest groups like SFW are trying to limit our deer hunting opportunity. Why? For the sake of more trophies and more dollars in their pockets...wrong, wrong, wrong!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Let's examine that statement. First, the fact is that the non-consumptive public already has a say, morally, legally and practically. We're talking about a public resource and this is America, after all. There are non-consumptive reps on every RAC and on the Wildlife Board. It isn't necessary to have a hunting license to make proposals or speak at the RACs. And there certainly isn't a single organization, politician or legislator who has ever drawn up short, thinking gosh, I haven't made a cash contribution to wildlife so I really should keep my mouth shut. We also need to look away from our own campfire for a minute to see that there are many non-consumptive organizations and agencies that already have a vested and active interest.
> 
> But you already knew all that, so let me go a step further. The suggestion that non-consumptive money is somehow unwanted or even a threat supports a political agenda that only those who make direct contributions should have any voice at all. So isn't it then fair to ask, are con tags about funding wildlife, or are they about who gets to dictate management policy?


This is the scary reality about non-consumptive wildlife users: " A 2001 survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service clearly showed that nonhunters are the majority of wildlife recreationists in Utah in terms of dollars spent. Wildlife recreationists in Utah spent the following amounts in 2001: Wildlife viewing: $555.7 million Fishing: $392.6 million Hunting: $292.1 million"

Not only do these people/organizations already have a voice, but they could/should potentially have a very strong voice. When it comes down to it, we as hunters/fishers often believe that we are the only ones contributing to the conservation and welfare of wildlife when, in fact, non-consumptive wildlife users contribute nearly as much as hunting and fishing combined.

Like treehugnhuntr said, though, the scariest idea is that organizations and people believe that they should receive special treatment or get special consideration or kickbacks because of their contributions. True sportsmen give without expecting something in return...sadly, I don't believe our sportsmen groups think this way.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Convention Tags = Divided Hunters

Quality vs. Quantity = Divided Hunters

SFW = Divided Hunters.

Don't get me wrong, I think the money generated from the convention tags is marvelous, and the quality of our elk and some of our deer herds are outstanding. And SFW, no doubt they do some great things with their monies they generate.

Then I read the reply by Prohunter. And I think he puts the real problem into perspective...

This guy and the other SFW and Trophy hunters that froze their butts off in an effort to relocate sheep are due my gratitude. Their efforts no doubt show their dedication to wildlife.

But, there is a reason they had the privledge to do what they were doing. There are a few hundred thousand hunters that did not participate in that sheep transplant (that's a lot of lazy hunters), there are also a good share, 85% I believe that do not belong to a hunting organization, and from what I gather, a good share that do not support "quality management".

My point? Without the support, taxes, political clout etc... of ALL hunters (even the uninvloved), there wouldn't even be sheep on that island, SFW wouldn't exist, quality would definitely turn to somthing much less, and your $150,000 tag auctions wouldn't cover but a few DWR employee's salaries.

So, before a few of you get too full of yourselves for your (greatly appreciated) accomplishments and dedication, remember that the only reason you are able to do what you do is because of a few hundred thousand lazy uninvolved hunters like myself that directly, and/or indirectly support your right to hunt. The fact is, you cannot do it without us - You're Welcome!

Although some of these controversial issues have huge payoffs, the division they cause within the hunting community will undoubtedly cost you and your children dearly in the long run.

John


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

JHas said:


> Convention Tags = Divided Hunters
> 
> Quality vs. Quantity = Divided Hunters
> 
> ...


Good post. I agree 100%


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

truemule said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > Convention Tags = Divided Hunters
> ...


I disagree with 95% of it. If hunters would stand up and get involved, SFW would not be NEEDED, nor would I. It takes work/money to get hunting turned around. Your WELCOME! Great habitat doesn't "just happen", not in todays world.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I disagree with 95% of it. If hunters would stand up and get involved, SFW would not be NEEDED, nor would I. It takes work/money to get hunting turned around. Your WELCOME! Great habitat doesn't "just happen", not in todays world.


I don't think he was trying to say SFW or you were not needed. In fact there is a line in there where he thanked you. I just think he was trying to say that it is not only through there funds/efforts that these things happen.

They do push and fund some great projects but, we as hunters "keep the lights on". If it were not for our money from licenses and such ,these oppurtunities for them to help us wouldn't even exist.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> truemule said:
> 
> 
> > JHas said:
> ...


SFW is a good organization that could be great if they would focus on all hunters instead of focusing on trophy management. When they first started I felt like they were was what was needed I fear they are so focused on the money and the trophy crowd that they have lost sight of the average joe hunter. 
Their stance on the the new management plan will tell volumes about what their future positions will be.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> truemule said:
> 
> 
> > JHas said:
> ...


You are truly in a league of your own.

What an ego...


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> [
> 
> SFW is a good organization that could be great if they would focus on all hunters instead of focusing on trophy management. When they first started I felt like they were was what was needed I fear they are so focused on the money and the trophy crowd that they have lost sight of the average joe hunter.
> Their stance on the the new management plan will tell volumes about what their future positions will be.


That is the best post so far from one of the "other guys". 

I realize that SFW is more about Quality than maybe the average Joe. Maybe if more average Joes got involved and didn't shun them then their voice could get heard also.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Part of the problem may be that SFW no longer needs "average joe" to support them.

Why should we the general hunting public take the good with the bad? Wouldn't it serve everyone better if we call BS on the things that we think are BS and lobby to change them?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Tree man,

That is the very problem though. There is a lot of complaining going on right here but that goes no where and is just a bunch of key pad punching. Get your voice heard. Spend time getting to know the big wigs of the very group that you are fighting. You might learn that they do care and they might learn that you do also.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I talked to Don 2 weeks ago, I go to RAC meetings and I do research these things outside of sitting on the forum. I know he and other care, that's not my point. My point is that policy has been created by a select few and often times it does not reflect the majority.

I do think that tag numbers are out of whack and that the people of Utah could have enjoyable hunts/recreation without the fanatical push for the biggest and the best.

Of course, fanatacism has been around since Utah's inception, So maybe it's just 2nd nature in here. :wink:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

There you go...........your doing much better than most. He actually is a very inteligent man and a nice guy also. Get involved with him, share your thoughts. He does hear the pleas of the honest hunters and guys willing to put forth effort.


----------

