# Central RAC



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

So, here's my take on the Central RAC for what it's worth. I was late. Thought it was at the High School and then came in the back way and meandered through the halls where all the caucuses were taking place. Bad idea to have them on the same night.

They passed a motion to take 1000 of the Central general deer tags away from something like 12,000 available tags. This was mostly done to err on the side of caution it seemed. I didn't quite catch if it was a DWR proposal that the RAC accepted, or if a RAC member put it forward or what. I'm not a big fan of most of the reasoning I heard for it, but can't say I know what the long or short term effect will be either way. If there was data presented I missed it. It seemed more like a knee jerk reaction to emotional responses over winter kills. Kids became the banner for why tags should be removed in case there were serious effects on the herd.

I think if people are worried about kids' future in hunting the answer is not just to do what they can to guarantee that they will see a buck. I know that when you take kids you should do what you can to make fishing or hunting successful, but killing a buck is not required to get them hooked. I don't know any 14 year old who doesn't believe he can squeeze a big buck out of a mountain on any day. I always knew there were deer to be had and I hardly even saw them on some hunts. The focus should be on the responsible hunt not that the end result is always a deer. That's why anyone who takes their kid scouting will have already filled the tag for the kid as he will know that the buck he saw in the velvet is in there somewhere and no amount of pessimism will convince the kid otherwise. Oh but, guess what? You didn't draw. To me, that is worse on a kid. Talk about a sure fire way to get them disinterested. Talk about hunting all year, plan out on google earth where you are headed when the snow melts and then get a big fat rejection letter - which in Central comes more often than it used to. 

I would suggest something more like what they do with fish at the Berry. On official letter head with every tag just send a letter discussing the possible damages of a severe winter in localized areas and ask that hunters consider avoiding shooting younger bucks if the future is a concern for that particular sportsman.

I know that means nothing for sure, but it would work for me. I wouldn't shoot a 2 point as I try to do my part just like most everyone else. I just think that the impact of either decision is not well thought out. I am sure we lost a lot of deer but it has been awesome in Central of late. Opening day of muzzy had 20 plus bucks for me before 3:00 in Central. I didn't go out on multiple hunts without seeing 4 bucks or more. This is the result of years of mild springs and winters leading up to now. So if next year we have a winter like the last do we drop another 1000 etc? Yeah - if numbers clearly show the need.

More bighorns in lots of places - very cool. I'll give the conservation groups their props on that, maybe even SFW. Not that I believe it couldn't have been done without you and others by any means, that is just how it happened here FNAWS or whatever gets the actual props on that with the DIV right? Anyway, is very cool that they want to expand numbers and areas in a big way. 

Good RAC. Oh- I even asked a question. Felt like an [email protected]@, but I was proud of myself for giving it a go. I really don't like speaking in front of people though I have a big mouth here. I'm warming up though and I couldn't sit still not understanding the reasoning behind some of the new elk numbers. The DIV wants 80K or says there can be 80 K, but then they have these committees work out the where and how to of adding or reducing elk numbers and the best folks can come up with is 500 more. That's a step, but hardly towards objectives of 80K. Anyway, I just didn't get why so many units hadn't had a committee and really why the number was so close to the original after review. So, you can set me straight on that if you want to take the time as well as tell me why losing 1000 tags was the best thing to do if you disagree.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

So you were the guy that ask the question about the committees? I was about three rows behind you. You almost didn't get to ask your question, you hesitated slightly, and then went for it. You should have introduced yourself and steepNDeep. :lol:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Yup. That was my first attempt :shock: , should get better with subsequent attempts I hope. LOL- I think every forum member should have to go up and introduce themselves by their forum name even if they don't have a real question. I was bugged by the numbers and didn't get it - obviously- so I am glad I took the chance to clear up my concerns.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> They passed a motion to take 1000 of the Central general deer tags away from something like 12,000 available tags. This was mostly done to err on the side of caution it seemed. I didn't quite catch if it was a DWR proposal that the RAC accepted, or if a RAC member put it forward or what.


Anis gets up there, spends 15 minutes presenting data that took countless hours and a pile of money to collect, clearly states that there's additional data to show that there has not been an excessive winter kill in the Central Region and it all goes down the crapper as soon as John says "I got me a hunch...let's be proactive?" I'm sure the DWR feels pretty dang frustrated. I mean, why bother with a management plan? Why bother collecting data? Why bother making a presentation? Instead, let's just pull a number out of our butts and call it responsible management. :roll:

Glad to hear the DWR is looking to make a shift to unit management over regional management. Case in point - winter effect this year hasn't been consistent across the region and certainly not across the state. Never is.

Want to bet whether there'll be a big push at the Board meeting to reduce elk tags, too? Doesn't matter that we're one to two years over the age objectives. Doesn't matter that bull/cow ratios are way out of whack.

Spike hunts on all LE units and more than 50% of the bucks killed each year are yearlings. Go figure.



SteepNDeep said:


> Anyway, I just didn't get why so many units hadn't had a committee and really why the number was so close to the original after review.


Depredation. Speaking of the 3 or 4 units that I actually know anything about, landowners and ranchers aren't going to allow an increase in elk numbers because they believe there's already too many animals. There's also a growing number of hunters who feel likewise because they blame excessive elk numbers for the decline in deer. In other words, just more politics.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Anis gets up there, spends 15 minutes presenting data that took countless hours and a pile of money to collect, clearly states that there's additional data to show that there has not been an excessive winter kill in the Central Region and it all goes down the crapper as soon as John says "I got me a hunch...let's be proactive?" I'm sure the DWR feels pretty dang frustrated. I mean, why bother with a management plan? Why bother collecting data? Why bother making a presentation? Instead, let's just pull a number out of our butts and call it responsible management. :roll:


This thing drives me nuts too...instead of listening to the professional guy with proof to support his views, we end up listening to some guy in the crowd...very disheartening


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks for filling out the real story Finnegan. I missed the data on the deer and just heard the talk by the RAC. I don't think they gift wrapped some kind of Legacy for the youth by taking out the 1000. I was glad some of them voted against, but they were going to look like bad guys the way the others set it up. The audience clapped, so I guess guys feel the same way. If the data doesn't support it then I am against.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree with most of what you all have said. 

I was very disappointed in the "elk are dieing to die" comment. I was also disappointed that SFW was pushing for fewer tags. They have been pushing for fewer tags for several years now regardless of what the numbers show. If the DWR had said they were cutting the tags by 1,000 I believe SFW would have suggested a deeper cut. 

I liked how they are approaching the limited entry elk. We have mature bulls dieing of old age and the regions are above objective, giving more tags makes sense.

I also liked that they are tracking road kill in the Central region and found it interesting that the road kill from this winter hasn't been more then last winter.

The DWR employee giving the report should be given props for being very patience with a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks questioning him.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I was happy to hear John's suggestion that they cut 1000 tags in the Central Region. I am not a biologist but I would like to see the DWR's numbers that supposedly show that the winter kill and road kill are no worse this year than in past years. To a lay person that drives the roads and watches the deer in the area, it sure seems worse this year. Besides, the deer hunting in the Central Region has been poor for some time. I am all for breaking up the state's 5 regions into smaller units so that we can manage individual herds but until that occurs why not cut a few tags a give some of the yearling bucks a chance to survice. Why are Utah's elk are doing great? Because several years ago the DWR set up smaller units (primarily limited entry units ) and drastically cut tag numbers. If we want to see improvements in mule deer, we need to do the same thing. Colorado is an excellent example of how a state can manage its mule deer for both quality and quantity.

One more thought, the DWR's "research and numbers" also supposedly support a state-wide 60 day pheasant hunt. Anyone who has hunted pheasants lately (besides on a private hunting club), knows that there are very few birds left. It doesn't take a PHD to understand that a 60 day hunt will lead to the eradication of the few birds that still exist. I do not have a lot of faith in the DWR to make the right decisions, especially when the decision is to cut tags which translates into a direct decrease in their revenue and operating budget.

Hawkeye


----------



## chet (Sep 7, 2007)

SFW originally wanted an aditional 2000 tags cut, but John thought that was too much.
Micro units would be so much better for this sort of thing.
but lets focus on the important part of the meeting.......... those cute little chubs!!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> I am all for breaking up the state's 5 regions into smaller units so that we can manage individual herds but until that occurs why not cut a few tags a give some of the yearling bucks a chance to survice. Why are Utah's elk are doing great? Because several years ago the DWR set up smaller units (primarily limited entry units ) and drastically cut tag numbers. If we want to see improvements in mule deer, we need to do the same thing. Colorado is an excellent example of how a state can manage its mule deer for both quality and quantity.
> 
> One more thought, the DWR's "research and numbers" also supposedly support a state-wide 60 day pheasant hunt. Anyone who has hunted pheasants lately (besides on a private hunting club), knows that there are very few birds left. It doesn't take a PHD to understand that a 60 day hunt will lead to the eradication of the few birds that still exist. I do not have a lot of faith in the DWR to make the right decisions, especially when the decision is to cut tags which translates into a direct decrease in their revenue and operating budget.


1) Why not cut tags and give the yearlings a break? Because we don't need to. What good does it do? It doesn't have any effect on the herd as a whole, and it unnecessarily limits hunting opportunity.

2) Utah's elk herds are doing great because of a variety of reasons...Utah has big bulls because they have drastically cut tag numbers. You seem to think that overall herd health and high numbers of bulls and bucks are the same thing; they are not. Right now many of Utah's individual elk herds are not healthy because there are too many bulls.

3) If we want to see improvements in our deer herd, we must continue to improve the habitat--specifically the winter range. Hunters too often believe that cutting tags will lead to healthy herds; it doesn't. In truth, all cutting tags does is allow for more bucks to live...cutting tags doesn't increase overall herd health and herd numbers. If we want to increase the number of bucks in a unit, we need to increase the number of does and thus recruitment. On the other hand, if it is quality we want--or more mature bucks--we should cut tags. Right now, though, most of the central unit is managed as general season or managed for quantity not quality.

4) Colorado manages for quality not quantity. You seem to think that "quantity" means only lots of bucks; it does not. "Quantity" in terms of wildlife management refers more to the amount of recruitment and opportunity a herd can give to hunter harvest. Colorado manages more for quality...reduce opportunity, high buck/doe ratios, and lower recruitment. This is NOT "quantity". If Utah chose to move to a system similar to Colorado's management style of deer hunting, we can kiss our opportunity goodbye and watch our deer hunting follow a similar pattern as our elk hunting...very limited opportunity.

5) The problem with your pheasant scenario thinking is that you base your assumption on the idea that many people will be out hunting and harvesting pheasants...however, the truth is that the demand for pheasant hunting and the publics interest in it have waned considerably with the decrease in pheasants. I don't think it would matter if the DWR allowed for a 100 day season; hunters wouldn't eradicate all the birds. Again, I think you make the incorrect assumption that hunter harvest is the limiting factor in the population. Like deer hunting, hunter harvest is not limiting the population or health of the herd. But, habitat is.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> This thing drives me nuts too...instead of listening to the professional guy with proof to support his views, we end up listening to some guy in the crowd...very disheartening


He wasn't "some guy in the crowd", he was/is a RAC board member. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RAC board member or not...he is NOT the professional. So, instead of listening to the professional we are metaphorically listening to some guy in the crowd!


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> I was happy to hear John's suggestion that they cut 1000 tags in the Central Region. I am not a biologist but I would like to see the DWR's numbers that supposedly show that the winter kill and road kill are no worse this year than in past years. To a lay person that drives the roads and watches the deer in the area, it sure seems worse this year. Besides, the deer hunting in the Central Region has been poor for some time. I am all for breaking up the state's 5 regions into smaller units so that we can manage individual herds but until that occurs why not cut a few tags a give some of the yearling bucks a chance to survice. Why are Utah's elk are doing great? Because several years ago the DWR set up smaller units (primarily limited entry units ) and drastically cut tag numbers. If we want to see improvements in mule deer, we need to do the same thing. Colorado is an excellent example of how a state can manage its mule deer for both quality and quantity.
> 
> One more thought, the DWR's "research and numbers" also supposedly support a state-wide 60 day pheasant hunt. Anyone who has hunted pheasants lately (besides on a private hunting club), knows that there are very few birds left. It doesn't take a PHD to understand that a 60 day hunt will lead to the eradication of the few birds that still exist. I do not have a lot of faith in the DWR to make the right decisions, especially when the decision is to cut tags which translates into a direct decrease in their revenue and operating budget.
> 
> Hawkeye


The 60 day pheasant hunt suggestion wasn't based on research and numbers. Also they aren't suggesting a 60 day hunt. What the DWR were showing are some suggestions from the public and from a committee. The DWR will make thier suggestions next month.

By the way I agree a 60 day hunt is too long, my point is the 60 day hunt is not based on research or numbers.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > This thing drives me nuts too...instead of listening to the professional guy with proof to support his views, we end up listening to some guy in the crowd...very disheartening
> ...


There was one guy in the crowd who stood up and made a comment about the amount of road kill in front of his house to justify a cut in tags.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm for the cutting of tag numbers but another thing they could of done was give those tags to 75% archery 25% muzzleloader. Still oppurtunity but less harvested.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> RAC board member or not...he is NOT the professional. So, instead of listening to the professional we are metaphorically listening to some guy in the crowd!


And this is bad because the 'professional' is NEVER wrong, right? :roll: Like it or not, many hunters desire, to quote *you*, "A QUALITY HUNTING EXPERIENCE" and believe the winter kill has lowered the number of bucks available to hunt, so they desire to see fewer tags issued. Bottom line, a reduction in tags is desired by MANY hunters in Utah, why should their voice NOT be heard? Many hunters care about overall numbers AND "a quality hunting experience" that to them means seeing more mature bucks in the herd population. You don't agree, we get that, but MANY do. Why should your view trump another hunters view? Oh wait, now I remember, because anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, what the hell was I thinking? :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 2) Utah's elk herds are doing great because of a variety of reasons...Utah has big bulls because they have drastically cut tag numbers. You seem to think that overall herd health and high numbers of bulls and bucks are the same thing; they are not. Right now many of Utah's individual elk herds are not healthy because there are too many bulls.
> 
> 3) If we want to see improvements in our deer herd, we must continue to improve the habitat--specifically the winter range. Hunters too often believe that cutting tags will lead to healthy herds; it doesn't. In truth, all cutting tags does is allow for more bucks to live...cutting tags doesn't increase overall herd health and herd numbers. If we want to increase the number of bucks in a unit, we need to increase the number of does and thus recruitment. On the other hand, if it is quality we want--or more mature bucks--we should cut tags. Right now, though, most of the central unit is managed as general season or managed for quantity not quality.


Very good points. I think a good portion of Utah hunters would rather the state be managed for quantity, but they are not politicians, so it is heading the other direction. It seems like John is the deal killer in a lot of what the DWR proposes.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > RAC board member or not...he is NOT the professional. So, instead of listening to the professional we are metaphorically listening to some guy in the crowd!
> ...


Hey Bart, what is "many"? I think that term gets thrown around here pretty loosely and it wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific with speculation.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Hey Bart, what is "many"? I think that term gets thrown around here pretty loosely and it wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific with speculation.


18,134 :? How the heck do you expect an exact number? What is "a good portion"? You seem to be throwing that term around pretty loosely and it wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific with speculation. :wink: :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

inbowrange said:


> I'm for the cutting of tag numbers but another thing they could of done was give those tags to 75% archery 25% muzzleloader. Still oppurtunity but less harvested.


Good luck with that. The reality is that the majority of hunters n Utah use a rifle, so they have the biggest voice.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Bart, what is "many"? I think that term gets thrown around here pretty loosely and it wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific with speculation.
> ...


I wasn't looking for exact numbers, but a ball park figure would be better for my slow comprehension. :wink:

Also, I wasn't pointing the finger at you.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Utah's elk herds are doing great because of a variety of reasons...Utah has big bulls because they have drastically cut tag numbers. You seem to think that overall herd health and high numbers of bulls and bucks are the same thing; they are not. Right now many of Utah's individual elk herds are not healthy because there are too many bulls.
> ...


I agree. One thing I have learned is that the special interest groups are involved so early in the process that they build a huge amount of momentum and by the time most people find out about it, it is too late. I think we all should get and stay involved as much as we can.

I agree about John as well.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> inbowrange said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for the cutting of tag numbers but another thing they could of done was give those tags to 75% archery 25% muzzleloader. Still oppurtunity but less harvested.
> ...


I believe he is saying instead of cutting the tags by 1000-2000, give those 1000-2000 tags to primitive weapon hunters. That what opportunity is still there, but fewer bucks would be harvested. I like it, but the rifle guys I believe would rather see nobody get the tags if they can't have them. :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


The sad but true part about this in some instances, is that they are the ones instigating change, not always for the worse.

It's hard to complain about someone being proactive when the accountability is held by the public, who as a whole are doing nothing but buying tags.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

[quote.[/quote]

The sad but true part about this in some instances, is that they are the ones instigating change, not always for the worse.

It's hard to complain about someone being proactive when the accountability is held by the public, who as a whole are doing nothing but buying tags.[/quote]

It is sad but true. I know of people who are going to wake up one day and say what happened?

I have to give the DWR credit for the times where they look out for the guy who is just buying a tag and isn't involved. It would be easy to just service the greasy wheel and forget about the others.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

How much is a deer tag these days? Times that by 1000 and that was a pretty spendy move. 

What about an emergency shed hunting closure? Sure wouldn't hurt success of birth rates and fawn mortality. How would people feel about that?

Another thing I realized with people applauding is that the vast majority of them are Dedicated Hunters so they have their tag. I’m in the program, but here is my mini sob story. My dad is now signed on for his first year of dedicated hunter not because he likes bow or muzzy but because he was unsuccessful two years in a row for the area where we (my brother and I) had automatic tags. He has taken one deer in 20 years and is near retirement. So now we pushed, prodded, and roped him into the program to squeeze his last 3 years out of him. As you all know, the rifle is as much about family tradition as it is killing a deer if not MORE SO. For people like him I think the idea of going against reason by numbers is a mistake. You get the guys on either side of the age swing- young and old, and they are IMO more likely to just quit the whole thing. I still say we’ve had great years leading up to a decent herd. The many bucks I saw last year were young and even with 1 – count it ONE, tough winter they will be good again this year and that is what it sounds like the DIV guy was saying.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I guess I have a differrence of opinion with you guys. I don't consider myslf a trophy hunter but I typically will not shoot a two point on opening morning either (although I have before in the past). If a guy is lucky enough to draw one of the few Utah limited entry deer tags in the state where there are good numbers of mature deer, he can kill a good buck. My experience, however, is that most of the general units, including the Central Unit, do not have very many older age class bucks. If you are a meat hunter and want to kill a spike or a two point, more power to you. However, I think we could do a much better job of managing our deer herds to provide for quality and quantity. As I mentioned before, Colorado appears to be headed in the right direction for deer. They have broken up the state into smaller units and have moved to a limited entry system. There are still plenty of tags that can be drawn every year and many tags remain available over the counter after the draws are completed. In other words, someone who wants to hunt a mature buck can do so every couple of years in a quality area. At the same time those hunters who want to hunt every year and are not as concerned with quality can pick a unit that offers those opportunities.

I expressed concern regarding the DWR's supposed numbers because I believe that they often look for numbers to support their position. "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Maybe I am wrong, but I think the DWR's position is infludenced by the potential loss of revenue that may result from a decrease in tags. After all, it was not too long ago that the DWR issued a huge number of cow elk tags on Fish Lake, which resulted in substantial overkill. I appreciate the efforts of the DWR but I also will not hesitate to question their numbers and conclusions.

As for this year, I was lucky enough to draw a quality tag and so I will be chasing mature bucks in Southern Utah with my muzzleloader. As for next year, I will probably go out on the opener of the rifle hunt for a "camping trip" with my family and then I will pursue something better on the extended archery unit.

Regards,

Hawkeye


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

So you're saying you will go, maybe even have a tag and not shoot anything? Maybe we should just have a sign up sheet for everyone that wants a tag but promises not to shoot anything.  . I'm just laughing a bit over it as you make an argument for keeping the tags with that kind of behavior. I think so anyway. My bro and I both shot 24 inchers last year in Central. One from a rough and hard to get to area, another from an easy to get to place. Why shouldn't the DIV be worried about revenue? Why is it fair to assume that they "fudged" the numbers to not have to lose those tags? 

I don't think that is the case. I think their numbers are what they are and it isn't like the DIV guy got all hot under the collar and told people they were being armchair biologists by using kids as propaganda for why the tag numbers need to be lowered. We can't want MORE management with smaller units and then just ignore the management that is already being given. I really think this kind of change just reflects how people want it both ways: I want to hunt, and yes I want fewer tags so there are still big deer. Especially when everyone in the room already has a tag. Like your post where you say I have a tag and am going after big deer, so I think it is OK to cut tags. Why wouldn't you? What about the guy who gets no tag this year? 

Here is where I think you can make an argument about Central herds and snow- Midway, Thistle Creek, Hobble some, Wallsburg, and maybe East side of Nebo and whatever that mountain south of it is named. Anything on the western slopes has not had anything that was really bad in Utah County. I went out to the Deeps and back during what I thought was the worst time and really the snow seemed the worst in the areas I already mentioned. That's what I think, and I'll shut up now.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> I guess I have a differrence of opinion with you guys. I don't consider myslf a trophy hunter but I typically will not shoot a two point on opening morning either (although I have before in the past). If a guy is lucky enough to draw one of the few Utah limited entry deer tags in the state where there are good numbers of mature deer, he can kill a good buck. My experience, however, is that most of the general units, including the Central Unit, do not have very many older age class bucks. If you are a meat hunter and want to kill a spike or a two point, more power to you. However, I think we could do a much better job of managing our deer herds to provide for quality and quantity. As I mentioned before, Colorado appears to be headed in the right direction for deer. They have broken up the state into smaller units and have moved to a limited entry system. There are still plenty of tags that can be drawn every year and many tags remain available over the counter after the draws are completed. In other words, someone who wants to hunt a mature buck can do so every couple of years in a quality area. At the same time those hunters who want to hunt every year and are not as concerned with quality can pick a unit that offers those opportunities.
> 
> I expressed concern regarding the DWR's supposed numbers because I believe that they often look for numbers to support their position. "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Maybe I am wrong, but I think the DWR's position is infludenced by the potential loss of revenue that may result from a decrease in tags. After all, it was not too long ago that the DWR issued a huge number of cow elk tags on Fish Lake, which resulted in substantial overkill. I appreciate the efforts of the DWR but I also will not hesitate to question their numbers and conclusions.
> 
> ...


There are alot of people comparing Utah and Colorado and assuming that changing to smaller units is going to turn Utah into Colorado. Be very carefull in assuming such. There are alot more issues involved then where people are hunting. buck deer hunting has a very small affect on the deer herd, nearly all biologists agree on that.

One can look at Nevada as a example of how smaller units doesn't turn the state into Colorado. Managing the state in smaller units will reduce the number of hunters interested in hunting. Many feel this is a good thing, I don't.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Habitat is very different in Colorado than it is in Utah. The carrying capacity for wildlife is much greater in Colorado. Nevada might be a better comparison and the opportunity in Nevada is not very good.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> However, I think we could do a much better job of managing our deer herds to provide for quality and quantity. As I mentioned before, Colorado appears to be headed in the right direction for deer. They have broken up the state into smaller units and have moved to a limited entry system. There are still plenty of tags that can be drawn every year and many tags remain available over the counter after the draws are completed. In other words, someone who wants to hunt a mature buck can do so every couple of years in a quality area. At the same time those hunters who want to hunt every year and are not as concerned with quality can pick a unit that offers those opportunities.


This is the state of Colorado's deer hunting...

Colorado has 600,000+ deer to work with...and only offers its 4.5 million citizens about 90,000 tags...again, you have higher buck/doe ratios, you will also have much less opportunity...

By way of comparison, Utah offers its 2.5 million citizens about 97,000 tags...in other words, Colorado offers one tag for every 50 people and Utah offers one tag for every 25 people. We have a little more than half of Colorado's population yet offer more deer hunting opportunity.

Higher quality means less opportunity...and the "Quantity" goes down because recruitment is significantly reduced.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

in 2006, 63% of the people who applied for a deer tag in Nevada didn't get one. For every 4 people who are hunting deer there are 6 who didn't draw a tag.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Steep-

First, I have had a tag every year for the last 10 years and I have only shot one deer. I have also been a number of hunts in the last few years where I personally did not have a tag but accompanied a friend on a hunt. To be honest with you, some of these hunts were more fun than when I was actually carrying a tag and a weapon. I am not begrudging those of you who like to slaughter 2 points every year. That is your right under the current system. All I am saying is that I personally would like to see more mature deer on some of the general units. As for me, I have reached a point where I would rather pass up the smaller bucks and give them an opportunity to develop into something bigger.

Second, I know that Utah is not Colorado. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that we could do a much better job of managing our deer units. I think smaller units would allow us to make decisions based on specific herds and do a better job of distributing hunting pressure thoughout the various herds. We can always learn from what other states are doing.

Finally, I understand that my views are influenced by the fact that I am not a "meat hunter" in the traditional sense. As I said before, I do not consider myself a trophy hunter but I do enjoy the challenge of trying to take a mature buck. There has to be a balance between opportunity and quality. I would like to see the pendulum swing a little further towards quality management.

Hawkeye


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> Steep-
> 
> First, I have had a tag every year for the last 10 years and I have only shot one deer. I have also been a number of hunts in the last few years where I personally did not have a tag but accompanied a friend on a hunt. To be honest with you, some of these hunts were more fun than when I was actually carrying a tag and a weapon. I am not begrudging those of you who like to slaughter 2 points every year. That is your right under the current system. All I am saying is that I personally would like to see more mature deer on some of the general units. As for me, I have reached a point where I would rather pass up the smaller bucks and give them an opportunity to develop into something bigger.
> 
> ...


Limiting the hunter to one buck deer in a year. Limiting the hunter to one weapon in a year. Limiting the number of tags given out. Moving the muzzleloader hunt from November. Breaking the state into 5 regions.

At what point has the pendulum been on the opportunitys side?


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Longfeather-

Times have definitely changed since you were young. I never had the opportunity to kill multiple bucks in one year. I do, however, hunt with multiple weapons through the dedicated hunter program. As far as moving the muzzleloader hunt out of the rut and breaking the state into five regions, I guess that is part of sound management. Even with those changes, the vast majority of yearling bucks do not make it through their first hunting season. I think there is still plenty of opportunity. If you want to hunt deer every year in Utah, you can. If you want to kill a deer and put some meat in the freezer every year in Utah, you can. I am not buying into the argument that we have lost the opportunity to hunt in Utah. You might not be able to hunt the Southern region every year and you might not be able to shoot multiple bucks, but you can hunt and shoot a deer every year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> First, I have had a tag every year for the last 10 years and I have only shot one deer. I have also been a number of hunts in the last few years where I personally did not have a tag but accompanied a friend on a hunt. To be honest with you, some of these hunts were more fun than when I was actually carrying a tag and a weapon. I am not begrudging those of you who like to slaughter 2 points every year. That is your right under the current system. All I am saying is that I personally would like to see more mature deer on some of the general units. As for me, I have reached a point where I would rather pass up the smaller bucks and give them an opportunity to develop into something bigger.
> 
> Second, I know that Utah is not Colorado. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that we could do a much better job of managing our deer units. I think smaller units would allow us to make decisions based on specific herds and do a better job of distributing hunting pressure thoughout the various herds. We can always learn from what other states are doing.
> 
> Finally, I understand that my views are influenced by the fact that I am not a "meat hunter" in the traditional sense. As I said before, I do not consider myself a trophy hunter but I do enjoy the challenge of trying to take a mature buck. There has to be a balance between opportunity and quality. I would like to see the pendulum swing a little further towards quality management.


1) Your choice has been to only shoot one deer in 10 years..."choice" is the key word.

2) I like the idea of breaking units up into smaller more manageable deer herd units...I think that is a great idea. And, we can learn from what other states are doing...as we often do. However, I never want Utah to have a management system in place similar to what Colorado has now for deer.

3) The problem with your idea, as I see it, is this: If we limit opportunity, and thus increase mature bucks, we greatly limit the opportunity of the meat hunter. But, if we keep opportunity high and leave the number of mature bucks lower, NOTHING is taken away from the someone who wishes to hunt mature bucks. That opportunity still exists...for every one of those 10 years you hunted, did you or did you not hunt for mature bucks? Your choice was to shoot only one buck...but you had the opportunity to do otherwise.

Also, as is, trophy style hunters also have the opportunity to put in for premium hunts where they may have the opportunity to hunt trophy bucks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Limiting the hunter to one buck deer in a year. Limiting the hunter to one weapon in a year. Limiting the number of tags given out. Moving the muzzleloader hunt from November. Breaking the state into 5 regions.
> 
> At what point has the pendulum been on the opportunitys side?


You make it sound like the primary/only reason these changes were enacted was to benefit the 'trophy' hunter, which is FALSE. Deer populations were falling drastically, and to stop/reverse the trend the DWR reduced tags, made hunters choose your weapon, moved the muzzy hunt away from the rut. These changes along with habitat improvements, and good weather conditions have allowed the mule deer population to rebound gradually in most parts of the state. I believe the muzzy hunt season date changes had more of an impact on herd growth than the other two changes you listed, as it allows more does to be breed during the first estrus cycle which enables a higher percentage of fawns to survive each year. These changes benefit ALL hunters, trophy hunters and opportunity hunters alike. I'll throw it back on you on the pendulum issue, more parts of the state are managed for opportunity than trophy, so which hunt demographic gets top billing?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> Longfeather-
> 
> Times have definitely changed since you were young. I never had the opportunity to kill multiple bucks in one year. I do, however, hunt with multiple weapons through the dedicated hunter program. As far as moving the muzzleloader hunt out of the rut and breaking the state into five regions, I guess that is part of sound management. Even with those changes, the vast majority of yearling bucks do not make it through their first hunting season. I think there is still plenty of opportunity. If you want to hunt deer every year in Utah, you can. If you want to kill a deer and put some meat in the freezer every year in Utah, you can. I am not buying into the argument that we have lost the opportunity to hunt in Utah. You might not be able to hunt the Southern region every year and you might not be able to shoot multiple bucks, but you can hunt and shoot a deer every year.


Hey I'm only 37, I consider that young. 

There is still opportunity but to say we need less opportunity under the premise that the pendulum hasn't swung the trophy hunter's way is incorrect.

All I'm fighting for is the opportunity we have; if we change to smaller units we will lose opportunity. We give up this and we give up that, all under the premise that we are doing it for the health of the herd, no matter how much we give up the trophy crowd still wants more. John Baer SFW, felt the elk tags shouldn't have been increased despite the fact the age and numbers were above objective.

Perhaps we should focus a little less on micromanaging the hunter....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Limiting the hunter to one buck deer in a year. Limiting the hunter to one weapon in a year. Limiting the number of tags given out. Moving the muzzleloader hunt from November. Breaking the state into 5 regions.
> ...


Yup. We were spoiled for a long time and now that regulations are falling closer to in-line with other states and reality, no one likes it. But it's necessary if we want to be able to hunt with any regularity in the future.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> hawkeye said:
> 
> 
> > Longfeather-
> ...


The pendulum has swung the way of the trophy hunter in the form of LE areas, which do not take up much of the states deer hunting areas.

We have to micro-manage hunters. We are the ones killing the deer that are left over after depredation, habitat loss and vehicle deaths. Hunter harvest is what we DO have control over.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Wyoming2utah, I have hunted for a mature buck each of the last 10 years. I have enjoyed each of those hunts whether I was successful or not. From my perspective, however, there are very few mature bucks left on most of the general units. I am not calling for a ban on "meat hunting" state wide. I would just like to see more units managed with the goal of providing better quality. If you want meat, there are plenty of doe and cow elk hunts. After all, there is nothing the DWR likes better ("to help bring the buck to doe ratio into line") than to issue a bunch of doe and cow tags. Heaven forbid we reduce the number of yearling bucks that are being killed.

Hawkeye


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Limiting the hunter to one buck deer in a year. Limiting the hunter to one weapon in a year. Limiting the number of tags given out. Moving the muzzleloader hunt from November. Breaking the state into 5 regions.
> ...


I know why those changes were made.

There are more limited entry ereas now then there were when I started hunting.

Infact we can add changing the bookcliffs and the henrys to limited entry areas to my first list

don"t tell us that we haven"t sacrificed for the sake of the herd


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> I know why those changes were made.
> 
> There are more limited entry ereas now then there were when I started hunting.
> 
> ...


Huh? I said the changes were made to benefit the herds, and that ALL hunters have 'sacrificed' along the way, not just the opportunity hunters. I NEVER said opportunity hunters haven't sacrificed, just that they aren't the only ones to have done so.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

hawkeye said:


> Wyoming2utah, I have hunted for a mature buck each of the last 10 years. I have enjoyed each of those hunts whether I was successful or not. From my perspective, however, there are very few mature bucks left on most of the general units. I am not calling for a ban on "meat hunting" state wide. I would just like to see more units managed with the goal of providing better quality. If you want meat, there are plenty of doe and cow elk hunts. After all, there is nothing the DWR likes better ("to help bring the buck to doe ratio into line") than to issue a bunch of doe and cow tags. Heaven forbid we reduce the number of yearling bucks that are being killed.


So, you have hunted for a mature buck each of the last 10 years...your opportunity to hunt them was there. Saying that there are very few mature bucks is very misleading...the number of mature bucks is pretty high on most units; just not as high as you would like and not as high as could be.

Personally, I don't consider myself a meat hunter...I have only shot a few deer and have never shot a cow elk. I do, though, enjoy my yearly opportunities to hunt and don't want those opportunities taken away.

Again, you had the opportunity to hunt for your mature buck; you have that chance. But, my opportunity to hunt is reduced when tag numbers are reduced to appease those who want more big bucks...and what do they lose?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > I know why those changes were made.
> ...


That is true.

You also implied the pendulum was in the opportunity side, I'm pointing out the changes that have been made that limits opportunity.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

[quote="wyoming2utah
Again, you had the opportunity to hunt for your mature buck; you have that chance. But, my opportunity to hunt is reduced when tag numbers are reduced to appease those who want more big bucks...and what do they lose?[/quote]

A very good point.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> [quote="wyoming2utah
> Again, you had the opportunity to hunt for your mature buck; you have that chance. But, my opportunity to hunt is reduced when tag numbers are reduced to appease those who want more big bucks...and what do they lose?


A very good point.[/quote]I see it as a selfish point. Why should your/mine way of hunting trump the other? That is why I say we NEED to have BOTH options available. The entire state should NOT be managed for trophy hunting only, nor should the entire state be managed for opportunity ONLY. Balance MUST be desired and desirable by BOTH sides.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I would say that the "opportunity" to take a mature buck on most general units is pretty poor. Your comments highlight the fundamental issue in this debate: opportunity v. quality. As I have explained before, I am in support of increasing quality even if it decreases overall opportunity. However, there has to be some middle ground whereby some units are managed for opportunity ("meat hunt") and others are managed for quality. Breaking the state up into smaller units may allow us to reach such a balance.

Hawkeye


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="wyoming2utah
> ...


I see it as a selfish point. Why should your/mine way of hunting trump the other? That is why I say we NEED to have BOTH options available. The entire state should NOT be managed for trophy hunting only, nor should the entire state be managed for opportunity ONLY. Balance MUST be desired and desirable by BOTH sides.[/quote]

SELFISH?????? it is the most balanced option because it gives both trophy and opportunity.

Hawkeye wants to limit eveyone's opportunity because HE isn't seeing ENOUGH mature bucks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> SELFISH?????? it is the most balanced option because it gives both trophy and opportunity.
> 
> Hawkeye wants to limit eveyone's opportunity because HE isn't seeing ENOUGH mature bucks.


Yes, selfish. It is NOT balanced if you or other opportunity hunters were to get your wish and all LE units were done away with and we have buck/doe ratios of 15/100, and have a very small number of older class bucks in the population. Just because you as an opportunist see it as "balanced" does NOT mean another hunter sees it that way. While I don't agree with Hawkeye wanting to raise quality at the expense of opportunity statewide, I do believe the state should have parts of the state managed for trophy quality hunting, and parts of the state managed for opportunity, not one or the other. I consider that balance, not saying because one out of 30 bucks is 5 years or older the trophy opportunities are there. that doesn't add up as balance to me.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Enjoy your Dedicated tag while it lasts. That is the current free pass that allows you to argue so freely. What happens when you can’t get that tag because I guarantee you fewer tags means more angry folks means more dedicated applicants next year and each year after. So when you are left with no dedicated, no lucky draw odds, and no general season for maybe 2 years in a row how will you feel then? It isn’t a Southern issue anymore, people are denied in Central with 12000 tags and we could have made 5 rows of the 50 stand up in that packed auditorium to illustrate how many people won’t be getting a tag (not that it applies to them yet as they were mostly dedicated, but there is a real impact here to direct hunting opportunity) and it would have looked pretty grim. Northern tag reductions means that the draw eats them up before over the counter and too bad for those who still haven’t learned to apply. Everyone posting here will have a friend who feels “shafted” by this kind of change this spring. No one is talking about spikes and 2 points in this discussion. People on this board are well past that for their personal preference. We are talking about opportunity and the change was made on emotion rather than facts presented by the wildlife guys who said no change was needed. Years of mild to almost nothing winters have made great herds. If you can’t find a 4 point in Central you haven’t been trying hard enough to call it hunting anyway.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Bringing things back to earth, the Central RAC did NOT 'make' any reductions. They merely agreed to recommend such to the Wildlife Board, who is the ONLY entity that has the authority to reduce/increase tag numbers, this includes the RAC's and the DWR. If you feel strongly about it, one way or the other, send e-mails to the WB members and calmly explain your views. :idea:


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > SELFISH?????? it is the most balanced option because it gives both trophy and opportunity.
> ...


Pro... NO ONE HAS SAID DO AWAY WITH ALL LE UNITS. Quite putting words in our mouths.

We are defending our current opportunity. We aren't asking for anything extra for our side. We are pointing out we have given up opportunity and we continue to give up opportunity but they still want more. The pendalum has swung over to the trophy crowd and is stuck there.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Bringing things back to earth, the Central RAC did NOT 'make' any reductions. They merely agreed to recommend such to the Wildlife Board, who is the ONLY entity that has the authority to reduce/increase tag numbers, this includes the RAC's and the DWR. If you feel strongly about it, one way or the other, send e-mails to the WB members and calmly explain your views. :idea:


Good point. If the people who don't agree with the recommendations don't let the board know thier feelings they deserve to get the reductions.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Pro... NO ONE HAS SAID DO AWAY WITH ALL LE UNITS. Quite putting words in our mouths.
> 
> We are defending our current opportunity. We aren't asking for anything extra for our side. We are pointing out we have given up opportunity and we continue to give up opportunity but they still want more. The pendalum has swung over to the trophy crowd and is stuck there.


Not true, I could list several from this forum who have expressed a desire to do away with ALL LE units. I also disagree that the pendulum has swung over to the trophy crowd and is "stuck" there. I have fewer options to hunt 180+ bucks today than I did in the mid 80's, which were the "good old days" for me. I say ATV use, and weapons that are effective at longer ranges has taken away from BOTH the trophy hunter and the opportunity hunter.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Pro... NO ONE HAS SAID DO AWAY WITH ALL LE UNITS. Quite putting words in our mouths.
> ...


Some one, somewhere, on some post may well have said do away with LE units. Don't paint us all with that someones, somewheres brush.

I agree to your point about technology.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Some one, somewhere, on some post may well have said do away with LE units. Don't paint us all with that someones, somewheres brush.


Fair enough, but in return don't paint all trophy hunters with the same broad brush either. :wink:


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

SteepNDeep said:


> Enjoy your Dedicated tag while it lasts. That is the current free pass that allows you to argue so freely. What happens when you can't get that tag because I guarantee you fewer tags means more angry folks means more dedicated applicants next year and each year after. So when you are left with no dedicated, no lucky draw odds, and no general season for maybe 2 years in a row how will you feel then? It isn't a Southern issue anymore, people are denied in Central with 12000 tags and we could have made 5 rows of the 50 stand up in that packed auditorium to illustrate how many people won't be getting a tag (not that it applies to them yet as they were mostly dedicated, but there is a real impact here to direct hunting opportunity) and it would have looked pretty grim. Northern tag reductions means that the draw eats them up before over the counter and too bad for those who still haven't learned to apply. Everyone posting here will have a friend who feels "shafted" by this kind of change this spring. No one is talking about spikes and 2 points in this discussion. People on this board are well past that for their personal preference. We are talking about opportunity and the change was made on emotion rather than facts presented by the wildlife guys who said no change was needed. Years of mild to almost nothing winters have made great herds. If you can't find a 4 point in Central you haven't been trying hard enough to call it hunting anyway.


Judging by the response that this was given I highly doubt there will be too many disappointed by the reduction if it happens.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

Oh also in regards to the "roadkill issue", I don't know if any of you other guys heard it when this was first brought up last night, but he said that they didn't have accurate numbers regarding the roadkill, and then 10 minutes later we all of the sudden had very accurate information ergarding the said roadkill. Maybe I was just in and out of my slumber at the time, but I personally tend to believe someones initial response on issues.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro - what is the best way to pass along my concern that I feel like it was not necessary to drop the 1000. I thought that is wasn't over, but wasn't sure. Do you have a link that takes me to the people I can email, or do you need to show up with a pre written question/statement or what? 

I have said that I think a statewide hunt based on one harvest number could work. I know it seems ancient but I see it as succeeding for different reasons than you might see it failing. You still could exclude any area for reasons of population, or by limited season dates. The thing about it is it would take away/destroy trophy areas as strictly trophy areas (unless you scaled it over a period of years) very quickly. Then, it would be the supply and demand type hunting where one year people claimed the books was hot, then another the wasatch, then another the beaver, until basically everyone realized that hunting is about being in good habitat, checking out spots before hand, and being ready when you create your own opportunity in ANY corner of the state. Not just going to an area after waiting 8 years and knowing that you can shoot your whatever. I just wish we could eliminate tag hunting. It sucks. There is no honor or sport in it and it will contribute to the demise of hunting. Some of the best hunting could easily be in the mountains everyone loves in their own back yard- wherever that may be. 

I'll grant you that it will never happen and I know you aren't worried about it. I would like to know what a biologist or professional manager would think about it just to know what their objections are. So after having posted that will you still help a fella out? I just want to throw my 2 cents in like anyone else.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

You'd think I knew how to quote by now. I don't. 


> Judging by the response that this was given I highly doubt there will be too many disappointed by the reduction if it happens.


OK, well that was progress anyway. gwailow - the room was to the walls with dedicated hunters. This means they are gauranteed a tag for 1, 2, or the next 3 seasons. Gauranteed. Money paid, hours to be negotiated...errr I mean worked. Why would they not be totally supportive of 1000 other guys not being able to hunt the same meadow they want to hunt with tags already in hand?

Plus, anyway, it was for the kids as John said. :mrgreen: Next time I have an argument that I want to take before a RAC I'll get one of those box loads of puppies :roll: outside of Sportsman's. Makes grown hunters cry to see all those puppies and their hunting potential.

It's for the dogs fellas...we should do it for the baby dogs and their hunting future!

Applause for Steep and his box O' dawgs.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

I'll agree with you that there where those there who had that exact mentality. I also believe that some of those who were in attendance (me included) are getting sick of the deer herds dwindling and would like to see something happen with that. There used to be a time when I would hunt west Juab county because there were deer there, nowadays I just hunt it because there aren't any other people out there. 

Personally, I don't want to see Levan, the Red Cliffs, pole canyon etc. wind up like the west. I know that's exactly what Richard was referring to when he made the comments of teenagers not giving two terds in a bucket about hunting, because they aren't seeing the animals. I can still find the big bucks on Nebo and in the West desert, but that's because I work my @ss off doing it. I find it hard to believe that we are able to spark the interest of the youth if at least some "decent" bucks aren't easily accesible. Maybe that's just my thinking but I believe it to be true.

Nice idea with the puppies though....


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I was having fun, and I appreciate you being decent to me in spite of me. I agree I was a bit eager to proclaim that no one considered good management, but I still think the crowd had to be skewed. If the Deds are 12000 and every other hunter on rifle is what ? 60,000? Then I would say the group last night was 90% dedicated and well basically since I suck at math let me just say that the crowd is not representative of the masses and the collective boos at home that will come from the 1000 folks who don't draw this spring added to the friends and family that wanted to hunt the same unit with them would have made the timid applause seem silly IMO. 

I wish I had sympathy on the seeing deer notion of getting kids interested. I believe that to a point. Here is what I plan to do to get my kid interested. NOT let him buy trophy hunter magazines until he has his own job and wants to. Not go to every sportsmans show with him. Not buy him his own gun at a young age. I think we continue to set the wrong expectation with kids and we shouldn't be surprised when they prefer to get "book bucks" on some video game that keeps them happy until they discover grand theft auto. I also won't get a game system in my house. I'll educate my kid by the stream and in the hills and in projects in the backyard thank you very much. 

And frankly I hope his first trophy is a 2 point. Heaven forbid that the first deer he gets is some easy high dollar tag deer that we got lucky and drew on with massive cheaters and beams. Great way to ruin a thing called anticipation, hope, expectation, hard work, all the things that are part of hunting. Just like chasing girls, there needs to be some mystery, some learning, some dry spells, and some drama cuz when you get the girl you may find that she got you instead. :shock: It's about the chase not the kill. Or at least it's about so many millions of other things like being outside, seeing cool hawks, seeing your first coyote, or hearing your first bugle when scouting. Yeah, it can all be done on a unit with massive bucks, but why not do it every year on a unit with a lot of twos, a few threes and some mysterious monster that is really there for that time when the kid is old enough to get serious and leave you in a chair by the fire. I know too many 20 and thirty somethings that just don't confirm the fears of not enough deer in the Central unit. Or they are all full of [email protected]@ like me :mrgreen: . If a kid prefers video games to actual hunting it isn't because we asked 1000 guys to stay home so the kid would see one more buck, it is because he either chose it just because he likes it, or because the parent set the kid up for failure by not giving him the time and effort it takes to do it right. You can't make a kid want to hunt no matter how many bucks you might show him. It isn't about that. My dad has 4 sons. 2 live for and love to hunt, 2 don't hunt at all but sometimes go with. Same dad, same experiences. And when I was young he took what we thought were trophies and frankly- they still are in my memory even though they don't warrant pulling out a tape.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

I agree with everything you said regarding the youth. My first buck was a deuce as was the buck my younger brother shot. I feel that learning from dad and being in the outdoors is a very valuable if not the most valuable retention tool for the youth who are already submerged into the hunting spectrum. I want my kids to learn the same things that my dad and grandad taught me, I want them to have the same respect for the wildlife and nature that I have. From a "recruitment" level though, I think that something regarding herd quality etc. needs to be done, not just a "New and Improved Special Youth Hunt" this and "Youth Hunt" that. I'm not saying that we should expect 25inchers all over the place, but a few more three points here and there and occasional four point doesn't sound that bad either. I honestly don't know if lowering the tag #'s is the answer, but I'm not sure how it could hurt either.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Sounds reasonable to me too. I honestly know that I have no idea what the effects are or will be. I would like to think that we can trust the guys we pay to do this for a living though. I'm just concerned for all the reasons I wrote above. Glad you're on the forum and I don't think any of us need to panic yet.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

gwailow said:


> Oh also in regards to the "roadkill issue", I don't know if any of you other guys heard it when this was first brought up last night, but he said that they didn't have accurate numbers regarding the roadkill, and then 10 minutes later we all of the sudden had very accurate information ergarding the said roadkill. Maybe I was just in and out of my slumber at the time, but I personally tend to believe someones initial response on issues.


That's a cheap shot. Anis' immediate response to the question was that there is no roadkill data available except in the central region. If you're making a veiled attempt to call the man a liar, you don't know what you're talking about. I've had many conversations with him since he took the position last year and haven't known him to ever fabricate anything.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here you go SteepnDeep: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... embers.php


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks Pro. Much appreciated.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> gwailow said:
> 
> 
> > Oh also in regards to the "roadkill issue", I don't know if any of you other guys heard it when this was first brought up last night, but he said that they didn't have accurate numbers regarding the roadkill, and then 10 minutes later we all of the sudden had very accurate information ergarding the said roadkill. Maybe I was just in and out of my slumber at the time, but I personally tend to believe someones initial response on issues.
> ...


Ok, easy homey. I'm not calling anyone out as a liar because obviously I don't him like you do. I am calling a spade a spade though, because he did not say a word about having accurate info. regarding the central region the first time around. He said that they are unable to have such information as that.

Regardless, I don't think it really makes a difference because later it was explained that the deer that are falling to the roadkill aren't calculated into the herd population anyhow.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I was at the meeting and I find something hilarious. On one hand a bunch of people can form a group called a Region Advisory Council from every walk of life. They had a person representing the livestock and Ranchers, some representing the animal lovers but non consumptive, the at large members who could be hunters or not and then a rep from the sportsmans group. These people can agree on several issues that are presented to them from the officials and people doing scientific studies. Not always 100% aggreeance but pretty close. On the other hand a guy can come on here and watch guys who are all from the same side (hunters) argue for days about the same stupid things that they have been arguing for years about. 

Is it just me or is that completely comical?


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

I think people just like to argue for the sake of arguing....you know...its kinda like a non-contact sport.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

NHS said:


> I think people just like to argue for the sake of arguing....you know...its kinda like a non-contact sport.


I disagree. :twisted: :lol:


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> NHS said:
> 
> 
> > I think people just like to argue for the sake of arguing....you know...its kinda like a non-contact sport.
> ...


You would. :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

NHS said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > NHS said:
> ...


 *\-\* Who little ol' innocent me? 8)


----------

