# Recovery Units



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

I am glad that so far the RAC's seem to be going with option 1. I have not heard though how the "Recovery" units or units that are below the 12 buck to doe ratio fit in. With option 1 will these just have the shortened hunting seasons or will they become limited entry units? Can a dedicated hunter or a lifetime licence holder get a tag for a "recovery" unit? Was there any talk at the RAC's about how the Recovery units would operate?

Mark


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

As it stands, they will limit the number of tags in these units, set aside in a separate draw until they are back up to objective.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2010)

next year will be my last year in the dedicated program. i hunt a "recovery unit" (which is complete BS, theres deer there. people are just too ****ing lazy to go hike for them) and passed many nice bucks this year so i would have the opportunity to hunt there next year. if i dont get to hunt where i intend to next year because of some retards opinion, i will be EXTREMELY ****ed!!


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

The recovery units will be limited entry regardless of how they are packaged and sold.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2010)

they better include dedicated hunters in this draw! i heard rumors they arnet going to... we work the hours and pay the fees, just like anyone else does! dont exclude us just because we can hunt all 3 seasons


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

they wont mess with the dedicated hunter system..

they are talking 7,000 tag cuts, there are what 10,000 dedicated hunters and 90,000 total tags. its easy to work around the dedicated hunters for two or three years


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> The recovery units will be limited entry regardless of how they are packaged and sold.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> BirdDogger said:
> 
> 
> > The recovery units will be limited entry regardless of how they are packaged and sold.
> ...


And will never return to genral hunting units. For the simple fact that classifying a unit a a "recovery unit" wont make any significant increase in deer numbers.

Have we ever seen a unit open up after bieng LE?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Maybe Thousand Lakes, This year.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > BirdDogger said:
> ...


nope. the guys who hunt those units (im one of them) are ****ed! thanks alot DWR, SFW, WB and anyone else who is managing all of utah hunting for $$$.... i have oficially lost ALL respect for you people.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

All I can say is there's gonna be a whole lotta poachin going on on Monroe. 

Its amazing how many locals in Grassy Valley have a 350+ bull they shot in Arizona.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> [quote="Iron Bear":1qwdkipx]
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> ...


nope. the guys who hunt those units (im one of them) are ****ed! thanks alot DWR, SFW, WB and anyone else who is managing all of utah hunting for $$$.... i have oficially lost ALL respect for you people.[/quote:1qwdkipx]

WB and SFW are driving this. DWR has thier hands tied.

Folks that point to dollars make me laugh. The $$$ they make don't go towards trips to Jamaica, limo service, and kids college funds guys (outside of salaries). They go towards your wildlife. Have you thought about what would happen if your tag's cost a $1 each? Where would our wildlife program be?

To anyone that says the hunts are cash cows...I say you're **** right and our wildlife benefits directly from them. Quit making it sound as if generating revenue is somehow an evil practice.

The DWR is not a for profit business, you guys understand that right?


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

there is one question i have not heard address is just how there going to do the permit drawing on the recovery unit. are they going to be just added to the limited entry units were you have to use your points, are they going to be a add on to the general season hunts only using a seperate drawing. i sure dont anyone who would have
built up points for any other of the limited hunts to waste them on a regional tag with special regs. its gonna be
interesting to find out.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I think (hope) he is referring to non DWR entities that are making money off of wildlife. Anis Doesn't get a raise if there are 400 bulls being shot statewide, but landowners, guides and conservation tag pimps sure do.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> WB and SFW are driving this. DWR has thier hands tied.
> 
> Folks that point to dollars make me laugh. The $$$ they make don't go towards trips to Jamaica, limo service, and kids college funds guys (outside of salaries). They go towards your wildlife. Have you thought about what would happen if your tag's cost a $1 each? Where would our wildlife program be?
> 
> ...


[/quote]
no but i know for a fact that SFW is in it for the $$$. heres the thing, they thurn these units into LE hunting and never turn it back to general hunting, you and i both know the tag is gonna cost alot more then $45! wether it benefits them personally or not, its still costing us as sportman more time and money to get a tag to hunt an area that 1) has no business being LE 2) our friends and family have hunted forever! 3) know the area extremely well and 4) love to hunt because of location and convience! lets say they turn the oquirrh-stansbury in the central region into a LE, what is that gonna do? cause way more crowding in the remaining areas in central utah! lots of people hunt this area! central doesnt have the mountain ranges and area to hunt like the rest of the state does. we have the nebo, which sucks for deer cuz they manage it for elk, the wasatch mountains and timp, which is where most people hunt to begin with, a few smaller mountains such as West Mountain, which has like 4 deer total living on it, lake mountain and the farm valleys! Less area to hunt + same amount of hunters in 1 region = more hunting pressure on animals... which will eventually lead to the same problem we are having now, NO BUCKS!! then we'll be back to square 1 and they will propose to close those units until they have "recovered" and when they do get re-opened, it will be as LE! and we as sportsmen will suffer the consequences once again because anyone who has any say in the future of utah hunting is too retarded to look past the $$$ into the future and see what is really going to happen.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I think (hope) he is referring to non DWR entities that are making money off of wildlife. Anis Doesn't get a raise if there are 400 bulls being shot statewide, but landowners, guides and conservation tag pimps sure do.


If that's the case then agreed. I suppose I've seen too many posts complaining about how the DWR are greedy cashmongers and I projected that on him.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> no but i know for a fact that SFW is in it for the $$$. heres the thing, they thurn these units into LE hunting and never turn it back to general hunting, you and i both know the tag is gonna cost alot more then $45! wether it benefits them personally or not, its still costing us as sportman more time and money to get a tag to hunt an area that 1) has no business being LE 2) our friends and family have hunted forever! 3) know the area extremely well and 4) love to hunt because of location and convience! lets say they turn the oquirrh-stansbury in the central region into a LE, what is that gonna do? cause way more crowding in the remaining areas in central utah! lots of people hunt this area! central doesnt have the mountain ranges and area to hunt like the rest of the state does. we have the nebo, which sucks for deer cuz they manage it for elk, the wasatch mountains and timp, which is where most people hunt to begin with, a few smaller mountains such as West Mountain, which has like 4 deer total living on it, lake mountain and the farm valleys! Less area to hunt + same amount of hunters in 1 region = more hunting pressure on animals... which will eventually lead to the same problem we are having now, NO BUCKS!! then we'll be back to square 1 and they will propose to close those units until they have "recovered" and when they do get re-opened, it will be as LE! and we as sportsmen will suffer the consequences once again because anyone who has any say in the future of utah hunting is too retarded to look past the $$$ into the future and see what is really going to happen.


You are right about SFW, no dispute there.

I understand you are upset about the future of "recovery units", just remember that the WB is to blame (along with SFW pulling the strings) and this is not DWR's decision to make. Also any revenue brought in to the DWR only benefits our wildlife.

If you are talking about expo or auction tags then yes special interests do benefit from those dollars and I would agree with you.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> there is one question i have not heard address is just how there going to do the permit drawing on the recovery unit.


They will be an additional general season option on your application and they will use general season preference points. So, if Option 1 passes the WB, your general season options would look like this next year:

Northern Region
Northeastern Region
Central Region
Southeastern Region
Southern Region
Statewide Archery
Monroe Unit
Oquirrh/Stansbury Unit
Vernal Unit


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

archerben said:


> > there is one question i have not heard address is just how there going to do the permit drawing on the recovery unit.
> 
> 
> They will be an additional general season option on your application and they will use general season preference points. So, if Option 1 passes the WB, your general season options would look like this next year:
> ...


So if that's the case can I then pick Oquirrh/Stansbury as my tag choice for Dedicated Hunter? And what about if I have a Lifetime Licence? And will can you hunt the Recovery Units then with a Statewide Archery tag?

Mark


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yup, recovery units inside regional boundaries, This will confuse a few hunters..

I think this is just a slower route to option 2..

Option 2 would be best for the deer and less confusing in the long run,,,,,,,JMHO.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

So it wont stay like this year and be a shorter hunt on the recovery units????

If you do have to select one of those units for the hunt will you still be limited by weapon? i.e. I hunt archery, so will there be a limited draw for archery only????


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Yup, recovery units inside regional boundaries, This will confuse a few hunters..
> 
> I think this is just a slower route to option 2..
> 
> Option 2 would be best for the deer and less confusing in the long run,,,,,,,JMHO.


Based on what facts? I hate when people say this, but can't back it. This is like SFW preaching this and 3 point or better restrictions when nearly every study out there shows that neither work for producing healthier herds. Look at Colorado. These will produce more bucks, but not more deer.

Pkred, my understanding is the DWR is recommending 9 day rifle hunts across the board, but the WB could change that. I think it has been proven that shorten the hunt does nothing. I don't believe it will be limited to one weapon.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Jahan, Its about to get real confusing for most folks,,,,,,
Units inside regions ,,were Dedicated hunters can and cant hunt,,,,,,,

29 separate units would be much easier in my opinion,,
and 100% better for controlling hunting pressure on individual unit basis..

The way it is right now, a lot of hunter are just moving to were ever the deer are
doing the best at that particular time.........
You watch, next year most of the Boulder hunters will be hunting somewhere else..

If these recovery units are made limited, then recover, then REOPPNED to general
inside of regional boundaries,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,That will be the HOT spot for that particular year..


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

People migrate in and out of areas, that is why regions work. People will not hunt the same area if the deer are hunted out, they move on. People distribute them selfs out pretty well. The difference with the 29 microunits will be is it will take some people 8 years to draw the area they want to hunt with no additional benefits. Also how do you expect CO to enforce 29 units when they are struggling to enforce 5 regions? I agree with you things are confusing and getting more confusing, but 29 units will confuse people even more. The state is already managed by 29 units, but we get to hunt regionally. I personally don't like any of the options a whole lot, I say lets see if the current plan works before changing it, but SFW and WB (one and the same IMO) already have their minds made up. 29 units will benefit, guides and private land owners, but will hurt the general public and average Joe not to mention a tag price increase.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wont hunt if I cant hunt Monroe and I'm not the only one.

Goofy has a good point that some units are hammered by hot spotting. 

I fully supported moving Monroe to LE status. I have been asking for this for yrs. Even though it means the end of annual hunting for me and my family. We may not have been able to hunt them but we have had some really good times watching and educating the elk on Monroe over the last 20 yrs. It will be less disheartening for us to wait 5 to 6 yrs for a hunt and see some deer. As it stands we hunt every yr and fret about the condition of the deer herd.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

option 2 would simplify things DRAMATICALY!.....
I've been hunting other states that use micro-management for 20 years,love it.

Nevada may be the best set up there is out there, Bonus point system included.

The road were going with option 1,,,Well, you might need to hire a lawyer just to
figure out next years guide book.People will see it and be like this,, :shock: :?: :?: :?:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> heres the thing, they thurn these units into LE hunting and never turn it back to general hunting, you and i both know the tag is gonna cost alot more then $45!


Many of have you have slapped the LE stamp on the recovery units. Call it what you like but remember 2 very important facts:

1 - LE units and general units are managed very differently. LE units are managed to maximize bucks in the herd and produce trophy animals. General units are managed to maximize reproduction and part of that strategy is by limiting buck numbers. Of course buck numbers can't get too low either.

2 -You can call a recovery unit LE all you want but the plan is to limit hunter numbers in these units until buck:doe ratios come back to the GENERAL unit guidelines.

Disclaimer: I'm not defending the plan, just pointing out the facts as they exist now. It's a very valid concern to say they may MOVE these units to LE and change their management plans for these units but don't confuse the differentiating purposes behind limiting the number of permits to a given area.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Have we ever seen a unit open up after bieng LE?


Bumble Bee. It was LE for numerous years. Heck, it was even a "3-point or better" for a while. Today, it is part of the general Pine Valley area, open to general tag holders.


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> You watch, next year most of the Boulder hunters will be hunting somewhere else..


I sure hope so!!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> option 2 would simplify things DRAMATICALY!.....
> I've been hunting other states that use micro-management for 20 years,love it.
> 
> Nevada may be the best set up there is out there, Bonus point system included.


I don't call a system that allows hunters to hunt every 5th or 6th year "the best". Just my opinion.

Nevada's system is essentially like the book cliffs statewide and their herds are declining, partially attributed to unnaturally high buck to doe ratios.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> option 2 would simplify things DRAMATICALY!.....
> I've been hunting other states that use micro-management for 20 years,love it.
> 
> Nevada may be the best set up there is out there, Bonus point system included.
> ...


You are right, it would be very simple: It simply would kill hunter recruitment/retention big time, while at the same time reducing the number of fawns recruited into the herd. DRAMATIC? **** straight!

Nevada is a worse example of 'successful' deer management than Colorado, which is weak at best. :?

Do you really think Utah hunters are that dumb? :roll:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Option 2 would be best for guides and people with lots of money. Hey I am trying to look at the bright side for option 2, but I can't seem to find any.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Option 2 is the best plan on the table for the DEER!

NOT guides, hunters with lots of money or hunter recruitment,,
I'm hopping Utah hunters are SMART enough to see the most important point.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Option 2 is the best plan on the table for the DEER!
> 
> NOT guides, hunters with lots of money or hunter recruitment,,
> I'm hopping Utah hunters are SMART enough to see the most important point.


Based on what facts?


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

Been filling up at the SFW koolaid fountain there Goofy? 

I don't pretend to know much about this topic. Heck I took a hiatus from hunting for a few years ( approx 1998-2008) and after sitting through a RAC meeting, reading anything I can on the topic, talking to piles of hunters and hunting the past two years I can surmise two things:

1. Nobody really has a solid idea about the deer

2. SFW has become the very type or organization it was likely created to protect against, and is not to be trusted.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Option 2 is the best plan on the table for the DEER!
> 
> NOT guides, hunters with lots of money or hunter recruitment,,
> I'm hopping Utah hunters are SMART enough to see the most important point.


you must not like hunting deer very much in utah if you think option 2 is good. all that will do is allow them to do what they have done with the elk hunting. raise tag prices, increase tag cuts and after 2 or 3 years put into place a waiting period. sure everyone will kill 160+ bucks, but us HUNTERS (YOU and ME) will only have the opportunity to do it every 10 years.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm not an SFW member, But I have guided hunts for over 20 years now...
I've watched Utah's general deer hunt fall off the freak'in map for the most part.

I really don't even have a dog in this fight!! In-fact this was the first time in 13 years
I hunt general rifle deer in Utah,,,,Don't plan on doing it again unless things change.

I have been on quite a few deer hunts in Nevada, were Arizona they have micro
managed for a long time. I see what is happening across the entire west with
mule deer..The mule deer are in trouble almost every where.

Doing recovery units by region and then reopening to general wont work in my opinion.

Options 1 & 3 pretty much leave it the same way its been for 15 years, Its definitely
not working in my opinion...........Option 2 would at least stop hot spotting, and would
let biologist focus on units and when deer numbers recover there would be a flood of
hunters to knock it back down..

Once again,,,,I'm supporting option 2 because I FEEL like its the best option on the table
giving our general deer herds a chance to recover,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Plain and simple.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Doing recovery units by region and then reopening to general wont work in my opinion.
> Why?
> Options 1 & 3 pretty much leave it the same way its been for 15 years, Its definitely
> not working in my opinion...........Why not? What is the problem? What are the limiting factors?Option 2 would at least stop hot spotting, and would
> ...


----------



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

> Once again,,,,I'm supporting option 2 because I FEEL like its the best option on the table
> giving our general deer herds a chance to recover,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Plain and simple


Remember that the DWR has been very clear in stating that NONE of the three proposals will increase deer numbers... They all remove tags from the system in an attempt to increase the buck to doe ratio, which you could argue actually hurts total deer numbers. There is a seedy underhanded movement happening here. No doubt. A lot of fear mongering going on as well.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

W to U,,Recovery units would be flooded by hunters the first years they are
reopened to general season hunting..I personally saw what happened to
the Henrys and the Book cliffs when antler restic were lifted and opened
to general hunting, completely destroyed and had to be closed..............
Lets take Monroe for instance, make it a recovery unit, It recovers NICLY...
The word spreads and the first year it reopens to general southern region
its going to be a pretty dam popular spot!!

In my opinion the limiting factor is habitat and carrying capacity,,,,,,,,,
Option 2 would make it much easier yo FOCUS on individual unit needs.

Here's the advantages I see as "positives" going with micro-management..

1) Utilizing specific units for specific needs, we have many units inside
of regional boundaries that are vastly different from one to another.
The Southeast region for example, The manti skyline, Ninemile, the Abajo,
La Sal, The San Rafael swell, All sooo different but all SE region deer tag.
Change to individual units and manage according to deer herd health and size.

2)With individual units we could change hunt dates and weapon types to what
that individual unit has to offer. I see other states doing a great job with this one.
I would love to see primitive weapons utilized more like other states do..

3) The Southern region for example, Last years winter devastated certain
areas and yet other ares were not even affected......
The Plateau and Griffin top almost wiped out but yet Cedar mtn and Pavant did OK,
Same region , different needs.

Again, we have unit management by region now, But I don't feel like
the recovery unit plan will work ...............JMHO.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> W to U,,Recovery units would be flooded by hunters the first years they are
> reopened to general season hunting..I personally saw what happened to
> the Henrys and the Book cliffs when antler restic were lifted and opened
> to general hunting, completely destroyed and had to be closed..............
> ...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

We manage on a unit by unit basis now. 

The contrdiction in the argument that the micro units will help lies in the buck to doe ratios. On one hand we say that a higher buck to doe ratio will not help overall numbers but on the other hand some say we need to limit how many bucks are killed on specific units to help the herds. That is a contracition.

The underlying intention, I believe, with the micro units is to grow trophy animals on more units by increasing buck to doe ratios on specific units through limiting hunters. Which again does not help herd numbers.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> The underlying intention, I believe, with the micro units is to grow trophy animals on more units by increasing buck to doe ratios on specific units through limiting hunters. Which again does not help herd numbers.


That is the exact intention of option #2...the scary thing to me is that the states that are carrying more bucks--Colorado and Nevada--are themselves saying that increased buck/doe ratios can limit herd growth and actually put a damper on recruitment.

The funny thing--ironic thing--is that the option #2 crowd are the ones saying that we need to do something to improve our "deer" numbers and this change will do that. These people are either 1) naive and misinformed or 2) hiding their actual desire--increase buck numbers and mature buck numbers--on the guise of helping the deer herd.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Heck, I'm not going to hide my intentions one bit, I hang out were the big bucks are!
I like hunting and watching nice racks,,If there's no big bucks, I'm not going to wast
my time....  

Besides that, now that its being determined that a lot of these areas are at carrying
capacities, I'd like to see a few good buck to watch anyway we can..
Doesn't sound like the overall herd size is going to change no matter what is done.. :?:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

It seems to me like many people are confused with option #2. As mentioned above numerous times, the DWR ALREADY MANAGES ON A MICRO-BASIS. Deer herd management is done on individual units. NOT BY REGION.

The proposal (#2) is to mange HUNTERS on a 29 unit basis. Management of the herds won't change.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Heck, I'm not going to hide my intentions one bit, I hang out were the big bucks are!
> I like hunting and watching nice racks,,If there's no big bucks, I'm not going to wast
> my time....
> 
> ...


Where I hunted this year there were plenty of hunters and a few big bucks were taken. I saw 8 different respectable bucks myself throughout the 3 general seasons. If you want to see big bucks then old school rules apply....get away from the crowds. By that I don't mean by unit, I mean get off the beaten path. You know that though.

Now if you want to harvest them like corn in the field and walk 100 yards from the truck then by all means changes are needed!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I have found big bucks in each of the last 5 archery seasons. They are there. It's tough to kill them but that's just archery.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So does anyone advocate opening up most of the LE elk units to general status?

Why is LE acceptable for every other big game species in Utah except deer?

Open up Monroe to OTC any bull and see how long that herd would last.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So does anyone advocate opening up most of the LE elk units to general status?
> 
> Why is LE acceptable for every other big game species in Utah except deer?
> 
> Open up Monroe to OTC any bull and see how long that herd would last.


I personally have never advocated getting rid of LE deer units. I think it is good to have some LE units, but don't turn the whole state into a LE unit. Comparing deer and elk management is like comparing apples to oranges. Elk are so much more hardy, live longer, ect. I personally wish they would give out more elk tags, we are having too many elk die of old age, but that is a different subject.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So does anyone advocate opening up most of the LE elk units to general status?
> I don't advocate opening them up to general season unlimited hunting, but I definitely advocate giving a heck of a lot more tags out than what has been done!
> Why is LE acceptable for every other big game species in Utah except deer?Partly because the number of other big game species and the amount of hunting available for those species is much much lower than it is for deer.
> 
> Open up Monroe to OTC any bull and see how long that herd would last. See, this is what I have been talking about...if you opened up Monroe to OTC any-bull hunting, the herd itself probably wouldn't be affected all that much. The only thing that would be affected would be the bull/cow ratio which would probably get pretty low. But this is the assumption that too many hunters continually make that is wrong...buck/bull hunting does NOT affect the herd as a whole. IT only affects the male portion of the herd.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > So does anyone advocate opening up most of the LE elk units to general status?
> ...




Just to clarify, buck to doe and bull to cow ratios do affect the herd if they get too low, there still has to be enough males to bread the does/cows, but that ratio is pretty low.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

what unite are the recovery unit ?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> what unite are the recovery unit ?


Any units that fall below 12 bucks to 100 doe's will become "recovery units"..

And I have to disagree that if Monroe were to become open bull it wouldn't
"be affected much"

Monroe has a high bull to cow ratio, I've seen numbers as high as 1 bull
for every 2 or 3 cows.......

Iron bear makes a great point, open Monroe to general season elk and
it would be the pumpkin patch from hell,,dead rag horns from one end to the other.
It would only take 3 days for Monroe to lose almost half the freak'in herd!!

It would be the exact same thing that happened to the deer on the Henrys ,
Bookcliffs and the other units that were opened to general deer 20 years ago.

And this is why recovery units wont work,,,If reopened to general season,
they'll be shot out in one year............Mark my words.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Monroe has a high bull to cow ratio, I've seen numbers as high as 1 bull
> for every 2 or 3 cows.......
> 
> Iron bear makes a great point, open Monroe to general season elk and
> ...


That's because half the herd are bulls and that is out of balance. Better to see that Rag horn on someones wall then to see it passing along those poor genes and/or die of old age.

Get rid of all the LE's and people will spread apart. There is a cap on most of the hunts and because of that it does provide some protection to the area as a whole. This would be far healthier for deer and elk. Half the state tied up in LE's is one of the major problems.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > what unite are the recovery unit ?
> ...


You are referring to out of wack elk herds, I agree with you, it would make a difference because the bull to cow ratios are so high. The same can be said, but not as extreme on the Henry's and Book Cliffs the buck to doe ratios are so high and getting out of wack that it would have an affect. Last time I checked bucks can't breed bucks and bulls can't breed bulls.

Your example of the recovery units is inaccurate. They are "suppose to" bring the buck to doe ratios back to 15 buck to doe ratio then put it back to normal. 15 buck to doe ratio is no Henry's and no book cliffs. It is not like this recovery unit will all of a sudden be overflowing with bucks. I am sure there will be an influx of people, but I don't think it will be as extreme as you claim. My one concern is that the recovery unit start basically turning into little LE units and never come out of the recovery stage and start getting managed as higher buck to doe ratios.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And I have to disagree that if Monroe were to become open bull it wouldn't
> "be affected much"
> 
> Monroe has a high bull to cow ratio, I've seen numbers as high as 1 bull
> ...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > what unite are the recovery unit ?
> ...


Ok what unite are those?


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

This year it was Oquirrh-Stansbury, Monroe, Cache, and South Slope.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Ok what unite are those?


the Monroe unit, which has been continually brought up over the course of this discussion is 1.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

MarkM said:


> This year it was Oquirrh-Stansbury, Monroe, Cache, and South Slope.


Thanks. I have not been following this one that close.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Like w2u, I am NOT for unlimited permits for elk on existing Limited Entry units, but we **** sure could/*SHOULD* vastly increase the number of permits on units, certainly on LE units that are well below population objectives like the Monroe is. Get rid of half the bulls, which will allow for more cows to be in the mix, and watch the population grow. I don't get why this is so hard to figure out.[/color] :?


That's just it...if you did open it up and give out a lot more tags, you would actually probably increase your herd size in the long run because you would make more room for cows....and the more cows in the herd means the more calves born.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I like that we started with Deer and ended with Elk. haha They don't really fallow the same guide lines in breeding and management. I love the debates though, very informative!!


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Where deer and elk coexist, is there any way of managing one without affecting the other? I'm no expert, biologist, wildlife manager etc., just a guy that like hunting deer. If an area is at capacity for deer and there are elk in the same area, would reducing the number of elk increase an areas capacity for deer? I think some of the best deer areas in the past are now managed as LE elk units, is this having a negative effect on the deer herd? Why wont the WB increase tags on LE elk units? Too much money at stake for their supporters is why. Forgive my ignorance, but aren't WB members elected? If so, isn't it time to get someone in there that wants what the majority wants? If money is the issue, start boycotting the services of those that support or endorse the questionable members of the WB.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> Why wont the WB increase tags on LE elk units? Too much money at stake for their supporters is why. Forgive my ignorance, but aren't WB members elected? If so, isn't it time to get someone in there that wants what the majority wants? If money is the issue, start boycotting the services of those that support or endorse the questionable members of the WB.


WB members are not "elected":



> There is a Wildlife Board nominating Committee which consists of 11 Members. This committee is appointed by the Governor from nominees by the:
> 
> * Agriculture industry
> * Sportsmen's groups
> ...


so, the WB is purely political, and the Governor of Utah has the final say in who is on the WB. With this in mind, think about your current frustration level with the WB and the politics involved in current Utah wildlife management. Still think you're vote doesn't affect your hunting? The decisions Utah voters made in the past are affecting today's hunting. Keep that in mind next time you go to the booth.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

For the record the current Governor hasn't appointed any of the current WB members.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

That's correct. But think about what our past Gov's have done. Namely, look at how Leavitt changed the way our public offices (DWR, UDOT, etc) are run. Prior to Leavitt, these divisions were run by professionals of their respective fields. Today, they are run by politicians.

We complain about how politicized our wildlife management has become, and yet we continue to vote the same way we always have. How can things change, if we don't? Sherbert hasn't appointed any WB members. That doesn't mean he hasn't messed anything up concerning our wildlife/fish. Just look at the stream access mess / litigation. The State will be wasting money to defend a poorly written law passed by our legislature that Sherbert failed to veto. I know this isn't the WB, or hunting, but it still shows that the way we vote makes a big difference in our outdoors activities. Placing politicians on the WB is a bad idea.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

The WB being political, their own special interests then come ahead of those of the public, right.  Which is why we have so many conservation tags. Conservation tags=money for political supporters=money for campaign contributions. I'm getting off of the subject a little but, I think by increasing LE elk tags across the board and keeping the elk in check they would be creating a larger capacity for deer, that may be able to help increase the number of deer in given units, and quit with the doe tags.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bugchuker said:


> Where deer and elk coexist, is there any way of managing one without affecting the other? I'm no expert, biologist, wildlife manager etc., just a guy that like hunting deer. If an area is at capacity for deer and there are elk in the same area, would reducing the number of elk increase an areas capacity for deer? I think some of the best deer areas in the past are now managed as LE elk units, is this having a negative effect on the deer herd? I'm not a biologist either but from what I understand it seems to me that one has little effect on the other in their summer range due to types of forage. Deer are browsers and elk are grazers. In the winter range there can be some competition for available forage, especially during harsh winters however generally elk can withstand more snow than deer and will winter a bit higher in general. This is where it gets really complex though since some elk herds migrate many miles to winter. You have to really understand where the elk are coming from that MAY be competing for winter forage. For example a large portion of the elk herd in the San Jaun unit wind up in Arizona for the winter according to a local biologist that I spoke with. In that case they would have very little effect on deer in concept. This is where research is desperately needed in Utah. To understand what elk are/may be competing with what deer. However I think it's hard to say defintively that elk effect deer numbers.
> 
> Why wont the WB increase tags on LE elk units? Too much money at stake for their supporters is why. Forgive my ignorance, but aren't WB members elected? If so, isn't it time to get someone in there that wants what the majority wants? If money is the issue, start boycotting the services of those that support or endorse the questionable members of the WB. You've had the election question answered. The reason more tags are not alloted is simply to grow the biggest bulls possible. Some units have more tags alloted and are easier to draw since Utah does a "tier'd" approach to LE elk. Some units are managed for 4-5 year old bulls(more tags), some managed for 5-6 year old bulls (less tags), some managed for 6-7 year old bulls (lesser tags), and some for 7-8 year old bulls (least amount of tags). Now I must say I like the LE concept and I hope to hold both an elk and deer LE tag in my lifetime but I do feel that more tags could be alloted.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bugchuker said:


> I'm getting off of the subject a little but, I think by increasing LE elk tags across the board and keeping the elk in check they would be creating a larger capacity for deer, that may be able to help increase the number of deer in given units, and quit with the doe tags.


One thing to remember biologically this plan could backfire if in fact it could be proven that elk numbers do effect deer numbers. With the high bull to cow ratios on some of the LE elk units the elk herds are not reaching their full potential. By taking about more bulls you make more room for cows which give birth to calves which would result in larger elk numbers.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I think its so F'ed up at this point its going to take a lot of time and resources to get it fixed, a lot more help than any of the debated options can give. This could be used as a model example of what happens when politicians are given the opportunity to make decisions, especially when they have a vested interest. I have faith that the biologists of the DWR have an idea of what they are doing, we just need to allow them to do it. Who would have thought a few years ago when some of the "conservation" clubs were formed, that Donny Deeppockets would buy the whole lot of em.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2010)

this is off the subject of elk/deer ratios previously stated, but ill bet that those central and northern recovery units are a little better this year anyways, due to the snow storm and fog that moved into those areas for 2.5 of those 3 days the units were open to hunting for the rifle hunt. you basicly had 10 minutes at first light to make something happen or got lucky the last 3 hours of the hunt on monday to find one. other then that you basicly had to stumble up on them in the fog and get a quick shot off. maybe they should go fly the winter range in december and see what they have out there BEFORE they close units or cut tags.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> this is off the subject of elk/deer ratios previously stated, but ill bet that those central and northern recovery units are a little better this year anyways, due to the snow storm and fog that moved into those areas for 2.5 of those 3 days the units were open to hunting for the rifle hunt. you basicly had 10 minutes at first light to make something happen or got lucky the last 3 hours of the hunt on monday to find one. other then that you basicly had to stumble up on them in the fog and get a quick shot off. maybe they should go fly the winter range in december and see what they have out there BEFORE they close units or cut tags.


BINGO!! This was brought up at the central RAC meeting. The WB is pulling the trigger without even taking the time to collect and understand the data from this year!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

kill_'em_all said:


> this is off the subject of elk/deer ratios previously stated, but ill bet that those central and northern recovery units are a little better this year anyways, due to the snow storm and fog that moved into those areas for 2.5 of those 3 days the units were open to hunting for the rifle hunt. you basicly had 10 minutes at first light to make something happen or got lucky the last 3 hours of the hunt on monday to find one. other then that you basicly had to stumble up on them in the fog and get a quick shot off. maybe they should go fly the winter range in december and see what they have out there BEFORE they close units or cut tags.


The frustrating part is all those that pushed for the 3 day hunts will say "see the 3 day hunt worked". Well actually no, the weather is what hampered the hunters, I am sure the same amount of deer would of been killed on the 3 day hunt vs. the 9 day hunt if weather was good. Like you said there was a very limited time frame for the rifle hunters to get an animal and the is unfortunate in my opinion, I see no reason to not allow the rifle hunters to hunt the full 9 days.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

jahan said:


> kill_'em_all said:
> 
> 
> > this is off the subject of elk/deer ratios previously stated, but ill bet that those central and northern recovery units are a little better this year anyways, due to the snow storm and fog that moved into those areas for 2.5 of those 3 days the units were open to hunting for the rifle hunt. you basicly had 10 minutes at first light to make something happen or got lucky the last 3 hours of the hunt on monday to find one. other then that you basicly had to stumble up on them in the fog and get a quick shot off. maybe they should go fly the winter range in december and see what they have out there BEFORE they close units or cut tags.
> ...


I agree with most everything you've said in this argument except this, and I could be wrong but, there's no way in hell the same amount of deer are killed in 3 days as would have been killed in 9, given the same conditions of course. Although I remember when the Pine Valley Unit was reduced to 5 days and there wasn't much of a difference the first year. So who knows?I'm not saying 3 day hunts are the answer, but they will reduce the number of bucks killed in a season, but as we have read a few hundred times bucks dont have babies.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2010)

bugchuker said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > kill_'em_all said:
> ...


i know when people only have 3 days vs. 9, and they intend to kill a deer, they feel the pressure more and are quicker to pull the trigger then usual. more then likely they will hunt for a big buck til 9 or 10 opening morning, then shoot the next legal buck they see.
i think in reality there is still less deer killed on the 3 day hunt, but im sure the numbers of deer killed on a 3 day hunt are still way higher then the DWR wants when they put the season restriction in place.


----------

