# What does "hunting pressure" actually mean?"



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I'm gonna pose the question to the DWR people at the Cedar City Open House on the 10th, but I'd like to take some of your answers with me. 

On this forum and at various RAC and WB meetings, I've heard this phrase thrown around as an excuse and/or reason to cut tags, close areas, shorten seasons, change season dates, limit access, close roads, require online courses and certificates, and restructure season sequences, but I don't think it always means the same in each case nor to each person using it.

To some it may mean numbers of animals actually killed by hunters, while to others it may mean mere human or hunter presence, or something else. So when "hunting pressure" dictates that we do or change something regarding our sport, are we even talking about the same problem and/or solution? Is 200 archers traipsing around the woods and killing 30 bucks over a long 4 week season during the late summer considered too much hunting pressure, or is it 100 riflemen killing 35 bucks during a 10 day pre-rut season? Or is it something else?

Any takers?


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2011)

to me hunting pressure is this simple: if you set foot in the hills with a tag in your pocket and a weapon in your hands with the intent to kill if given the right opportunity.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

The many hunters I have spoken with in regards to "hunting pressure" was unanimous: Hunting pressure meant too many hunters in a given area. I'll let it go at that.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I think when most say "hunting pressure" they mean walking around the deer woods chasing them.

I'd be interested what answer you get....I spoke with Bill Bates, Justin Shannon and others at the meeting in Price and they made it clear that their opinion was that hunting pressure is a non-factor on mule deer health. Justin characterised deer as being a "steak" on legs and they know it. They are chased year round by predators, they dodge cars, they spook each other, heck I've seen them get spooked by their own shadow on a full moon. It's not like when the hunting seasons end they stopped being chased. Sure if you run them hard with a vehicle are during the late winter early spring you will stress them but they told me that hunting pressure is non factor. They said it does not disrupt breeding patterns, cause low birth weights, miscarriages, or stop them from feeding. They are too used to living with being chased.

If hunting pressure were an issue, even with an army of people, why did deer populations continue to grow in the 60's and 70's when there were 200,000 hunters in the field?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I think when most say "hunting pressure" they mean walking around the deer woods chasing them.
> 
> I'd be interested what answer you get....I spoke with Bill Bates, Justin Shannon and others at the meeting in Price and they made it clear that their opinion was that hunting pressure is a non-factor on mule deer health. Justin characterised deer as being a "steak" on legs and they know it. They are chased year round by predators, they dodge cars, they spook each other, heck I've seen them get spooked by their own shadow on a full moon. It's not like when the hunting seasons end they stopped being chased. Sure if you run them hard with a vehicle are during the late winter early spring you will stress them but they told me that hunting pressure is non factor. They said it does not disrupt breeding patterns, cause low birth weights, miscarriages, or stop them from feeding. They are too used to living with being chased.
> 
> If hunting pressure were an issue, even with an army of people, why did deer populations continue to grow in the 60's and 70's when there were 200,000 hunters in the field?


I've read this post 3 times and I'm still thinking WTF?


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > I think when most say "hunting pressure" they mean walking around the deer woods chasing them.
> ...


What do you mean? It seems clear to me "hunting pressure" has little to no impact on mule deer numbers. 
The last paragraph explains it best.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I've read this post 3 times and I'm still thinking WTF?


Ok I re-read my post....I was in a hurry when I wrote it, the kids were wanting me to take them out to get some ice cream, and some parts of it didn't make sense to be fair even though I think if you REALLY tried you probably could've got the gist of it.

One more time...I was told you CAN stress deer if you really harrass them. For example if you chase them with an ATV for a long distance or harrass them in the late winter/early spring when they are most vulnerable.

But during the traditional hunting seasons they have been preparing for winter and in their strongest state when we hunt them. Add to that they are very accustomed to being chased all year long anyway by other predators. Let's not forget there are people in the deer woods almost all year as well. The mentality of a deer is essentially that they know they are sought after by many predators so being chased, or pressured, doesn't effect them too much because it's a part of daily life for a deer. Pressure and running away from danger are normal issues for a deer.

I've heard some folks say that hunting pressure causes disruption to feeding, breeding, can cause low birth weights of fawns due to the doe being in poor condition from hunting stress, and even miscarriages. I asked specifically about these situations and the above was the answer I got.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > I think when most say "hunting pressure" they mean walking around the deer woods chasing them.
> ...


Reads perfectly clear to me! Hard to argue with the logic. Particularly the example in the end.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Ok, let me put my spin on this subject. Talking to a biologist on the Monroe this year I was informed that due to the increased and multiple seasons on elk the “Hunting pressure” has driven the elk off the mountain a month and a half earlier than in traditional passed years, thereby putting stress on winter range forage a month and a half earlier. This has compromised winter forage plants, moved both elk and deer into the agricultural areas earlier and causing a huge decline in both deer and elk population over the past three years. Deer and elk come into conflict with human interested, leading to destruction by vehicular deaths, depredation actions and starvation. Deer being impacted the most with elk a close second.
Big


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

+1 Goofy!!!!

Thankfully not all sportsmen or biologist think the same!


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> I think when most say "hunting pressure" they mean walking around the deer woods chasing them.
> 
> I'd be interested what answer you get....I spoke with Bill Bates, Justin Shannon and others at the meeting in Price and they made it clear that their opinion was that hunting pressure is a non-factor on mule deer health. Justin characterised deer as being a "steak" on legs and they know it. They are chased year round by predators, they dodge cars, they spook each other, heck I've seen them get spooked by their own shadow on a full moon. It's not like when the hunting seasons end they stopped being chased. Sure if you run them hard with a vehicle are during the late winter early spring you will stress them but they told me that hunting pressure is non factor. They said it does not disrupt breeding patterns, cause low birth weights, miscarriages, or stop them from feeding. They are too used to living with being chased.
> 
> If hunting pressure were an issue, even with an army of people, why did deer populations continue to grow in the 60's and 70's when there were 200,000 hunters in the field?


i tend to disagree with there statemant.during the so called shed season i have seen irresponsible shed hunters(not all)herass the crap out of wildgame.causing stress(miscarriage possibly) effecting their feeding habits by pushing the animals up higher.on the other hand i hunt a few areas that have a high pressure problem. and i still have been able to kill a good buck or a descent bull.more times than not.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> If hunting pressure were an issue, even with an army of people, why did deer populations continue to grow in the 60's and 70's when there were 200,000 hunters in the field?


OK, Here is why this is COMPLETELY NUT's......

First off, in the 60's & 70's the MAJORITY of these 200K hunters were hunting
1 week in October! Didn't even scout! I MEAN REALLY......

As for "hunting pressure",,This equates to how many hunters are in the field...
And it can range from heavy to light depending on the quantity of permits issued.

NOW, here is what is happening today that was not taking place years back..

1) Late season hunting, elk hunts running clear through the end of January..

2) Shed hunting, becoming ever so popular,,,,It's going hard right now and
will continue clear into summer.....

3) Split season cougar hunting, Opens Monday morning (march 7th),, 500+
houndsmen will be hitting the hills HARD,,Turning dogs loose every were..
And guess were the cats are hanging right now,,Wintering deer and elk areas.

4) Round 2 of houndsmen,,,Bear hunt opens on April 9th, runs though June 5th
in some areas.....I have a little experience in this "hound" thing, And I'll be the
first to omit,,,,,,,CHIT happens sometimes with deer and elk, It just does, I don't
care how good some one tells you there dogs are...........

5) And now we have turkey hunting,,,,,,STATE WIDE to boot now, 10K MORE
hunters in the field the ENTIRE month of May!!!!!

And deer DO NOT HANDLE stress very well at all, in fact they may be the worst.
Transplants that have been tried with deer have proven time and time again
deer cant handle stress............PERIOD.

To say hunting bucks only dose not affect our deer herds is one thing,,,BUT,
To say "hunting pressure" , with the year round activities these days, DOSE NOT
effect our deer herds is flat out reckless,,,,,,IMHO.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> [
> First off, in the 60's & 70's the MAJORITY of these 200K hunters were hunting
> 1 week in October! Didn't even scout! I MEAN REALLY......


Oh, come on Goofy...you can't simplify it that much. Back in the 60s and 70s weren't deer hunters allowed to shoot more than one buck? Weren't deer hunters allowed to hunt all three seasons? Weren't bow hunters allowed to harvest does? Weren't muzzy hunters hunting during the rut?

I would agree that people are spending more time in the woods looking for trophy animals and their sheds, but I don't think that has increased the "pressure" on animals. Like someone else already said, deer are prey animals...they are being chased and wary of being chased every day of every year from the moment they are born. I don't buy into the idea that hunting pressure is somehow harming the health of deer by putting extra stress on them...that's ridiculous.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

bigbr said:


> Ok, let me put my spin on this subject. Talking to a biologist on the Monroe this year I was informed that due to the increased and multiple seasons on elk the "Hunting pressure" has driven the elk off the mountain a month and a half earlier than in traditional passed years, thereby putting stress on winter range forage a month and a half earlier. This has compromised winter forage plants, moved both elk and deer into the agricultural areas earlier and causing a huge decline in both deer and elk population over the past three years. Deer and elk come into conflict with human interested, leading to destruction by vehicular deaths, depredation actions and starvation. Deer being impacted the most with elk a close second.
> Big


Funny the Biologist never mentioned the cougar study conducted on Monroe. And how several yrs of little to no cougar harvest resulted in a large population of big mature cats. That decimated the deer herd to the point they would starve or start preying on elk. Simply to find out if cougar would or could switch to elk as their primary prey. Go ask land owners on the bottom of the unit and ask them their take. Can they substantiate the claims that deer and elk have been showing up on their land early. I will save you some time and answer nope.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Hunting is when I get to my favorite mountain to shoot a deer.

Hunting pressure is when I get to my favorite mountain to shoot a deer, and someone else is parked in "my" spot.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Funny the Biologist never mentioned the cougar study conducted on Monroe. And how several yrs of little to no cougar harvest resulted in a large population of big mature cats. That decimated the deer herd to the point they would starve or start preying on elk.


Here we go again...spouting off things that are not based on fact. Here are the facts:
Utah State University started monitoring the lion population on Monroe Mountain in 1996. At that time, USU estimated--granted such estimates are difficult and definitely not exact--around 40-45 lions living on the unit. In 1997, the DWR increased the number of lion tags on the unit for several consecutive years. During this time frame, the lion population--as estimated by USU--declined to an estimated low of about 15 adults in 2002. After this, the DWR reduced the number of lion permits from a high of 40 to 5 permits. After this decrease in lion permits starting in 2002, the cougar population increased back up to the original levels of about 40 adults. Then, in 2008, permits were doubled from 5 to 10 in the hopes of managing cougars at some kind of intermediate level.

Interestingly, at the same time lion numbers decreased--2002--and the same time the lion population was its lowest in 10 years, the deer population dropped dramatically! And, as the lion population increased, so did the mule deer...blaming deer population numbers on lions just doesn't make sense! Newsflash, Mr. Bear, when the Monroe Mountain lion study began, lions had been hunted to a point where a very limited number even existed or used the range as a home. At that time, the deer population did NOT rebound and deer numbers were bottoming out! IF lions were limiting the deer herd, the deer population would have rebounded at that time, but it didn't! These FACTS go against everything you continually spout off about.

But, you need your scapegoat...so, the predators are to blame, right?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I would bet my last dollar all this extra stress is part of out fawn recruitment problem!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

hazmat said:


> i tend to disagree with there statemant.during the so called shed season i have seen irresponsible shed hunters(not all)herass the crap out of wildgame.causing stress(miscarriage possibly) effecting their feeding habits by pushing the animals up higher.on the other hand i hunt a few areas that have a high pressure problem. and i still have been able to kill a good buck or a descent bull.more times than not.


My first post wasn't super clear. The biologists did say that deer are vulnerable during the late winter/early spring. My post was regarding the the time of year that we hunt them which is not of course during the shed season. We are talking about August through November.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I would bet my last dollar all this extra stress is part of out fawn recruitment problem!


Honest feedback....I mean it in a constructive manner. But it's getting difficult to take you seriously on biology matters. Many of you guys fail to really articulate your points in a way the comes across as anything but just being plain stubborn and refusing to believe anything other than what you wish to believe, logic be damned.

Please.....why would hunting pressure be causing low fawn recruitment? Seriously I've heard the biologists point of view....they make great points. Let's hear your view. Convince me goofy....I'll have an open mind.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> In the 60's , and even through the 70's , primitive weapon hunting was NOT
> very popular,,,,VERY FEW DID IT! On November muzzy hunts you would see
> very few hunters,,And the bow hunt clear through the 70's THERE WAS NO ONE!


OH really...in the 60s, the state averaged 12,000 archery hunters. In the 1970s the state averaged well over 20,000 archery hunters. IN the 1960s archery hunters averaged over 2,000 deer harvested and in the 1970s archery hunters averaged over 3,000 deer harvested. By way of comparison, in 2009 in 2,773 were estimated to be harvested by archery hunters. Interestingly, in 2009, only 13,000 archery hunters entered the field.

That is not even mentioning the muzzy hunters...

Goofy, you are hard to take serious because you spout off BS that cannot be substantiated by any kind of factual information.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's what you do bull,,,go out Monday morning and watch all the rookie houndsmen
trying to fill harvest objective tags.........

Half of them will have dogs running deer and elk from hell to breakfast....
You might learn something about real "deer stress"......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Oh, now I think you have it nailed. Those **** rookie houndsmen are the reason fawn recruitment numbers across the state aren't where they should be....are you serious?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Here's what you do bull,,,go out Monday morning and watch all the rookie houndsmen
> trying to fill harvest objective tags.........
> 
> Half of them will have dogs running deer and elk from hell to breakfast....
> You might learn something about real "deer stress"......


I'm not doubting a dog chasing a deer for miles would stress a deer, especially this time of year.

But there aren't too many guys using dogs on the archery, muzzy and rifle hunts...in fact it's illegal....so why does hunting pressure from the deer hunts cause low fawn recruitment?


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> I'm gonna pose the question to the DWR people at the Cedar City Open House on the 10th, but I'd like to take some of your answers with me.
> 
> On this forum and at various RAC and WB meetings, I've heard this phrase thrown around as an excuse and/or reason to cut tags, close areas, shorten seasons, change season dates, limit access, close roads, require online courses and certificates, and restructure season sequences, but I don't think it always means the same in each case nor to each person using it.
> 
> ...


SUGGEST TO CLOSE THE HORN HUNTING FROM DEC. 1ST-APRIL 15th. (STATEWIDE) This would help some.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

W2U,

It all adds up.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > In the 60's , and even through the 70's , primitive weapon hunting was NOT
> ...


In 1973 there was 445 muzzloader deer hunters in the field....TOTAL, SATEWIDE!

These number you are showing in the 60's ans 70's for archers are mostly
secondary permits,,,,,,,

see page 23..http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... report.pdf


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Transplants that have been tried with deer have proven time and time again
> deer cant handle stress............PERIOD.
> 
> To say hunting bucks only dose not affect our deer herds is one thing,,,BUT,
> ...


The stress a deer endures during a transplant is a completely different type of stress than they experience while in the woods and being spooked by a human/predator.

Running from danger = normal.

Having a net thrown on them, tranqued, loaded into a trailer, travel 65 MPH down a highway, lots of noise, try to keep their balance while going down bumpy dirt road, and finally let out of the trailer = Not exactly a normal part of a deers life.

I think the fact that humans are in the woods more only acclimates the deer more to our presence. Not stresses them out more.

Do we need to put them on Xanex?

I want to make sure I got it straight....we should cut deer hunting tags because there are sheds hunters, dogs being run, late cow hunt, etc? That doesn't make much sense. If these activities really did impact deer.....it would make much more sense to regulate those activities. Not cut deer tags. Just sayin.....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

You are right. Those things should be regulated, along with tag cuts. 

You stated that if the DWR and biologists thought tag cuts were needed you would support? I'm confused? The DWR has stated they feel some tag cuts are needed yet you still want say they are not?

Again some would push for no cuts until we had NO deer. This seems to become more clear everyday on this forum.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

And SOME would push for tag cuts over and over and over again, no matter the circumstances. Good grief!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My experience with mule deer is that they are highly adaptable. I used to shoot at the old Highland Gun Club, and had deer come along side the range while we shot. They were not spooked by people, or people shooting guns. As long as people weren't shooting at them, they didn't care. DWR hired deer-snipers to deal with deer problem in Bountiful because they had adapted to become urban deer - a problem that occurs throughout mule deer habitats stretching from New Mexico to Montana. The elk at Hardware Ranch adapt to horse-drawn sleds with people and hay after four months of being chased by people. 

I guess my point is that we sure like to put our own values and reasoning ability on deer and other big game. But the reality is they are animals just trying to survive. And if they feel threatened by people, cows, fence posts or mosquito, they'll flee. Its what animals do. Its their instinct to flee from anything that surprises them or makes them feel threatened. People, their cars, tractors, ATVs, snowmobiles are just a few more things to deal with.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I agree with you for the most part Gary. But, of the three main species of deer in the US, mule deer are the least adaptive. Still, what you said is true, they become accostomed to many things. I think the crutial part in all of this is timing. Just as the DWR submits that taking out yotes in order to be the most effective must be done during certain times, it stands to reason that stress to the deer herd is greater during certain times, regardless of their adaptabily. It's a tough game for the managers of our herds. I sure wouldn't want the job...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> You are right. Those things should be regulated, along with tag cuts.
> 
> You stated that if the DWR and biologists thought tag cuts were needed you would support? I'm confused? The DWR has stated they feel some tag cuts are needed yet you still want say they are not?
> 
> Again some would push for no cuts until we had NO deer. This seems to become more clear everyday on this forum.


Muley...you are indeed confused. I support tag cuts in the units that are below the 15:100 ratio set in the 2008 mule deer plan. It seems there may be a few units in the southern and southeast region that may end up being below that target after the counts are done and I support cuts there. I've said that at least 4 or 5 times over the last few days.

I do not agree however that hunting pressure is a limiting factor in fawn recruitment, which is all I've said in this thread. And I do not support tag cuts to get us to 18:100 buck to doe ratios on any units outside of LE units of course.

Still confused?


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

maybe not hunting pressure as a limiting or negative factor but what about increases in human pressure. For examples, late cow hunts, shed hunting, turkey hunting, a whole summer of recreation, 4 wheelers, then all the hunts in the fall. Have these things increased as the deer herds have decreased?


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Also increased recreation activity could have a negative effect due to road kill. Look at the mirror lake area.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

10yearquest said:


> maybe not hunting pressure as a limiting or negative factor but what about increases in human pressure. For examples, late cow hunts, shed hunting, turkey hunting, a whole summer of recreation, 4 wheelers, then all the hunts in the fall. Have these things increased as the deer herds have decreased?


YES VERY MUCH SO.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10yearquest said:


> maybe not hunting pressure as a limiting or negative factor but what about increases in human pressure. For examples, late cow hunts, shed hunting, turkey hunting, a whole summer of recreation, 4 wheelers, then all the hunts in the fall. Have these things increased as the deer herds have decreased?


Human activity has certainly increased and deer numbers have decreased in numbers.....no doubt. The biologists say that humans just being in the woods doesn't really effect them outside of the late winter/early spring time frame whent they are at their weakest.

The thing is though that the biologists manage to buck:doe ratios, right or wrong they have to by law. If buck to doe ratios are above the goal then why cut tags? Why are we even talking about cutting tags due to hunting pressure if ratios are where they should be? It's just another excuse to cut tags....that's why. There are some units in the south that are now having a hard time...but don't be fooled they had a hard winter last year and that's what has hurt them....not too much pressure. On those units I think we should cut tags.

Bottom line is where does hunting pressure come into play in the tag cut formula? If buck to doe ratios are low...cut tags. If they are where they should be leave tags alone.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

I am not for tag cuts unless it is below objective either. Cutting tags would not reduce human pressure at all. Tag cuts are "sold" to us by the people who support them, by pretending it is in the best interest of the herd. But we all know which herd will benefit the most and it isnt the deer! Just be honest. Say " I want to see lots of big deer by the road and that means you need to stay home"


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is exactly why I have been for option 2 and unit management for deer.

The current buck to doe ratios shows a number of units falling below the 15/100
mark in both the SE and Southern regions. there are a few of those units approaching
the 12/100 mark and showing a down ward trend.......SO NOW the DWR will need
to make tag cuts on a regional wide basis this year in both regions.

Hoping hunters will evenly disperse during this falls hunts..It's a crap shoot!
I personal believe many hunters will move to units within the regions were
the deer herd are doing better with the higher buck to doe ratios..

It will be SOOO much better in 2012 when adjustments can be made to a 
particular unit and not have to guess how much "hunting pressure" will be
on that unit come hunting season...


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Human activity has certainly increased and deer numbers have decreased in numbers.....no doubt. The biologists say that humans just being in the woods doesn't really effect them outside of the late winter/early spring time frame whent they are at their weakest.

Now thats a funny post :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 
Oh but then again the biologists say. :mrgreen:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Ok pheaz, it aint the biologists saying it...........it's the old man down in the cabin by the lake who has been on "the mountain" for 40 years sayin': "dad blain hunters 'sturbin' all the deer ain't gonna let 'em breathe! Yep, lets' listen to those folks and make our herd grow! yeeehawwwwwwww


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Goofy how does the buck to doe ratios have anything to do with herd health? How does a higher buck to doe ratio mean that the herd is healthier?
I still think they can manage these precious buck/doe ratios without going to option 2. What I don't get is why the WB/DWR needs to do something, if these units are so bad then why are people still hunting them. People complain and complain about no deer on this or that mountain yet every year they continue to go back on said mountain and hunt. I think if you were smart you would go some where else and let that mountain recover. Why does it take someone to enforce a rule to make that happen.
Don't get me wrong I know the deer herds are struggling, and I want them to get help. But to implement a option that has been proven will not help the herd is just plain dumb. 
And my questions where honest questions, I really want to know how higher buck/doe ratios mean a healthy herd.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

but goofy if they close a unit where will the hunters go. Will they just get rid of those tags or transfer them to another area? If they do the later then wont that unit go down too. If they get rid of them altogether how will they make up fo the lost funds? Pretty soon 90,000 people are on one area and the whole rest is limited entry or the division goes broke. just askin.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Listen? Been listen to Bio's and Wildlife Boards way to long.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Well now pheaz....the WB and the Bio's are two completely differenty entities to listen to, and they rarely if ever say the same thing! But then, I am sure you know that, just kinda forgot for a minute... ;-)


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

YA DEFENATLY KNOW THAT BUT THANKS THOUGH FOR THE REMINDER


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

10yearquest said:


> but goofy if they close a unit where will the hunters go. Will they just get rid of those tags or transfer them to another area? If they do the later then wont that unit go down too. If they get rid of them altogether how will they make up fo the lost funds? Pretty soon 90,000 people are on one area and the whole rest is limited entry or the division goes broke. just askin.


What will happen and no one seems to notice is once those tags are cut there gone for ever. Then they increase to price to compinsate. Then when the deer herd continue to fall because the managament is not as great as they thought they will cut more tags, and again increase prices. Till 2000 "shooters" are paying $10000 plus to shoot a deer every 5 years on one of 3 areas that still have a deer left on it. But what we must remember and what will comfort us at night is that those few deer that are killed will be trophy bucks. :roll: 
Hunters are getting to greedy anymore. Just like with elk if its not a 400" bull its not a trophy and the hunt was a failure. :roll: 
Maybe im wrong and this whole new plan will go against all biologlical reasoning and increase deer herds and they will one day allow everyone to shoot 200" inch bucks every year for ever and we'll all meet at DPs mansion and drink tea and talk about how bad things used to be and how greatful we all are that he saved the deer herd.
I heard Fred Eichler say something that I think is spot on. He said his father told him that is you shot something every year eventually it wouldn't be fun anymore and it wouldn't be hunting.

Wow I just had to vent.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Oh chur, anytime ;-)


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Venting is a good thing Mike....breathe deep, exhale...........breathe deep exhale.... ;-)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

10yearquest said:


> but goofy if they close a unit where will the hunters go. Will they just get rid of those tags or transfer them to another area? If they do the later then wont that unit go down too. If they get rid of them altogether how will they make up fo the lost funds? Pretty soon 90,000 people are on one area and the whole rest is limited entry or the division goes broke. just askin.


Here is what is going down right now,,
There are units with buck to doe ratios approaching 12/100,,,,AND FALLING..

So the way it is structured now , Cuts will have to be made regionally wide..


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Hmmm. Okay so in the current structure you could close a unit if it was down but in order to prevent those people from going elsewhere in the region you have to manage hunter numbers by unit. Meaning units go down tags go away.. This makes some sense as far as controlling the damage elsewhere. The worst part of all of this is WHAT IF. What if deer numbers continue to drop regardless of what we do. OR what if the unit rebounds after being closed and we , the average guy that wants to hunt, never get the unit back?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> 10yearquest said:
> 
> 
> > but goofy if they close a unit where will the hunters go. Will they just get rid of those tags or transfer them to another area? If they do the later then wont that unit go down too. If they get rid of them altogether how will they make up fo the lost funds? Pretty soon 90,000 people are on one area and the whole rest is limited entry or the division goes broke. just askin.
> ...


I don't see where that is happening goofy. The cuts that need to be made are being done on a unit basis, not regionally. And by unit I mean those that have been in place for a while now. You know the dwr has been managing the herds on a unit basis for a while. The only difference option 2 does is manage the hunters, not the deer on the units.

I agree with what the division wants at this time, and that is to reduce tags due to the severe loss of deer last winter, and probably this winter. B to D ratios are not the real problem, it is the fawn loss that will effect the buck to doe ratio that is leading the doom and gloom. It's a sad state of affairs if you ask me...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Still,,,,,This is exactly what is going to happen,
because a few units are hurting , this year, they will have to reduce tags regionally..

This is the problem, if BtoD ratios are hurting on LA SAL, that is were the 
"hunting pressure"Should be reduced.

With opt 2, that could be done.......
The way it is now , the whole southeast region gets a permit reduction..


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

And that folks.........is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Still,,,,,This is exactly what is going to happen,
> because a few units are hurting , this year, they will have to reduce tags regionally..
> 
> This is the problem, if BtoD ratios are hurting on LA SAL, that is were the
> ...


Why? Why can't they do something other than cut tags to reduce hunting pressure on those units say La Sal? Heres an idea make hunters with a valid tag purchase a stamp or certicficate that would allow them to hunt that unit. Make the price steep enough and not many hunters are going to want to hunt there. Sure its not fair to those who have hunted it for ever but niether is the 29 units for everyone else. As far as law enforcement goes it would not put anymore pressure than the new 29 units would create. Probably alot less. Just have a DWR CO that can patrol that area during the hunt.
This is just an idea and I'm sure there are negatives and postives for it. Just been thinking alot.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Ok using the la sal as an example. If you dont cut tags it will cause something similar to hotspotting. Say everyone who hunts la sal moves over to dutton. What is the effect on dutton? This may be the only logic to the 29 units. The only way to do it under the current plan would be to cut region numbers AND close the la sal. But what would be wrong with that?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Hunting is when I get to my favorite mountain to shoot a deer.
> 
> Hunting pressure is when I get to my favorite mountain to shoot a deer, and someone else is parked in "my" spot.


And that is the most accurate post in this entire thread!

The rest......... :O•-:


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

True Pro. But what else you going to do. Get deer managed by sound ,unbiased biology?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I just feel the winds shifting?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10yearquest said:


> True Pro. But what else you going to do. Get deer managed by sound, unbiased biology?


What a concept, eh?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I just feel the winds shifting?


Well then, I suggest you change your underbritches.......  :mrgreen:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I promise several have probably been filling them lately. I can assure I have not!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Why is it so hard for some to see option 2 helps to start fixing this mess?

Wouldn't it be nice to ACTUALY address issuse on the UNITS that need a
reduction of "HUNTING PRESSURE"by unit instead of beating around
the bush,,,,,,reducing permits regionaly, and hoping hunters distribue them selfs evenly?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Because some will chose to address every issue before themselves. It is human nature. Same as the work place or criminals. The last person most want to look at as a problem is themselves. We all do it on some level and it is the reason that some would hunt until we have no deer at all!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Because some will chose to address every issue before themselves. It is human nature. Same as the work place or criminals. The last person most want to look at as a problem is themselves. We all do it on some level and it is the reason that some would hunt until we have no deer at all!


Pure comedy! Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Why is it so hard for some to see option 2 helps to start fixing this mess?


Because it does NOT! :?


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Muley I can say the same for those in favor of option 2. To me they seem to be just selfish individuals that want to make it as easy as possible to shoot a record book buck. 
Why can't you guys see that option 2 does nothing to help *increase* deer herds.
Yes there will be bigger bucks, but for how long? Everybody says look at colorado, but colorado has seen there herd numbers decrease since implementing this same plan, and they had way more deer then utah ever had. Sure they have alot of big bucks and still have alot more deer than utah does so it seems to the naked eye they are doing great.


> Excessive deer harvests have been proposed as another primary cause of declining mule
> deer herds. If deer populations were being hunted so intensively that populations were
> kept well below carrying capacity of deer habitats, reproductive rates of does should be
> high and mortality rates of fawns should be low. Studies show exactly the opposite
> ...


This is from a report I read on a study of Colorados mule deer populations from 1999
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Looking on Colorados Fish and Game site, its reported than in just 2004 the pop was at 600k in 2009 it was 460k
That doesn't seem to be the direction I want to take Utahs herds down.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I think it's funny too pro. Pretty sure that's the point of so many clowns! .

Pro I believe you were one of the ones saying so me just one biologist that says tags need to be cut and you would support it? So what say you? The Directors opinion count? Blanding Boys? Or were you talking about a specific biologist other than these? I could name a few more that support tag cuts and Option 2. I'll bet the WB and the DWR could name them specifically?

Or nevermind as facts seem to only hold water if they align with certain opinions? I know I get that way sometimes too. :?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Well the road we have travelled in Ut was at 600,000 we just past the 250,000 too zero sign! I'd rather nit see where that road is going to end!


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Well the road we have travelled in Ut was at 600,000 we just past the 250,000 too zero sign! I'd rather nit see where that road is going to end!


And apparently Colorados on the same road using the very same plan option 2 is going to be.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> Looking on Colorados Fish and Game site, its reported than in just 2004 the pop was at 600k in 2009 it was 460k
> That doesn't seem to be the direction I want to take Utahs herds down.


Colorado had one of its worse winter kills in along time in 2008. You can't control the weather but we can contol most other factors.

Also, what about all those people who left the rifle season because of the "Pumpkin Patch" remarks? They should like the idea of less pressure.
What about the photographer looking for more mature bucks to get pictures of? There should be more places closer to home for them.
What about the shed hunters? Should be more antler on the ground to find.
What about the guy who wants to hunt ever year? Well, I guess the other questions just asked don't really matter to them.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I think it's funny too pro. Pretty sure that's the point of so many clowns! .
> 
> Pro I believe you were one of the ones saying so me just one biologist that says tags need to be cut and you would support it? So what say you? The Directors opinion count? Blanding Boys? Or were you talking about a specific biologist other than these? I could name a few more that support tag cuts and Option 2. I'll bet the WB and the DWR could name them specifically?
> 
> Or nevermind as facts seem to only hold water if they align with certain opinions? I know I get that way sometimes too. :?


The director is saying the same thing the Division has been saying all along. If a unit is under objective they will cut tags, that is what they are wanting to do. I support that, most if not all support that. Look you can spin this however you want, but option 1 would have fixed this issue in the very same manner without having 29 individual units that could potentially turn into 29 LE Units. I know you want your very own Henry's unit in your back yard, but it is all fun and games until it takes 10 years to draw a deer tag. The majority of people in this state just want to hunt, they could care less if it is a two point or not, they just want to be out. Option 2 = bigger bucks, lets cut through the BS and call it what it is, it was a social solution rather than a biological solution. The squeaky wheel got the grease, but hopefully with a new voice this stuff will not happen as easily in the future.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Colorado had one of its worse winter kills in along time in 2008. You can't control the weather but we can contol most other factors.


Another great example why option 2 doesn't work very well. Why manage the state for higher buck to doe ratios so people can kill big bucks from the roads and then in one winter have it all wiped out. Plus is takes a herd longer to rebound when you have more bucks in the herd.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Colorado had one of its worse winter kills in along time in 2008. You can't control the weather but we can contol most other factors.
> 
> 
> Another great example why option 2 doesn't work very well. Why manage the state for higher buck to doe ratios so people can kill big bucks from the roads and then in one winter have it all wiped out. Plus is takes a herd longer to rebound when you have more bucks in the herd.


And that ladies and gentlemen is the sad truth! Mother Nature is the one who has final say, and when you raise the buck:doe ratio the recovery from such dies offs is much much slower.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I think it's funny too pro. Pretty sure that's the point of so many clowns! .
> 
> Pro I believe you were one of the ones saying so me just one biologist that says tags need to be cut and you would support it? So what say you? The Directors opinion count? Blanding Boys? Or were you talking about a specific biologist other than these? I could name a few more that support tag cuts and Option 2. I'll bet the WB and the DWR could name them specifically?
> 
> Or nevermind as facts seem to only hold water if they align with certain opinions? I know I get that way sometimes too. :?


Okay, I get it. This is a peeing contest with you, it has nothing to do with discussing the facts or the truth. You simply cherry pick and spin so much you would make a professional politician blush. Your sidekick goofy PM'd me the email you two funny fellers think is proof option 2 is exactly what the doctor ordered. I read it several times and I don't see it being anywhere close to what you spin it to say.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ridge,,,,great points, I for one love potographing big bucks.......
That will be one of the fruits of opt 2 I will enjoy the most.

And jahan, you make good points. under opt 1, these strugling units were
ratios contiune to drop would just become limited entry. with even higher
buck to doe requirments than opt 2,,,,,,,,,making the even more restrictive.

Now to the topic "hunting pressure", that is what this thread & opt 2 
are adout.............The southern region deer unit is composed of 13 different
individual "managment" deer units, these will become individual hunting units
next year......

The way it is structured now, becouse a few of these 13 units are in trouble,
the entire southern region will have to take the permit reduction............

It is clear to me it would be much better to reduce "hunting pressure" ONLY
on units with cronic low buck to doe ratios than an ENTIRE region........

Not only that ,BUT, it is inaffective as well,,,,HUNTERS WILL JUST MOVE to
units within the region that are doing better. And in turn, putting EXTRA
hunting pressure on those units causing ratios to drop on those units..

This has been an on going problem in Utah that I'm glad is about to end!
You can say opt 2 only controls hunters, or hunting pressure, and while
this is true, IT's still a valubale tool in deer managment in my oppinion...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Ridge,,,,great points, I for one love potographing big bucks.......
> That will be one of the fruits of opt 2 I will enjoy the most.
> 
> And jahan, you make good points. under opt 1, these strugling units were
> ...


There is nothing in option 2 that couldn't have been accomplished with the other options, that is all I am saying.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> The way it is structured now, becouse a few of these 13 units are in trouble,
> the entire southern region will have to take the permit reduction............


Ah, another question to ask them. Aren't there now provisions to isolate and micro-manage troubled units within a region? Thanks for the idea, Goofy!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Why is it so hard for some to see option 2 helps to start fixing this mess?


Because it focuses on the wrong stuff!! Will hunter management by unit hurt anything? No it won't. There may even be some positives that come from that. Nothing to write home about though and it sure as hell won't fix anything.

The major issue I have ith option 2 is raising the buck to doe ratios to 18:100. This will DO NOTHING to help deer herds. Then even worse if the ratios drop below 18:100 on a unit the unit will go limited entry until it gets back up to 25:100. This is bad....very bad....if you are a general deer hunter in Utah.

The answer to growing more deer in Utah lies outside of hunter management. Too much time, money and resources are being spent on hunter issues. Continually cutting tags in response to a shrinking herd is reactive.....not proactive and is unjustified in most cases...i.e. raising buck to doe ratios by 3. It's time to focus the REAL issues the deer herds face.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > The way it is structured now, becouse a few of these 13 units are in trouble,
> ...


Absoulty, under current plans , or opt 1, troubled units become limited entry.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Well the road we have travelled in Ut was at 600,000 we just past the 250,000 too zero sign! I'd rather nit see where that road is going to end!


You keep making these comments.....but if buck only hunting has very little to do with herd health why do you keep focusing on hunter management as being either the demise or the savior of our deer herds???!!!! Do you not understand the problem lies somewhere else? Do you not understand that LE units are having the same problems?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Ridge,,,,great points, I for one love potographing big bucks.......
> That will be one of the fruits of opt 2 I will enjoy the most.


One thing you have to realize is that we cannot make everyone happy. We need to strive to make the majority happy. Ridge's post doesn't make everyone happy because there is a conflict of interests.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You keep making these comments.....but if buck only hunting has very little to do with herd health *why do you keep focusing on hunter management *as being either the demise or the savior of our deer herds???!!!! Do you not understand the problem lies somewhere else? Do you not understand that LE units are having the same problems?


Because Muley73 might be involved with PETA/SFW in his spare time. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

jahan ans elkfromabove, you both need to go to the MDMP,,,heres the link.

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

look at pages 12 & 13, it exsplain what will happen to low ratio units,,

AND the difference of buck to doe ratios on LE and general,,,
jahan, the ratios are not the same..
LE allows up to 50/100,,,,then issuing managment tags..


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> LE allows up to 50/100,,,,then issuing managment tags..


That only applies to the premium LE units.....regular LE units are managed up to 35:100.

But goofy they are trying to tell you that a unit with even the curent plan could be pulled out when buck to doe ratios get too low....we didn't need opt 2 to do that.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > LE allows up to 50/100,,,,then issuing managment tags..
> ...


Under the current plan, if left unchanged for the next decade, we could very well
end up with state wide limited entry deer with a buck to doe ratio of 35/100...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

What is this nonsense about region wide tag cuts if a sub-unit falls below objective? Maybe my comprehension is falling towards you goofy, but I've never read anything in the mule deer plan that says anything about reducing region tags. It's all unit specific and eludes to hunter days and ultimately unit tags cuts (LE).

Micro management? Sure, whatever. My only concern is the manipulation that could and probably would occur under this premise. There's too much money to be mad pimping tags to trust people who have stock in this.

My concern, like bullsnot's, is raising buck to doe objectives. This is ultimately what is the unnecessary evil that has occurred. It won't grow more deer, the end.

73 keeps doing his best to make it polarized, black and white, villain vs. hero. No, we don't propose or even elude to hunting deer to extinction. There's an absolutely clear cut-off, and it's written in the plan right now. It's been stated over and over again by state game agencies, biologists and regurgitative internet sycophants. Carrying extra bucks at the wishes of the few is what we have been left with. We simply would like the owners of the resource to be educated, listened to and considered before decisions are made in our behalf.

The end.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="goofy elk":ck6hopva]LE allows up to 50/100,,,,then issuing managment tags..
> ...


Under the current plan, if left unchanged for the next decade, we could very well
end up with state wide limited entry deer with a buck to doe ratio of 35/100...[/quote:ck6hopva]

Nonsense.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

No peeing no spinning. In the current region system there is no way to control pressure on certain units other than cutting days afield. Option 2 provides a tool in which you can reduce days or tag number on a specific unit. That in no way is a bad thing. Could it be used to grow bigger bucks. Sure, that does not mean it is the intent. It does not have to be used for that. 

Bottom line is you guys wan to hunt every year where ever you want. Regarless of the impact on the herd. You all said no reason not to. Oh you think the sky is falling, let the professionals decide. Address other issues not hunters. Well that is being done now. The DWR feels some tag cuts are in order they are addressing predators they are very concern with the drop of overall deer numbers in some units. And yet all I hear is keep the same, don't cut tags, just address the hurting units. Please tell me how to reduce tags on those units while maintaining a region system and not cutting overall tags. Tell me how o do that without adding pressure to other units? 

I'll ask everybody again. What level does the herd need to drop to before we give the deer a break? At what number do you all decide the sky is falling? Mine is 250,00. Many claimed when the DWR felt it was too low they would step in. Well they are and still you state that we are spinning things. Give a number step-up and answer how low is the your personal number!

Jahan,

Where do you get your 10 year model? I don't need a Henrys unit on every unit? 10 years would mean we only let about 10,000 to 15,000 hunters a year in the field? Where has that ever been pushed by the Option 2 supports?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


Nonsense.[/quote:29w3mfz6]

Unlikely ,,YES.

Not possible for it to happen ,,NO.

Its not nonsense if the possibility is real.....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> No peeing no spinning. In the current region system there is no way to control pressure on certain units other than cutting days afield. Option 2 provides a tool in which you can reduce days or tag number on a specific unit. That in no way is a bad thing. Could it be used to grow bigger bucks. Sure, that does not mean it is the intent. It does not have to be used for that.
> 
> Bottom line is you guys wan to hunt every year where ever you want. Regarless of the impact on the herd. You all said no reason not to. Oh you think the sky is falling, let the professionals decide. Address other issues not hunters. Well that is being done now. The DWR feels some tag cuts are in order they are addressing predators they are very concern with the drop of overall deer numbers in some units. And yet all I hear is keep the same, don't cut tags, just address the hurting units. Please tell me how to reduce tags on those units while maintaining a region system and not cutting overall tags. Tell me how o do that without adding pressure to other units?
> 
> ...


Again, a statewide population count and a blanket solution does nothing.

Yes, absolutely cut tags on struggling units. I personally will never argue cutting tags or trying anything that has biology behind it to try and coerce deer number upward.

As has been stated, over and over again, we oppose tag cuts due to raised buck to doe objectives, with zero projected net gain for the deer population.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
I have stated before and I'll state again. I am not concerned about buck doe ratio as I am concerned about overall numbers and herd health. I believe Option 2 is only a tool that can be used to accomplish this. This year is an example of how it could be used. If it is only used to control buck to doe ratios, then you are correct it will not accomplish much!

Sorry if that is black and white? I actually believe much much of this mess is in the grey and in the grey is where the answers probably exist?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Would you mind expounding on why you think the option will assist in accomplishing better numbers and health?

I'm following you and agree with the overall tone of your last post, but I am unclear on how managing hunters on a unit basis will accomplish this. To me, unit management is a tool for some to more easily take away opportunity and to reach their personal ideals, which are not shared by most hunters. You may not agree, but my experience of the powers that be (The guys who's pant pockets have an insatiable appetite for dollar bills) is that there is more behind this than innocent supporters of this option may realize.

To me, it's like pointing to the critter walking, talking and smelling like a duck and calling it a chicken.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,

As stated above, some units are ok and other are struggling. With Option 2 those issues can be addressed with a more focused specialized plan. Be it cutting seasons or actually cutting tags on the struggling units. Currently we only have the option of cutting days. This puts more pressure on other units on the region. What about utilizing more archey permits on a unit to reduce harvest while still allowing oppurtunity? Again much easier done with option 2. What about road closures, again easier with option 2. You could do these things without option2 but you would run the risk of pushing hunters on to other units in the region. I am ok with that as long as the DWR or WB has a way to control the amount of pressure each of those other units recieves. Under our curry system that can not be assured. We lose control of that factor once the hunts start. Those are the words of Anis, which is enough in it's self for me to support Option 2. 

I understand the fear of only the rich hunting. I understand that Option 2 could be clamped down and the only agenda be big bucks. However I also know that many pushing Option 2 are not for that as an end result. They care about the overall health of the herds and look at Option 2 as only a tool to help this. Again if it is misused it could be bad. Just like any other tool tha I misused.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for clarifying. This is where I thought you were coming from, but the last few weeks of rib shots (from both sides), led me to believe that it was otherwise.

So we are clear. You support option 2 because of the granular management options, not for the raised buck objectives.

I oppose option 2 because of raised buck objectives.

-Ov- 

With that said, if the division implemented micro management and maintained the buck to doe objectives form the current plan, would you support it?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Yes I would support it. I am completely comfortable with 15 to 100. My concern is when it drops and the fix adds pressure to other units . If those units can handle it then fine add tags. If they can not then I guess we see a tag cut. I'm ok with that.

18-100 is NOT the reason I support Option 2. The specialized focus on each unit consistent through out the year is why I support it. Would I like more big bucks, sure. If you state other wise you are generally not being honest. Is it my top priority....nope or I would save my money and hunt private. I want to see a health deer herd that my kids and their kids can enjoy!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Yes I would support it. I am completely comfortable with 15 to 100. My concern is when it drops and the fix adds pressure to other units . If those units can handle it then fine add tags. If they can not then I guess we see a tag cut. I'm ok with that.
> 
> The 5 year managment plan addressed this, but we never followed it.
> 
> 18-100 is NOT the reason I support Option 2. The specialized focus on each unit consistent through out the year is why I support it. Would I like more big bucks, sure. If you state other wise you are generally not being honest. Is it my top priority....nope or I would save my money and hunt private. I want to see a health deer herd that my kids and their kids can enjoy!


Option 2 isn't the only solution that focuses on each unit. It isn't the best option either. If you want to see a healthy deer herd then why do you support Option 2 when it doesn't fix the issue? Fawn recruitment should be your focus NOT the number of bucks in the herd.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
If the buck doe was left at 15-100 would you support Option 2?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I'm gonna pose the question to the DWR people at the Cedar City Open House on the 10th, but I'd like to take some of your answers with me.
> 
> On this forum and at various RAC and WB meetings, I've heard this phrase thrown around as an excuse and/or reason to cut tags, close areas, shorten seasons, change season dates, limit access, close roads, require online courses and certificates, and restructure season sequences, but I don't think it always means the same in each case nor to each person using it.
> 
> ...


Bet you weren't exspecting this much feed back ..... 8) 
This should be some good stuff for the Cedar city open house,,,A,,


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna pose the question to the DWR people at the Cedar City Open House on the 10th, but I'd like to take some of your answers with me.
> ...


No, indeed I wasn't! And, yes, I've added a few more questions to my list. Give me a few more! I'll get back to you with all the answers I get from the DWR.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="goofy elk":3h97g726]LE allows up to 50/100,,,,then issuing managment tags..
> ...


Under the current plan, if left unchanged for the next decade, we could very well
end up with state wide limited entry deer with a buck to doe ratio of 35/100...[/quote:3h97g726]

Not true, under Recreation Goals of the current MDMP it states:



> 1. Manage general season units for a 3-year average of 15-25 bucks/100 does and a
> 9-day long any weapon season.
> i. If a unit/subunit in a given region falls below a 3-year average of 15 bucks/100
> does, the season length for all hunting seasons on that unit/subunit will be
> ...


Nothing in there that says it will be managed to 35 or even 50 buck to doe ratio. You are mixing the limited and premium limited entry into your argument, which is not reality. For anyone who wants to verify go to the same link Goofy provided earlier http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/mule_deer_plan.pdf and go to pages 12 and 13 to read exactly how it is mangaged. Goofy and Muley did you notice that it specifically stated unit or subunit, nothing about regional tag cuts.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Tree,
Waiting on an answer? :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Regular LE deer up to 35/100
Premium LE deer up to 50/100

Go and re read it jahan......
And then PLEASE oh PLEASE explain how they will do the "unit or subunit" cuts
with out doing them regionaly THIS YEAR??????

Next year it wont be a problem since that is exatly what OPTION 2 IS designed TO DO!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Tree,
> Waiting on an answer? :O•-:


Sorry, been camping.

Yes, I believe I personally would support such a thing. BUT, I do still have a distrust of the system and would and am leery of what certain folks might do with micro management.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Regular LE deer up to 35/100
> Premium LE deer up to 50/100
> 
> Go and re read it jahan......
> ...


Any region could easily be worded to exclude any micro unit. They would also be at liberty to reduce the number of hunter days on struggling units, mostly to discourage hunters from hunting them. This is the point of the 3 and 5 day hunts on the stansbury etc. Less days with the same amount of hunters creates a negligible harvest differential, but if they flag a unit as having a low buck density, people are less likely to hunt these units due to poor potential.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Regular LE deer up to 35/100
> Premium LE deer up to 50/100
> 
> Go and re read it jahan......
> ...


Please reread ii above again it is plain as daylight:

ii. If a *unit/subunit* in a given *region* falls below a 3-year average of 10 bucks/100 does, that *unit/subunit* will be managed on a limited entry management *until the 3-year average buck:doe ratio greater than or equal 15/100.*

I don't know how much more clear I can make it. It will be treated as a limited entry until the 3 year average gets back above 15/100 buck to doe ratio. So temporarily the unit/subunit (not region) will be managed as a limited entry unit (25/100 buck to doe ratio), this is only until it reaches the 3 year average. So yes a unit/subunit could be limit entry for several years, but once it reaches that three year average it goes back into the general hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Go's back into the general hunt.. -_O- 

Some of you guys are just to young I guess, That was the same thing
said about the Book cliffs, The Paunsy, Oak city, and on and on...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Go's back into the general hunt.. -_O-
> 
> Some of you guys are just to young I guess, That was the same thing
> said about the Book cliffs, The Paunsy, Oak city, and on and on...


So you are assuming that once it is turned into a temporary limited entry unit, that it will never go back into the general hunt? That is fair if that is your assessment, but it is dishonest to everyone on this forum to say it as fact. Some people come on here and read this information and when you are giving them false information they can't make an educated decision on their own. That is why option 2 passed, people skewing the facts to their own beliefs.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just stating the facts, some of our LE deer units today were " supposed" to be returned
to general,,,,,,,never happened.
OR like spike only on elk was intoduced as short term.......

BUT HERE's the issuse, NONE OF THIS WE ARE DEBATING is relivant.Were going to opt. 2.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Go's back into the general hunt.. -_O-
> 
> Some of you guys are just to young I guess, That was the same thing
> said about the Book cliffs, The Paunsy, Oak city, and on and on...


Aint gonna argue with that. So with your elderly experience (  ), why would you trust that they won't more or less turn all of these units into the examples you just gave?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> BUT HERE's the issuse, NONE OF THIS WE ARE DEBATING is relivant.Were going to opt. 2.


No one is even clear what option 2 even is at this point. What the board passed under the guise of option 2, was some bastardized version of a plan that is vague at best. They left it open ended on purpose, so eluding to anything specific would be mis-informative.

Hell, it may take 50 years for them even to figure out where the deer "live, breed and die", :roll: and to actually figure out where the boundary lines for the units will be. 29 units? maybe. 50 units? maybe. 134 units? anything could happen, and that's what is scary.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tree, I'm not saying that wont happen some day..Hunting in Utah is ALL over the map.

Continualy changing,,,,,,The only thing that IS FOR SURE is, nothing is for sure.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy, a little off topic. Do you agree or disagree that money has a disproportionate influence regarding Utah's wildlife and hunting policies?

Would you say money is the driving factor behind many proposals and policies in regards to wildlife and hunting in the past 15 years?

Do you think a majority of Utah hunters want to wait 25 years for the chance at a record book bull?

These don't really have bearing on anything. I'm just curious about your thoughts, to better understand your points of view.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree, money has without queston influenced policies.....
And the last 15 years of concervation tags has caused a lot of this.

And NO , most hunter dont want to wat 25 years for a bull.......
And I'm one of them, There are lesser unit that are quite easy to draw.
So if some one is putting in for San Jaun, He better expect a LOOOONG wait.

BUT, if your like me,,, you'll study the odds, figure out that WITH 1 POINT and
a smoke pole you have a better than 50/50 shot at pulling a LE Nebo permit.. 
And go freak'in hunting....  

I've already had 3 LE elk tags in the last 20 years, and planing on more..


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And NO , most hunter dont want to wat 25 years for a bull.......
> And I'm one of them, There are lesser unit that are quite easy to draw.
> So if some one is putting in for San Jaun, He better expect a LOOOONG wait.
> 
> ...


+1

There is nothing that I love more than asking an "opportunity" guy, where he is applying and they rattle off a unit like San Juan, Dutton or something similar......then listening to him complain when he doesn't draw for fifteen years.....

*IF* opportunity was truly the top of everyones importance list like a lot of you say, then places with good draw odds should not be so **** easy to draw and there are quite a few of them...........

The sad part is there are even better odds than that goofy........but its easier to blame SFW  Maybe these guys want a 350 bull around every corner handed out to them :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2011)

jahan said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Go's back into the general hunt.. -_O-
> ...


i agree with goofy on this one. once it goes to LE, kiss it goodbye......... FOREVER. thats how these guys roll :roll: they might try to disguise it as a good plan and will promise to change it back once it reaches objective, but they wont. i know from personal experience that more then one of these "struggling units" have incredible trophy quality potential. they just need an excuse to shut them down to start building up the trophy buck #s. heres my question. 2 years ago they determined that the Nebo unit was a struggling unit for the intended buck to doe ration. they had the special season restrictions for it for all of 2009. but in 2010, it was back to regular season dates, with no restrictions. so what this tells me is after 1 year with these restrictions, the herd made a huge come back! ...i dont buy it. i actually know i saw more bucks during the 2009 season (when it was "struggling") on the unit then i did in 2010 (when is was back up to their objective goal), and i hunted atleast 20 days more in 2010.... whats up with that?? :|


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Kill'em,,,,,100% agree.
There is no way the Nebo deer herd was any better this year than 09...

A few deer left on Loafer & Mount Nebo itself, But the rest of the unit is struggling
BIG TIME!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Go's back into the general hunt.. -_O-
> ...


Good question! Will we ever get those units/hunts back. More than likely not. Which means, less opportunity.

When does it stop? Answer: (It won't!)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I agree, money has without queston influenced policies.....
> And the last 15 years of concervation tags has caused a lot of this.
> 
> And NO , most hunter dont want to wat 25 years for a bull.......
> ...


This is somewhat true, but misleading as well. Since the WB, with the urging of SFW raised the harvest age objectives on all but 2-3 units, meaning it is now harder than before to draw a permit for a "lesser" unit. And for what purpose? Was it the masses calling for higher harvest age objectives, or was it special interest groups that gain the majority of their coffers from the sale of conservation permits which garner more funds if the harvest ages are higher? I have draw three permits in the last 11 years for monster elk in Utah. Two were AR301 tags, and the other was a Dutton archery tag. But, thinking people should be just happy to draw a 'lesser' permit on a unit they know nothing about with a weapon they are not proficient with is a tad arrogant, IMO. Just because you are willing to, does NOT mean everyone should be. People get blasted for coming on here and asking for tips on an area, being told they shouldn't draw a permit for an area they don't know real well. Yet, here you are telling people to put in for areas they know nothing/little about. Most people aren't in the position of having all year to learn areas like you do, goofy. You may want to keep that in mind when preaching to the masses..........


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> BUT, if your like me,,, you'll study the odds, figure out that WITH 1 POINT and
> a smoke pole you have a better than 50/50 shot at pulling a LE Nebo permit..
> And go freak'in hunting....


it's funny that you always say how crappy the Nebo is now and there is no quality, but then you put in for the nebo unit. -_O- -_O- -_O-


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Just because you are willing to, does NOT mean everyone should be. People get blasted for coming on here and asking for tips on an area, being told they shouldn't draw a permit for an area they don't know real well. Yet, here you are telling people to put in for areas they know nothing/little about. Most people aren't in the position of having all year to learn areas like you do, goofy. You may want to keep that in mind when preaching to the masses..........


Pro-
When was the last time someone got told they shouldn't draw a permit they know nothing about, I have never seen that??????????? Sure people get blasted once in awhile asking everything about a unit, most of the guys asking have plenty of posts to there name, have time to ask the questions on the net, but cant buy a map and spend a weekend learning a unit, cmon pro :| You and I both know if you have a computer, are good enough on one to sit on here and post, you have a computer that you can spend some time on google earth, maps etc. it boils down to laziness......

You might have a point when you talk about some people using weapons that shouldn't be......

But why the hell do you have to spend all year *on the unit* learning an area pro??????? USGS Maps are cheap, so is google earth, books about elk, hell I could drive to any unit in the state, eat well, and spend a weekend learning it for less than 500 bucks easy.........I have heard even you say elk are in similar habitat, unit to unit........if they know were elk are in there backyards, my bet is they can find them anywhere.......

Like it or not, most everyone is after a monster bull, they could care less if its close to home, they know the unit, whatever.........


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Most people have no clue what a "monster bull" is. Or, to be more correct, a monster bull to MOST Utah elk hunters is way south of 350! Yet, we keep raising the harvest age objectives, go figure.

While you can learn an area, somewhat, via google maps and topo maps, ones odds go WAY up when they hunt an area they are familiar with. How can you dispute that? I also disagree that you could learn "any unit" in a weekend! I have ran into people with that mindset, only to wake up to reality once they try and put a bull on the ground.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Maybe I am a slow learner, but it took me TEN YEARS to learn the Dutton well enough to get to the point where I know the unit. But, I have only hunted elk for 27 years, guided hundreds of elk hunters, and put two bulls over 350 on the ground with my bow, so what do I know........


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Prout I couldn't agree more with this "Most people have no clue what a "monster bull" is. Or, to be more correct, a monster bull to MOST Utah elk hunters is way south of 350!" I couldn't tell you how many 360 bulls I have measured that taped out to 320. But 360 sounds so much better to say.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Most people have no clue what a "monster bull" is. Or, to be more correct, a monster bull to MOST Utah elk hunters is way south of 350! Agreed, but to the average guy and the way people throw around 350, most people are looking for at least that (they think), but will end up shooting anything over 300 (still a quality bull)Yet, we keep raising the harvest age objectives, go figure. I cannot figure the reasoning or even why elk are managed for age objectives, another argument for another day
> 
> While you can learn an area, somewhat, via google maps and topo maps, ones odds go WAY up when they hunt an area they are familiar with. How can you dispute that? I do not dispute this, at all.......BUT you can still learn A LOT and kill a good bull with a little effort all the while not being ON the unit I also disagree that you could learn "any unit" in a weekend! I have ran into people with that mindset, only to wake up to reality once they try and put a bull on the ground. Pro for hell sakes, I am simply arguing that I could spend some time on a unit and most likely kill a decent bull on ANY unit in the state, as long as I spend some time, both with maps, and maybe a few weekends and I think anyone else can too, you act like you have to know a unit like the back of your hand to kill a 300" bull anywhere in this state


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Maybe I am a slow learner, but it took me TEN YEARS to learn the Dutton well enough to get to the point where I know the unit. But, I have only hunted elk for 27 years, guided hundreds of elk hunters, and put two bulls over 350 on the ground with my bow, so what do I know........


So to kill a bull on any unit in the state do we all have to have ten years................. HELL NO!!!!!!!! Does it help, you bet, but Pro not everyone has all the time you do  (I think I heard that a few posts ago)

And hell if you guys are all about opportunity and not inches what the hell difference does it make........remember inches is what is ruining this sport according to many of your "peers"


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I am a slow learner, but it took me TEN YEARS to learn the Dutton well enough to get to the point where I know the unit. But, I have only hunted elk for 27 years, guided hundreds of elk hunters, and put two bulls over 350 on the ground with my bow, so what do I know........
> ...


You are missing the forest for the trees. I am saying ones odds INCREASE the better one knows an area. And, many hunters like hunting areas they know, or have a connection to. My best friend, wapiti67, drew a LE archery elk tag last year. He was hell bent on applying for a Dutton tag because it was a place near and dear to his heart. It took a lot of convincing by me for him to apply for a Wasatch tag instead, and he had enough points to draw either permit. He knows the Wasatch as well as the Dutton, but the Dutton had more emotional value to him. He didn't apply for where he would kill the biggest bull, but where he would have the best experience with family/friends. He has helped put world class bulls on the ground, so he is one that KNOWS what 350 is. My long winded point is: people apply for areas for far more reasons that just inches. FWIW, I don't have a bunch of time on my hands anymore. And, I am not one of those telling people to abandon areas they know for areas they don't know......just saying.

I am in the 'inch' camp personally, I just don't think my way is the only way. I ate tag soup on my LE hunt in 2008, not from a lack of opportunity, but from being so **** picky. I passed up several bulls in the 340-370 range, as I had set a high standard for MYSELF. I hunted 20 straight days without so much as a morning off, and I never drew my bow back, and my wife was diagnosed with cancer while I was on the mountain, yet this was the BEST hunt I have ever had. I had great friends along to share this hunt with, my wife insisted I stay and bring home a monster or stay until the hunt was over, and I busted my butt, and I have NO regrets. I hunted the Dutton in part because I knew it held bulls of the caliber I was after, but also because this mountain nearly killed me in 2005, and I popped my 400" bull cherry on this unit, and I had many many great hunting memories on the unit. The way elk are managed FORCES people to focus on inches, then YOU turn around and condemn people for focusing on inches. Good hell, if it takes you a decade or more to draw a permit on 'your' unit, do you really expect people to just kill the first branch-antlered bull that walks within range? Seriously?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Pro quote,
"The way elk are managed FORCES people to focus on inches, "
Yes, This is true on most LE units,,,BUT, Utah has general elk and TON's of spike tags.

And I agree 100% with ntrl_brn......
All you have to do is take a ride down I-15 to Scipio, The east side of the highway takes
20 years to draw,,,,,The west side can be drawn with VERY few , even zero points!!!!!!
The only difference,,,,,SIZE of bulls.

People have a choice, they are not forced to wait forever for a Pahvant tag,,,,,,,,,,,
They could hunt Oak city with no points,,BUT most choose to apply for the better side.
And then complain about hunting oppertunity.

Most guys complaining about NOT drawing permits are putting in hard units to draw,
San Jaun elk or Henrys deer.......

For all you NON- INCH guys, you have Spike tags, general, antlerless permits...
Most general deer tags are 1 in 1.1 to draw.....TON's of oppertunity.

Now you will complain about OPT.2 cutting oppertunity, I DONT buy this either.
I think hunter receutment is dropping because of POOR quality hunting on the
general deer units,,,,,,,,,,,,
But the demand for Quality limited entry units is GETTING HIGHER...

And that brings us full circle to "Hunting preasure" and Limited RESOURSES..


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I think hunter receutment is dropping because of POOR quality hunting on the general deer units,,,,,,,,,,,,


So do some Biologists, but most people wont admit this is a serious problem.....Denny Austin hits the nail on the head in his new book he released regarding this subject.....

Its hard to get people excited about hunting when such a low percentage of tag holders are actually killing anything....


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

> Its hard to get people excited about hunting when such a low percentage of tag holders are actually killing anything....[quote/]
> 
> I don't buy that idea on its own. Past success rates hovered in the 30-50% area and today we run over 30%. No one I know ever thought they were garaunteed to kill a deer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hunter recruitment issues on the general deer hunt? I sure don't recall leftover tags, other than the north, which has a ton of private lands. Tell that to guys with preference points. How about people that don't get archery tags that used to buy them over the counter after the draw? I don't see any indicators that hunters are walking away from the general deer hunt.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Hunter recruitment issues on the general deer hunt? I sure don't recall leftover tags, other than the north, which has a ton of private lands. Tell that to guys with preference points. How about people that don't get archery tags that used to buy them over the counter after the draw? I don't see any indicators that hunters are walking away from the general deer hunt.


Ironically we are the ones saying the sky is falling. o-|| :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Pro quote,
> "The way elk are managed FORCES people to focus on inches, "
> Yes, This is true on most LE units,,,BUT, Utah has general elk and TON's of spike tags.
> 
> ...


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

There might not be enough tags to go around Tree, but look at percentages of success in this state hunting now-days. I really could care less but it is a problem......Sure times are changing and back in the sixties, seventees hunting was more about need than recreation....This state is now pretty much suburbia, yet you guys would like more opportunity or at least the same opportunity with more people and less and less deer. Hell even if the tag numbers were *NOT reduced *we would still here complaining about option 2 becuase it limits where you can hunt and manages hunters......What is your main argument....hunter recruitment.....Am I wrong????? Most of it is based on the fact that most of you just dont want to give up anything, even if it makes sense....and arguing that managing hunters does not biologically make sense is BS....its part of the equasion, even all mighty ANIS admits this is a problem on some units.....

All I was referring to was the problem of success rates, *percentages*, not actual deer killed, and like it or not, they have been falling for years...look at the numbers. I also brought up how Dennis Austin refers to them being a problem in his book, thats it....... _(O)_ Is the Mule Deer Sky Falling, I think so, it has been for years, and I think its going to get much worse before it gets better......Is option 2 the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of deer hunting in the state of utah....according to you guys it is.....and you dont even know the details of the **** thing yet..for being all about numbers and not having any you sure are all getting worked up......Keep speculating and spreading the fear  When are we Lynching Peay, and the rest of the SFW supporters by the way???? 

Packout-
You talk about all the technology, etc......Common sense to me says that are success rates should be through the roof then, *look at the numbers* (you guys all enjoy using that line), they are quite the opposite.......What is the problem then, lack of deer, bucks maybe?????? Remember PackOut personal experience doesnt mean anything without a degree in biology :!:

All the while you guys are saying hunter recruitment is going to die simply becuase of lack of opportunity when option 2 is put into place, and you dont even know how much/how many tags will be cut for sure, or where the boundries are even at.....I seriously dont think the problem of recruitment is lack of opportunity, the real problem is lack of bucks and lack of deer.......


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

+1, but before this forum goes to crap again I would like to say one thing. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH OPTION 2 THEN DONT SUPPORT IT. TAKE YOUR MONEY TO ANOTHER STATE AND SUPPORT THEM. IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT DON'T APPLY. ITS THAT EASY. Blame it on SFW or WTF all you want to. If you don't like it don't support it. I can almost guarantee that all the whinners and complainers will apply for deer tags in 2012 though. :mrgreen: :O•-:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> +1, but before this forum goes to crap again I would like to say one thing. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH OPTION 2 THEN DONT SUPPORT IT. TAKE YOUR MONEY TO ANOTHER STATE AND SUPPORT THEM. IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT DON'T APPLY. ITS THAT EASY. Blame it on SFW or WTF all you want to. If you don't like it don't support it. I can almost guarantee that all the whinners and complainers will apply for deer tags in 2012 though. :mrgreen: :O•-:


So if you don't agree get out? That's not in my nature. :O•-: At least ntrl_brn_rebel is trying (I use that loosely :mrgreen: :^8^: ) to use logic in his arguments, you have just resulted in name calling and belittling. I respect ntrl_brn_rebel, even if I don't agree with him, because he is having an intellectual argument, you my friend aren't.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> There might not be enough tags to go around Tree, but look at percentages of success in this state hunting now-days. I really could care less but it is a problem......Sure times are changing and back in the sixties, seventees hunting was more about need than recreation....This state is now pretty much suburbia, yet you guys would like more opportunity or at least the same opportunity with more people and less and less deer. Hell even if the tag numbers were *NOT reduced *we would still here complaining about option 2 becuase it limits where you can hunt and manages hunters......What is your main argument....hunter recruitment.....Am I wrong????? Most of it is based on the fact that most of you just dont want to give up anything, even if it makes sense....and arguing that managing hunters does not biologically make sense is BS....its part of the equasion, even all mighty ANIS admits this is a problem on some units.....
> 
> All I was referring to was the problem of success rates, *percentages*, not actual deer killed, and like it or not, they have been falling for years...look at the numbers. I also brought up how Dennis Austin refers to them being a problem in his book, thats it....... _(O)_ Is the Mule Deer Sky Falling, I think so, it has been for years, and I think its going to get much worse before it gets better......Is option 2 the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of deer hunting in the state of utah....according to you guys it is.....and you dont even know the details of the **** thing yet..for being all about numbers and not having any you sure are all getting worked up......Keep speculating and spreading the fear  When are we Lynching Peay, and the rest of the SFW supporters by the way????
> 
> ...


All this coming from a guy who stood up at the northern RAC and asked when the DWR is gonna stop the black helicopter conspiracy. Thanks for the laugh. :roll:

Have you actually comprehended any of the debate and conversation that has occurred for the last 4 months? No one has stated that option 2 is the worst thing to happen in Utah, that's your own personal hyperbole. The issue is raising the buck to doe objective at the request of a minority of hunters.

You can make this about whatever you want, but at the root of this for the opposition, which so far is all but a handful of people in these conversations in the last few months, is opportunity lost at the cost of a few extra bucks on the hill, PERIOD. Spin it how you want, the bottom line is that we all want more deer and all want to hunt. There is no down side to the population if we stay at the current buck to doe ratio objective. The cause of number decline won't be due to a few more hunters in the field BUT, the revenue lost and support base will be affected by unnecessarily cutting out a portion of our states hunting public because a handful of people want more inches on the mountain.

In the middle of all of these clouds is a loss of opportunity with no biological upside. How about we figure out how to grow more deer instead of axing folks so we can see a few more forks on the mountain during our ever diminishing hunt opportunities?

Pheaz, are you skipping school again?


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

JAHAN I couldn't tell its not in your nature.
So we whine and cry they won't do nothing/ whine and cry they are trying to do something. I read about option 2 on this forum and its DOOM and GLOOM. No hard set numbers are even out but we all assume the worse? :O•-:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

pheaz said:


> IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH OPTION 2 THEN DONT SUPPORT IT. TAKE YOUR MONEY TO ANOTHER STATE AND SUPPORT THEM. IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT DON'T APPLY. ITS THAT EASY.


No, no, no, no. These resources belong to the state of Utah and as a resident of Utah they belong to me and you. We should have a say about how they are managed.

Go to our website....we are doing a lot more then just whining about things. We are getting involved and we are giving back. In fact this organization was formed in the last few months to do just that...get involve, give sportsmen a voice, and give back to the animals we hunt.

http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

TREE STATED_The cause of number decline won't be due to a few more hunters in the field BUT, the revenue lost and support base will be affected by unnecessarily cutting out a portion of our states hunting public because a handful of people want more inches on the mountain.
I read on United WILDLIFE Cooperative that Harvesting a large buck” was 10th on the list at 53 %, and “harvesting any buck” was 17th at 25 %.


49 % of all respondents were “dissatisfied” with the number of bucks they were spotting in the woods.


51 % were “dissatisfied” with the size of the bucks — more specifically their antlers — they saw.

Now thats a big handfull at 53%.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

pheaz said:


> +1, but before this forum goes to crap again I would like to say one thing. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH OPTION 2 THEN DONT SUPPORT IT. TAKE YOUR MONEY TO ANOTHER STATE AND SUPPORT THEM. IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT DON'T APPLY. ITS THAT EASY. Blame it on SFW or WTF all you want to. If you don't like it don't support it. I can almost guarantee that all the whinners and complainers will apply for deer tags in 2012 though. :mrgreen: :O•-:


Just because you don't support option 2 doesn't mean we have to stop hunting. Your reaction and comment about going out of state or not not hunting in this state because we don't support option 2 is like saying stop being your parents son becasue you don't like how they make a living. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we will stop hunting in our home state. All of us "whinners and complainers" will still support Utah's wildlife. What will you do when the management plan backfires? Management dollars are very streched out. What makes you think there will be enough to handle the added micromanagement of 29 units? If this plan fails and the herds drop even more will you support a new plan? or Will you whine and complain and then take your dollars to another a state?


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

MAD all 4 option 2.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

pheaz said:


> TREE STATED_The cause of number decline won't be due to a few more hunters in the field BUT, the revenue lost and support base will be affected by unnecessarily cutting out a portion of our states hunting public because a handful of people want more inches on the mountain.
> I read on United WILDLIFE Cooperative that Harvesting a large buck" was 10th on the list at 53 %, and "harvesting any buck" was 17th at 25 %.
> 
> 49 % of all respondents were "dissatisfied" with the number of bucks they were spotting in the woods.
> ...


What you say is true but you have to tell the whole story or the context isn't correct. The results of that same survey said:

75 % of respondents said "getting away from it all" was the main reason they hunt mule deer.

"Being with friends" was second at 73 % and "being close to nature" was third at 70 %.

So even though hunters want to see bigger antlers as you pointed out....*that isn't as important as being able to get a tag*. That paints a completely different picture than the one you are trying to paint.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

pheaz said:


> MAD all 4 option 2.


That doesn't answer the question of what you will do IF the plan failes and the herds drop even less. Will you tuck tail and go out of state or will you DO SOMETHING about getting the herds back on track.

BTW......Doing something is what the UWC is all about.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

I already hunt out of state. If I don't draw a tag in Utah so be it. Option 2 is set to produce something (more or less deer) Suppose it works great, If it doesn't then back to where we are now.(with less deer of course). At that time I will look into something like UWC after it is proven not to be another SFW scam.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

These discussions feel like sitting in a washer-- jerked back and forth, spun around, and come out a lot different than you went in. 

The guy asked about "Pressure" and technology has changed "Pressure" over then past decade. In fact, it may be one of the biggest factors in the decline of mature bucks in herds over the past 20 years. I don't know for certain, but it makes sense. I do listen to biologists, am not one, but that brings me to point number two-- no one is claiming to have a biology degree, but listening to what the real biologists have to say is important. Completely discounting them is folly as is listening to every word as truth. 

Every person on this site wants to see more deer. Everyone wants to see more bucks, even bigger bucks. The price each of us is willing to pay is where we differ. Some are willing to wait 5-8 years to shoot 3 year old 4x4s, while others want to hunt every year and could careless if they shoot a buck. To me, none of that matters if it does not improve the health of our deer herd.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Packout said:


> The guy asked about "Pressure" and technology has changed "Pressure" over then past decade. In fact, it may be one of the biggest factors in the decline of mature bucks in herds over the past 20 years. I don't know for certain, but it makes sense.


I think it's certainly possible. I think it may be hard to tell though how much of the pressure on mature bucks is coming from advances in technology and how much of it is coming from a higher percentage of hunters passing on smaller bucks.

I was wondering just the other day how many guys, doesn't matter which weapon, actually carry something that is better than what we had 25 years ago and can actually use it better than what guys could do 25 years ago. I know there are guys out there shooting at longer ranges and killing stuff at longer ranges but what percentage of us are actually doing that?


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > The guy asked about "Pressure" and technology has changed "Pressure" over then past decade. In fact, it may be one of the biggest factors in the decline of mature bucks in herds over the past 20 years. I don't know for certain, but it makes sense.
> ...


im sure the majority of the hunting population in utah or north america for that matter, are using weapons and technology much more advanced then what guys had 25 years ago. everyone has an inline muzzy. everyone has a scope on their rifle. everyone has a compound bow, shooting carbon arrows at speeds over 270 fps. everyone has a pair of binoculars. everyone has a range finder. these are things that havent always been around


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

> Treehugnhuntr
> All this coming from a guy who stood up at the northern RAC and asked when the DWR is gonna stop the black helicopter conspiracy. Thanks for the laugh. :roll:


Yourwelcome 

When I ask the contractors running the helicopter what they are up to and they tell me capturing moose, for transplants, I usually tend to believe them.......

It might have only been the fuel guy I talked to, but I assume he knows what is going on, guess he was wrong.....

Was I wrong, I guess so, but Im not ashamed to admit it.........


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> im sure the majority of the hunting population in utah or north america for that matter, are using weapons and technology much more advanced then what guys had 25 years ago. everyone has an inline muzzy. everyone has a scope on their rifle. everyone has a compound bow, shooting carbon arrows at speeds over 270 fps. everyone has a pair of binoculars. everyone has a range finder. these are things that havent always been around


Sure but how many of them can use them at their full potential?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> > Treehugnhuntr
> > All this coming from a guy who stood up at the northern RAC and asked when the DWR is gonna stop the black helicopter conspiracy. Thanks for the laugh. :roll:
> 
> 
> ...


No worries, just a shot to the ribs. I do commend you on showing up for what you believe in. I have seen your mug at several RAC and WB meetings. I wish more took an active interest.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I do commend you on showing up for what you believe in. I have seen your mug at several RAC and WB meetings. I wish more took an active interest.


This is a sad truth, many, many do not get involved.....

I will be the first to admit I have learned a lot actually trying to be involved and voicing my opinion (sometimes maybe extreme), but at least I give it a good effort, as obviously you are involved often as well.....

Furthermore I am excited to see you guys starting up a group, for the right reasons and I hope many, many get involved......It truley is great to see passionate people sharing points of view....

You will have to introduce yourself next time I run into you.......


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> kill_'em_all said:
> 
> 
> > im sure the majority of the hunting population in utah or north america for that matter, are using weapons and technology much more advanced then what guys had 25 years ago. everyone has an inline muzzy. everyone has a scope on their rifle. everyone has a compound bow, shooting carbon arrows at speeds over 270 fps. everyone has a pair of binoculars. everyone has a range finder. these are things that havent always been around
> ...


i think everyone uses them to the best or maximum that they are capable of. some are more skilled then others, but even then technology can make up for some of the personal skills they lack


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> i think everyone uses them to the best or maximum that they are capable of. some are more skilled then others, but even then technology can make up for some of the personal skills they lack


I'm not disagreeing with you...my question is how do we measure that? You could easily say that through technology rifles have doubled in their capable range......but are hunters really killing, on average, deer at twice the range we did 25 years ago?

I don't have the answer and just wondered what others thought.

There was a poll last fall asking what the average range hunters were killing elk at. If I remember right the average range was about 150-200 yards for hunters on this forum. Even with all the technology are we really, on average, killing deer at really long ranges?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > I do commend you on showing up for what you believe in. I have seen your mug at several RAC and WB meetings. I wish more took an active interest.
> ...


For sure. Better yet, I'll come up and meet you at Cooper's and make Tony get us a couple of pitchers on the house. :mrgreen:


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> kill_'em_all said:
> 
> 
> > i think everyone uses them to the best or maximum that they are capable of. some are more skilled then others, but even then technology can make up for some of the personal skills they lack
> ...


yes i think people are killing animals at ranges further then they were 25 years ago. but not at ranges that are "too far". i dont think the average person is killing animals at ungodly distances on a regular basis, but every once in a while some one with average skills will launch a bomb and connect at 6-800 yards, but i dont think it happens as much as people think. from what i have seen and witnessed in the last 10 years i really believe a majority of the shots taken on animals every year is less then 400 yards with a rifle, less then 200 with a muzzy and less then 80 with a bow.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

The margins of improvement in ballistics themselves vary in small to almost medium degrees. Aside from a 50BMG, .338Lapua or a few other specially designed carttridges for long range shooting, ballistics has not changed. The regular joe still uses the 30.06, .308, .270, 7MM. Last I checked the ballistics on these cartridges have remained greatly the same.

The areas where they have improved are mostrly in custom developed hand loads. From my experience and interacting with my friends and aqaintences very few people actually reload their ammo for performance. Many don't have the time, the money or the interest. Their remington shelf ammo does the job at 200yds.

The most improvement I have seen in technology has been in optics and the use of GPS. This is where we start to see a real difference. now we can spot an elk or buck at 5 to 6 miles out. The road hunters may not go for that guy but I know a few people including my self that will put a stalk on that baby if he is a decent specimen. If you got the skills and a little luck, he's in the bag.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

While technology hasn't had much of am impact on success rates, IMHO it has allowed hunters to kill the older class animals. Back in the day, a buck had areas it could escape to, now with just about everyone having an ATV where can a mature buck on the Manti escape to? Back in the day, people headed to the hills the day before the hunt and rarely if ever went out looking for sheds, now people are scouting year round and shed hunting as become a joke. Escapement is critical for mature males to survive, as they have the biggest target on them once the hunts start. Take away escapement via ATV's and weapons that are more effective at farther distances, and people wonder why it is rare to see mature bucks?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Take away escapement via ATV's and weapons that are more effective at farther distances, and people wonder why it is rare to see mature bucks?


You could be right, I don't know. But I want to interject another idea into this discussion.

Maybe confidence in improved equipment and technology is a deception. I mean, maybe all the gadgets are sometimes a crutch that result in atrophied skills or even prevent the acquisition of good hunting skills altogether. Because no matter how advanced the technology becomes, its effective use still depends on a human being.

Sure, a guy can see great detail through a $1,000 spotting scope. But the trade-off is that his field of vision is dramatically reduced and he still has to know what details to look for. Most certainly, hunters were successful before such optics became common. Yet many hunters now swear that expensive optics are absolutely required for a successful hunt. Just one example.

Knowing the land is a huge advantage and there was a day not long ago when most hunters knew the land they hunted because they hunted the same places every year. Now days, I definitely get the impression that the majority of hunters know almost nothing about the land they hunt except what they can gather from GoogleEarth and Internet forums...but GoogleEarth doesn't have a game overlay.

Meantime, hunters aren't the only humans on the mountain and deer have adapted to the constant human activity. Big bucks become big bucks by not letting themselves be seen. I believe they have become quite good at doing just that, even when they're right under our noses. I think if most of us really knew how many times we've been within 100 yards of trophy class bucks without a clue that they were there, we'd get more excited about improving our hunting skills and less about shopping at Cabela's.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> Big bucks become big bucks by not letting themselves be seen. I believe they have become quite good at doing just that, even when they're right under our noses. I think if most of us really knew how many times we've been within 100 yards of trophy class bucks without a clue that they were there, we'd get more excited about improving our hunting skills and less about shopping at Cabela's.


I do have to agree with you on this Finn. 25 to 30 years ago a buck would typically jump and run and the first hint of your presence. Now a days I have seen bucks stay perfectly still in the brush at 20 yards from you. My brothers and I have had several trials where we will mozy around and not make eye contact with a deerand get within 20 yards. As soon as you make eye contact or get way to close for comfort they will bolt out of there like a bat out a hell. I have also seen many bucks hide their antlers and pretend to feed as they make their way to a drainage or a ****** for a get away.

Technology has helped but it has helped a small portion of hunters. I believe mainly those that can afford the new technology as it comes at a price. Not everyone can pay 2K+ for a spotting scope or 1K for a rifle scope much less 6K for a rifle. I say in general bucks are smarter and we are marginally better.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> For sure. Better yet, I'll come up and meet you at Cooper's and make Tony get us a couple of pitchers on the house. :mrgreen:


Sounds like a deal to me


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> I'm gonna pose the question to the DWR people at the Cedar City Open House on the 10th, but I'd like to take some of your answers with me.
> 
> On this forum and at various RAC and WB meetings, I've heard this phrase thrown around as an excuse and/or reason to cut tags, close areas, shorten seasons, change season dates, limit access, close roads, require online courses and certificates, and restructure season sequences, but I don't think it always means the same in each case nor to each person using it.
> 
> ...


Well, I asked the question and, per Doug Messerly, Southern Regional Supervisor, here's the answer I got:
"Hunting pressure is the number of hunters in a given area." Upon further discussion, he said it has nothing to do with the number of animals taken and has very little to do with any increased movement of the animals. It is a perception/social issue, (Remember the overcrowding issue?) and, indeed, means different things to different people. But when the DWR uses the phrase, it has to do with the number of hunters/permits issued in a given area.

He used two extreme scenerios to illustrate the the point. 
1 - Suppose we issue 2 tags in the Southern Region. Wouldn't that make a great hunt? I agreed that it would, for the two hunters with tags. But it would be a lousy hunt for the 16,998 hunters who didn't get a tag.
2 - Suppose we issued tags to *anyone* who wanted to hunt the Southern Region. Wouldn't that make a great hunt? I told him it probably would not to most hunters. (We talked further about this situation, but that's a whole different story.)

Well, the answer obviously lies somewhere in the middle and no matter what decision is made, there will be those who agree and those who don't and that's not likely to change.

He did reiterate that they are bound by law to carry out the decisions of the Wildlife Board regardless of the biological impacts or their personal preferences.

I'll post other things we talked about on the Cedar City DWR open house thread.


----------

