# the big picture



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Here are some interesting things to think about

Elk management hunts don’t work because Utards don’t know what a management bull looks like. But mule deer management hunts will work “huh” 

State wide archery deer hunts suck and create over crowding but state wide elk hunts don’t “huh”

Spike deer suck says nearly every hunter in Utah but spike elk hunts are awesome “huh”

If rifle hunters are restricted to I.E Le type units, Wasatch front, then buck deer and bull elk thrive, and if rifle hunters have a free for all like the general season deer then quality suffers. 

If rifle hunters are let loose in masses then everything dies. If archery hunters are let loose in masses then they screw each other up and things live to a rip old age. “Wasatch Front” 


I just don’t understand the logic. I feel like I am listing to someone talk out of both sides of their mouth and it is confusing me.


Here is one thing I do know “history repeats itself” and we can learn from our mistakes

1. So if state wide archery for deer creates over crowding then we also need to fix state wide elk before it becomes a problem
2. If people in Utah don’t want to kill spike deer they also don’t want to kill spike elk.
3. If people kill bulls that are broken on management hunts then they will kill bucks that are broken also. Especially if they allow them to hunt them in the dates that are being proposed.



Lets not play this circle jerk anymore lets get a system together that allows sound management. 

I say some where in the middle of all this bickering between rifle and archery there is a solution. 
Manage game with rifles and manage hunter’s opportunity with archery. 

Create Micro management areas in Utah. If there is a deer/elk area that sucks cut rifle tags and increase archery tags. Give more incentive to pick up a bow, Ie rut hunts, longer season, and yearly tags. Switch people in a positive way to a lesser effective weapon. Then when an area increases in deer numbers slowly increase rifle tags. 

make a couple of units where people can have 3 point or better for deer and a unit for 6 point or better for elk. could be the same units. 

make everyone draw a tag even archers this way we can control what gets killed and where it gets killed. 



Quality and quantity best of both worlds. The only problem is?????


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I posted a more animated version of this proposal under the archery section check it out. -O|o- Rip it to pieces, take a dump on it, say what ever you want but make it animated and take it serious. -BaHa!- 

We need to do something. Whether we let SFW know how we feel so they can get something done. o-|| Because I personally feel they are the only ones that have the actual pull to get anything done. O|* 

Or we try and do it with smaller groups MDF, UBA, BOU, or just plain do it our self something needs to be done some where there needs to be a compromise.
*OOO*


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

> Quality and quantity best of both worlds. The only problem is?????


Its to simple and makes sense and its not politically motivated???


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

One of the best post ever made on this forum. Took the words right out of my mouth. Amen brother.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

It's a complicated mess, that's sure. But one thing that we could easily do would be to actually follow the management plans. Novel idea, eh?

Since the deer management plan is foremost on my mind these days, I'll use it for an example. It calls for recruiting youth and retaining hunters. Yet none of the DWR recommendations do that. It calls for increased mule deer population. Yet none of the DWR recommendations do that. The plan sets some serious habitat challenges, yet not a single recommendation deals with habitat conservation and none of the strategies include an action plan to ensure that they're carried out.

Since the DWR recommendations show little regard for the plan and since the Division is restricted by the realities of money and manpower, how can we expect them to act effectively on those strategies? If we don't follow the plan, we have no plan. If we have no plan, we get the confused mess that Scott's talking about.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

We have a confused mess because we have a corrupt system. I will once again emphasize that this does not mean the people with in the system are corrupt, imporal, or un ethical, the system has been corrupted from how it is supposed to be working. I feel that this happened innocently, but that it did happen. The only way it can be fixed is to go back to the clear cut system as it was set up to be and start over and continue forward the correct way. Here in lies the problem and why it probably won't be fixed. How is it supposed to work, the Governor of the State, after he or she is elected (the political process which should end all politics) takes an oath. In that oath they promise they will up hold the constitution of the state of Utah. In that constitution lies a well laid out plan of govorning which includes the 'by-laws' of how to run this state. Those 'by-laws' state that the governor appoints boards over different divisions in such a manner that they can enact the constitution over that departments resource. For example, there is a board that difines needs and enacts laws over real estate transactions in the state, it is called the Division of Real Estate. There is a well laid out description of how this board is supposed to be set up and what type of person is supposed to hold which kind of position on that board. From this board we have seen drastic changes in that industry as the needs arised from people and lending institutions being harmed thru loan fraud and illegal real estate activities and different mis representations. When that board is working correctly it is recieving information from the public (which usually pforms itself into special interest groups.) and hired government officials so hired to gather proper data for the board as an assistance to that board in making and enacting those decisions. In the case of the Division of Wildlife, the special interest groups have members ON THE FREAKING BOARD, thus the corrupt system. If the governor new that he could clean up one of his corrupt divisions by simply appointing the proper members of the board in such a manner that they would look out for and over the resource. They could still get their information from special interest groups and from hired government employees so hired to gather accurate data as far as the wildlife resource is concerned. Then the all mighty $$$$ does not factor in as it has, the resource could be managed to actually meet objectives (a far cry from what is now stating an objective and doing not one thing to reach that objective..... a waste of time.) The all mighty dollar could still be spent on Governors tags etc.... if the board thinks that this really is in the best interest for the herds. There would be no arm twisting, undertable hand shaking, you scrub my back, I'll scrub yours type things going on and the hunting opportunities in the pretty great state of Utah would increase as the real issues of herd health is considered.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

That just shows you how selfish the rifle hunt really is. If you took away 15,000 rifle tags state wide and put them to archery or muzzleloader that would turn into 20,000 to 25,000 more tags. That equals more opportunity for everyone. Show me how many rifle hunters would be okay with having to change weapons to benefit game and other hunters. I think as a hunter you should be willing to change no matter what if it benefits game and opportunity.


----------



## CP1 (Oct 1, 2007)

How about offering 2 types of tags! 1- any buck tag, 7 or 9 day seasons with each eapon , giving out maybe 60,000 of them. 2- any mature buck tag, with a it being 3 point or better, and maybe allowing a hunter to pick 2 out of the 3 hunts each year. like archery and muzz one year then maybe the next rifle and archery with 1 of the hunts always being archery. this hunt could give out say 30,000 tags and do away with the dedicated hunter!!! the catch would be you have to choose a region and your seasons prior to the hunts so the DWR can keep track.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

You know I almost felt sorry for you archery boys when I heard they were taking away your statewide.

You sound like a bunch of babies who just had a lolly pop taken from your mouth, so what do you do, try and stick it to rifle hunters. :roll:

I't sounds like a handful of Southern rifle hunters are the ones who may be screwing you guys but try and realize that they are probably less than 1% of even Southern rifle hunters



> If there is a deer/elk area that sucks cut rifle tags





> If you took away 15,000 rifle tags state wide and put them to archery or muzzleloader





> Manage game with rifles and manage hunter's opportunity with archery.


The problem is ??????

YOU ARE THE MINORITY, the majority obviously prefers to rifle hunt. and YES the DWR needs not only the rifle hunters money (they fund the bigest portion of the pie) but they/we all need their support for hunting in general!

I'm all about trying to encourage and entise rifle hunters to take up primative weapons but please quit threatening to screw the majority.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

Isn't the Southern Unit my land to hunt just as it is theres? So if its over crowded go to another unit just like there trying to making others! Let me guess the years you don't get a tag in "your" unit your not going to go to another unit. STOP acting like its yours its everyones!!!!!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Elk management hunts don't work because Utards don't know what a management bull looks like. But mule deer management hunts will work "huh"
> 
> State wide archery deer hunts suck and create over crowding but state wide elk hunts don't "huh"
> 
> ...


1) agreed...management hunts don't work.

2) statewide archery hunts can focus pressure on the best areas...which is happening in southern utah. I have no doubt about it; however, the south is good enough to handle the pressure and is not below objective. So, the regulation idea is dumb. ON the other hand, a statewide elk hunt will NOT focus pressure because spikes are the focus. No one region will necessarily be better than another...right now pressure is focused on the units with the most elk. Once hunters can hunt all LE units, that pressure will be spread out....good idea, great way of reducing bull/cow ratios.

3) If spike deer "suck" so bad according to nearly every hunter in Utah, why is it that most hunters in Utah decide to harvest yearling bucks? Do spike deer taste worse than other bucks?

4) Sure quality suffers when opportunity is given...but most hunters like the opportunity. The recent DWR survey supports this..

5) History does repeat itself...that's why it is asinine to sell conservation tags to the highest bidder. History is repeating itself and we are returning to the "king's deer" type of management.

6) I like the idea of micromanaging...for some reason the deer committee didn't. Don't know why...cutting tags in an area that "sucks" doesn't work. All you do is increase the buck/doe ratio without increasing herd numbers. It is a bandaid on a gaping wound. To get more bucks we need to increase total deer. In your idea, if you gradually increased rifle tags as the area improved, you would gradually see the area's buck/doe ratios decrease as rifle tags increased. You have solved nothing.

7) Antler point restrictions don't work...never have and never will. Why should we repeat history and retry something that has been proven to not work?

8) "make everyone draw a tag even archers this way we can control what gets killed and where it gets killed." Talk about confusing...the only way we can control what gets killed and where it gets killed is to force everyone--including archers--to choose a specific micromanaged unit. Isn't this what you are complaining about them changing? The statewide archery hunt?

9) Quality and Quantity...the best of both worlds...what about quality, quantity, and opportunity? Sure, we can have quality and quantity...like the Henry's and the Pauns...we just lose the opportunity side. The best of both worlds would be to have a strong healthy deer herd with lots of opportunity. By keeping buck/deer ratios low, the DWR is striving for this very thing. Low buck/deer ratios allow for greater recruitment....and more growth.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Great post wyo2ut.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) agreed...management hunts don't work.
> 
> I agree
> 
> ...


----------



## cootshooter2 (Sep 29, 2008)

Everyone needs to quit whinning!! micro management might be a good thing. when they closed the central unit and allowed only five day rifle hunts and the rest of the state didn't, it made me upset but the next few years produced higher buck/doe ratios and the bucks were higher quality. I appreciated it in the long run.


----------



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lets not play this circle jerk anymore...


That's hilarious...I haven't heard that term in years!


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

Great post. I wish that someone would listen to any of this. It is ridiculous that everyone recognizes the problems but the Committee Proposals are so far off base that no one seems to like or understand them.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah 

You don’t understand what I am trying to suggest  

I am saying that if the state wants to take away state wide archery for the first 7-20 days I say fine make it the whole hunt! 

I’ll take it a few steps further, I say make more areas. I say make everyone including rifle hunters/archers/ and even *************’s draw a tag. “MICRO MANAGE”

It sounds like you prefer to kill a meat buck or a meat bull.  

That is fine I don’t have a problem with this. Our big hunting party on opening morning of the rifle hunt consisted of an 8 year old, 10 year old, and a 14 year old tag holder we all tried to help the tag holder kill anything with horns. We had the mentality if its brown its down. It was **** fun!!!! *OOO*


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

This is going to get the die hard rifle hunters panties in a bunch at first so read it all the way through before you loose the sight of the “BIG PICTURE” O|* 

I am all for opportunity. I say give unlimited tags to archers.  Why because I have opened up my mind I can see the “BIG PICTURE” you die hard rifle hunters just don’t get it. 
The only way you can have quality and quantity with a rifle is to cut tags. Tthis means you lose opportunity.  

Well I hunt a unit in Utah called the Wasatch front I have to use a bow but the deer on this unit have better quality then the deer on the bookcliffs. It is an over the counter tag. I can hunt it every year. I can take a buck or a doe. I can hunt from aug-end of nov. I can even hunt the rut. That is a heck of a lot of opportunity/quality/quantity -*|*- -*|*- 

Now on a general rifle unit you can hunt maybe 9 days and maybe see a spike or a two point. 

Can you see a difference??? Which unit has opportunity? Which unit has quality? I don’t know how to spell it out any differently. 

This is why we need to meet some where in the middle and come of with a Compromise!!!!!!
"MANAGE HUNTER OPERTUNITY WITH ARCHERY AND MANAGE GAME WITH RIFLES"

Let me tell you one thing. It wasn’t to long ago when you could hunt the Arizona strip with a bow every year. The only reason this was discontinued was because of same mentality as what is going on right now over the state wide archery. People were jealous of each other. They claimed the strip was being over crowded. They felt like they needed to cut tags so they could kill a deer because other people were to blame why they couldn’t kill a deer. They claimed it wasn’t fair that archery hunters could hunt it every year and rifle hunters had to draw a once in a life time tag. The real facts are archery never hurt the strip or any other unit. 

We however dont have to go to the extream end of quality for a general unit as the strip has. we can give a hell of alot more rifle tags.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah 

Do you understand that when this state goes to a state wide spike hunt the branch antler tags are going to take a nose dive in Utah. You simply can not kill 70% of the bulls in their first year and still issue the same big bull tags. All you have to do is look at the Boulder Mountains vs the Dutton. The Dutton issues twice the amount of big bull tags. The Dutton does not have spike tags.

I for one would like to take a freaking branch antlered bull some day on one of these units.

Release the big bull tags 
Keep the spike tags on the units where they are now. 
Don’t screw with the spike hunts which we already have.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

"3) If spike deer "suck" so bad according to nearly every hunter in Utah, why is it that most hunters in Utah decide to harvest yearling bucks? Do spike deer taste worse than other bucks?"


because righ now they dont have a choice I garantee you if they had a shot at a larger buck they would take it but because they know they will only see a dink they settle. 

you will hear hunters on the front say all the time they passed up a 3 point or they passed up a 20" four point. The hunting mentality is different people see larger deer more often so they pass up the dinks


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think they should make many units Archery and ML only and increase the deer tags by 20 dollars each to make up for the lost revenue of the rifle tag. These areas would be awesome of seeing trophy bucks because of less pressure and lower success rates.

I think its awesome that archery hunters can hunt places almost equal to the Henry mtns. The Wasatch Front has a 39/100 buck to doe ratio. Thats a hunter's paradise for finding monster muleys. Nice pictures SWbuckmaster. I need to get into archery hunting.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> you will hear hunters on the front say all the time they passed up a 3 point or they passed up a 20" four point. The hunting mentality is different people see larger deer more often so they pass up the dinks


+1 I have said this a lot of times. The front is big steep ugly mean nasty and many other choice words. It also holds IMHO more big deer then any place else in the state. The big diffrance is that the front has to be hunted to get the deer. You can still road hunt the front and get you deer, but the big ones are still there if you really look for them.Once you see that there really are bigger deer year in and year out up there you will not shoot the little ones.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I think I may like the statewide spike elk hunt.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> wyoming2utah
> 
> Do you understand that when this state goes to a state wide spike hunt the branch antler tags are going to take a nose dive in Utah. You simply can not kill 70% of the bulls in their first year and still issue the same big bull tags. All you have to do is look at the Boulder Mountains vs the Dutton. The Dutton issues twice the amount of big bull tags. The Dutton does not have spike tags.


I totally disagree...in fact, the DWR's presentation to the Board last spring specifically stated:

1 ) "Statewide Spike elk management will allow us to lower bull to cow ratios on Limited Entry units without compromising the quality of the Limited Entry harvest."

2) "It will also provide more General Season hunting opportunity and variety It will improve the long term production and health of elk herds on those Limited Entry units."

3) "There will be some loss of Limited Entry hunting opportunity; however, we are not harvesting to the potential of those units now and the overall number of Limited Entry permits may even increase from current numbers."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> because righ now they dont have a choice I garantee you if they had a shot at a larger buck they would take it but because they know they will only see a dink they settle.
> 
> you will hear hunters on the front say all the time they passed up a 3 point or they passed up a 20" four point. The hunting mentality is different people see larger deer more often so they pass up the dinks


Your idea of eliminating loads of rifle tags and moving them to archery is a fantasy and not ever going to happen...simply because the public doesn't want it. The truth is that most rifle hunters would rather shoot yearling bucks than give up their rifle hunting opportunity.

As far as micromanaging goes, I think the Mule Deer Committee built that into the new plan: if a unit falls below 10 bucks/100 does, the unit will be managed as limited entry until it improves. I think this pretty much eliminates the need to micromanage and break regions up into smaller units.

The other thing that people continually forget is that we jeopardize growth and recruitment if the buck/doe ratio is too high...especially units where summer range or winter range is lacking. If the buck/doe ratio gets above objective, we could be replacing does with bucks and losing growth. Sure, it might look good from a hunter's perspective because of the increased number of bucks--especially mature bucks--but losing does on habitat limited units is not good.

IF people want to see more big bucks, the solution is to increase the number of total deer including does and not just bucks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah
> ...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah
I am not trying to close down your favorite spike spot you can have it. *-HELP!-* 

In fact you can have every spike spot out there right now. You don’t need anymore spike spots.

Wyoming2utah 
You are the minority on the spike hunt issue. The general public wants to see more big bull tags. I don’t see 50,000 plus people putting in for a spike hunt every year. The majority also if had the chance with deer or elk would shoot the larger antlered species. -8/- 

I thank you for your input. It seriously tells me what I am up against. 
Some people just won’t or can’t agree on anything. By the way I like beautiful women lol -_O- 

If you had your way you would turn this whole state into a spike hunt with rifles. O|* If I had my way I would turn this whole state into archery only and shoot what ever you want. -*|*- 

We will probably never agree on anything when it comes to hunting ect That’s why we need to COMPROMISE!!!!!!  

I believe we could make a compromise somewhere in the middle and you could still kill your spike deer/elk, -*|*- because in a healthy herd you will have it all, big and little deer.

Side note: you won’t see very many spike deer on the Wasatch front  they are few and far between.  If you hunted up there you would have to settle for a two point.  The deer up their simply grow bigger better horns in their first year. :mrgreen:


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I think I may like the statewide spike elk hunt.


You would sheep herder. :shock:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, many hunters shoot yearling bucks because they want to at least kill something and are willing to bite the bullet and shoot a small yearling buck. The DWR manages units where they don't really care about the quality therefore the majority of hunters will only kill yearling bucks.

The problem with "Archery only" is the fact that many hunters don't have the time to constantly shoot their bows all summer long because of work and other commitments and if the parents loose interest in hunting then who will teach their kids how to hunt? NO ONE!!

My family has seen more bucks this year than in the past several years. 

I don't think Utah is doomed and to blame quality on rifle hunters is just retarded. Archers arent harvesting enough bucks and does on the wasatch that its 10/100 buck to doe ratio higher than its objective and 900 deer over objective. I promise you that the time will come where the Wasatch herd will crash because it won't support many more deer. 

They could issue 200 ML tags on the Wasatch to improve the overall health of the herd, also big bucks are dying of old age because again archers aren't harvesting enough deer. 

They should issue a buck and doe tag on the Wasatch Front.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> "My family has seen more bucks this year than in the past several years."
> 
> Agreed we saw more bucks this year on the central unit then ever. including several good 4 points."
> 
> ...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Well you have a good proposal, but I know you will have to battle a lot of NASTY rifle hunters. If you compromised and allowed unlimited archers and limited number of ML hunters then you will have better success.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

CS what do you mean?

please explain!

My other proposal I posted on mm had basicly the same thing as this one does except I went into detail how i would like to see more muzzy tags then rifle tags and still have unlimited bow tags. people said it didnt matter if you went to all muzzy tags the deer will still get killed.

I say it cant hurt to limit the range of the most successful weapon down to a few hundred yards.

here is my other post that explains maybe what you are asking http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 17357.html


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Not all rifle hunters are die hard. We as bowhunters are not trying to get everyone to do the same thing we are doing, we are simply promoting a style of hunting in this proposal that is better for the wildlife, more hunting opportunity, less harvest. The die hards should not be compromised, but they should understand this dynamic that is fact and then rest assured that many rifle hunters are hunters first and weapon choice second. Those would choose hunting opportunity leaving rifle tags for those that have tons of money and interest invested in hydrolic trigger pull sight in tools, reloading equipment, and expensive scopes. So yes, there would be a nasty fight, but it really is an unnessasary fight if everyone was looking out for the best interest of the herds.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Want to know if you have a good deer/elk proposal?

You have close to a 1000 views and people arent up in arms and calling your mother out.

You also have 90% of the people that post agree with you. 

Why not put this one on the table at the wrac? It is a heck of alot better than the DWR pos proposal. -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- -*|*-


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I guess I better jump in. I think managing elk vs deer are apples vs oranges. It's not fair to compare the two. I could care less about the statewide archery deal but I don't really see any harm in it either. It would be nice if there was no cap on the archery tags, then there would be a few less rifle hunters but the same revenue. Also, it would be nice if there were two (7) day rifle seasons. So there would be less crowding. I have seen thousands of big bucks and sheds out on the winter ranges and very,very few of them are broken up. Unlike the elk.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> swbuckmaster:
> I am not trying to close down your favorite spike spot you can have it.
> 
> In fact you can have every spike spot out there right now. You don't need anymore spike spots.
> ...


swbuckmaster, I believe you are wrong on this issue. Us general public hunters want to hunt. We don't want to wait 5 years to hunt. Believe me when I say that I'm OK with the way the archery side is at. I'm OK with the archer's hunting the wasatch. It works for now and there is no use in upsetting the apple cart just to see. But understand this, I am tired of you special guys taking away my time in the field. No other group has been hit the hardest then the general rifle hunters. We have seen you special guys (LE, Archery) take the majority of the quality areas and times. And now you want more. I still think it's funny that through all this BS, you have (not you personally) cut the general rifle tags by 130,000 with zero effect on the general rifle tag harvest (28% average). I think it is also funny that after all the BS about when the general Rifle season would best be and the new proposal has it in the same spot. Why, because all the special groups have everything else tied up. In a nut shell, if you want any more of my time you will have to fight for it. A compromise is a two way street.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I want rifle hunters to have as much opportunity as possible, but in order for that to happen, something has to change from the present dynamic that exist for rifle hunters. ONE WAY TO DO THIS is for a percentage of rifle hunters to choose archery. I realize you might not be one of those and if you are die hard, then stay with rifle and hopefully there are enough rifle hunters that will see the opportunity archery presents (if the DWR keeps and ADDS incentives to do so) and make the change. Idiot with a bow was a die hard rifle hunter and is no longer competing for your tags because he made the switch and I don't see him going back. Think about this as our compromise, because as it seems on the service that we as archery hunters are asking for more is actually putting more archery hunters afield and limiting our odds of being successful. The reason we are willing to do this is because it is better for the herd, the resource, and by taking tags from rifle hunters and making them archery hunters, we are increasing the hunting pressure during the time we are afield and that is the essance of compromise. I promise you that we are not trying to make it worse for you we are trying to make it better for everyone and the only way I can think of doing that is to increase the health of the Utah deer herd.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> EPEK:


Please understand, I am a die hard hunter First. I do have 25+ years of archery and 20+ years of muzzler loader under my belt. I have taken the position I have because I believe the general rifle hunters are getting a raw deal. They are blamed for all the ills in hunting, which is BS. If half of what is said was true on face value our deer herds should be through the roof. As stated before, we have reduced our general hunters by approximately 130,000, with virtually no change in general harvest. Simply speaking the general rifle hunters have given you 36,400 bucks back. The problem is not with the general rifle hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

As an avid bow hunter I do NOT advocate reducing rifle tags. Buck harvest is NOT the problem that needs to be addressed. It is deer management that MUST be addressed. I think the 'quality' is just fine as it is now on general areas. They are not supposed to be managed as trophy areas, but as opportunity areas. The LE units are managed for 'quality'. As much as I think the Wasatch Front is a success story, it has unique issues that make it a big buck otc 'paradise'. Limited access, no atv trails, lots of escapement options for the bucks are different on the WF than say on Skyline Drive.

Bottom line for me, I want the DWR, conservation groups to focus MORE on how to grow/sustain more deer, and focus LESS on how many 30" bucks are running around on general season areas! Improve habitat, reduce road kill, lessen the negative impact of ohv's, keep predators at numbers that don't have negative impacts on deer numbers, improve water options, those are things we have some control over w/o pitting hunter versus hunter, and weapon type versus weapon type.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> ONE WAY TO DO THIS is for a percentage of rifle hunters to choose archery. I realize you might not be one of those and if you are die hard, then stay with rifle and hopefully there are enough rifle hunters that will see the opportunity archery presents (if the DWR keeps and ADDS incentives to do so) and make the change.


Epek, I consider myself a "die hard" hunter and someone who has interest in taking up archery but most likely never will.

I think I speak for a lot of hunters out there (hunters who you hope will switch to archery). I hunt the muzzy hunt from time to time by myself but the hunt I put all my effort and time into is the general season rifle hunt because that is the hunt my two brothers, my dad, my grandpa, my two uncles and a few cousins go on every year.

They are not "serious" hunters in the sense that the go to RAC meeting or waist hours of their time on this site but "serious" in the sense that they don't ever miss a hunt. At the same time I know that NONE of them would spend the extra $500 or time to take up a new weapon.

For me, hunting with my family comes first.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> Pro


+1, I agree

As 10000ft. said there are those of us that choose our weapons each year based on other factors ( and it might not be our primary weapon choice). People need to remember that we like to hunt. I won't give up hunting every year for a promise of one in the bush. Sorry but I already know he's their. Right now he is smarter then me and I like that way. It gives me something to look forward too.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

First and foremost, I am not blaming rifle hunters for anything and I am not trying to take hunting opportunity away from anyone, I am saying I am willing to reduce my odds by somehow promoting archery to those that would want to make the switch. My view is tanted by the fact that I am assuming we are all a lot more alike than we are different. I have spent my fair share of days on this planet reloading and sighting in my rifle for accuracy out to 400 yards and looked more forward to the opening day of rifle hunting than any other day of that year........ but I have made the switch and don't think I will ever hunt anything ever again with a rifle (save a few coyotes here and there). There has to be a percentage of folks that are a bit like me?????????????????? maybe not.

And don't read into my thoughts that I am against rifle hunters, I am very much for them and would like to see those that stick with the weapon to have better hunts because there would be less hunters afield with them and those that are out there would hopefully be hunting healthier herds.

Pro, I understand killing bucks does not harm the herd, but killing less of them doesn't hurt the quality and while we increase the quantity, something your proposals would all address, keeping hunting opportunity with less harvest will also increase the quality. Lets try to do both.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I blame Barack Obama for all of our problems. He should be dealt with before we are all home sewing dresses instead of hunting.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> As an avid bow hunter I do NOT advocate reducing rifle tags. Buck harvest is NOT the problem that needs to be addressed. It is deer management that MUST be addressed. I think the 'quality' is just fine as it is now on general areas. They are not supposed to be managed as trophy areas, but as opportunity areas. The LE units are managed for 'quality'. As much as I think the Wasatch Front is a success story, it has unique issues that make it a big buck otc 'paradise'. Limited access, no atv trails, lots of escapement options for the bucks are different on the WF than say on Skyline Drive.
> 
> Bottom line for me, I want the DWR, conservation groups to focus MORE on how to grow/sustain more deer, and focus LESS on how many 30" bucks are running around on general season areas! Improve habitat, reduce road kill, lessen the negative impact of ohv's, keep predators at numbers that don't have negative impacts on deer numbers, improve water options, those are things we have some control over w/o pitting hunter versus hunter, and weapon type versus weapon type.


+1 Pro!

I am among the many hunters disatisfied with the states deer proposal. It simply did nothing to address the real issues facing the deer herds and I don't believe sticking our heads in the sand and trying to pass a bunch of political agendas is going to do anything for the long term health of our deer herds. It's a little like winter feeding programs for deer...it looks good on the news, but does little if anything help the deer survive winter. It may actually be more detrimental than helpful.

I appreciate the passion that bowhunters possess and I agree that issuing a larger percentage of archery tags would increase opportunity. It's not the solution though. There are great incentives to pick up archery equipment currently and I think that the DWR is foolish to consider changing or eliminating them because of perception. In time perhaps there will be enough demand to justify increasing archery tags, but I don't believe we are there yet.

The biggest argument I see against reducing rifle tags to Sawbuck's proposed level is that for every hunter that chooses to pick up a bow another one will quit hunting all together. Rifle hunting continues to be the best way to recruit and retain hunters. This is the lifeblood of what we do.

So if we want to solve the problems of the suffering deer herds refer to Finnegan's post earlier in this thread. Great ideas as usual. Let the general season continue to be what it is...a chance for people to get out as friends and families and have a good time. For those who want more...there are options. Archery is one. Another is simply being a little more patient and a little more selective as rifle hunters if we want to kill a bigger buck. Contrary to popular belief there are some great bucks on public ground...they just continue to be a lot smarter than I am.


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

I would like to say to all of you if you want to be apart of the soulution then get involved. All of this is dictated by the Wildlife board. It is a 7 member board that dictates what the Division has to implement. They are the ones that are reccomending these changes. The Division is against alot of this. The next meeting is Dec 4th at the Wildlife office on Redwood road and North Temple.This meeting is open to the public. The last meeting was atended by about 10 public people.Lets as a hunting community show up and make them acountable for there actions. Forget going to the RAC meeting show up to the board meeting and let the board know that they represent us and we are not happy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'll be at the RAC's and the WB!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

HEY DAHLMER










Name calling will get you no where. besides ill win! LOL :mrgreen:


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Color me confused swbuckmaster...I don't believe I called you any names. My apologies if my post came across that way.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> The biggest argument I see against reducing rifle tags to Sawbuck's proposed level is that for every hunter that chooses to pick up a bow another one will quit hunting all together. Rifle hunting continues to be the best way to recruit and retain hunters. This is the lifeblood of what we do.


I can take it and I can dish it out no problem:mrgreen:


----------

