# Deer opener date changes



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'm headed for the big expo in a few minutes, just thought I would pass along an e-mail I got from Don Peay this morning:


> In order to have some more options to optimize deer hunting strategies in the future - like possibly changing the general deer season and general elk season dates, which could reduce buck and bull harvest by moving hunts away from the rut, and having less snow and more leaves in an early October deer hunt - it would be necessary to change the state law that was passed over 40 yaers ago, mandating the opening of deer season be the 3rd Saturday in October.
> 
> While there are NO specific plans yet, without this law change, there can be no change.
> 
> ...


Please contact your senators and tell them this is for the best interest of the deer herds in Utah!


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

So would this then affect all of the hunts and not just the rifle? If they want to move up the rifle then they would probably have to move the others up as well right?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

I would support it if it gave the power to the DWR to control the dates.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

where did he get that info from? 
Because SB59 only talks about allowing the wildlife board to set the general deer season. 

I the deer hunt is already on the 3rd week.Where are they want to put the deer hunt at ?Im i missing something or just dont understand it ?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I would support it if they moved the general season anyweapon deer hunt back a week or two and then bumped the muzzleloader forward to the first week in November or at least the last week in October.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

This is key.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> I would support it if they moved the general season anyweapon deer hunt back a week or two and then bumped the muzzleloader forward to the first week in November or at least the last week in October.


Muzzy has already been moved to September, correct?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

That is correct, the muzzy hunt is currently the last week in September.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

I wouldn't support this. Remember when moving the Muzzle-loader hunt from November was going to save the deer herd? We moved that hunt and it didn't save the deer herd. 

The timing of the rifle deer hunt doesn't affect the size of the deer herd. This is another management by inches concept. 

We are feeding deer because they can’t survive on their own, and the SFW is concerned about having less snow and more leaves during the rifle hunt. The SFW should focus on herd limiting issues instead of the timing of the opening day of the rifle deer hunt.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> I wouldn't support this. Remember when moving the Muzzle-loader hunt from November was going to save the deer herd? We moved that hunt and it didn't save the deer herd.
> 
> The timing of the rifle deer hunt doesn't affect the size of the deer herd. This is another management by inches concept.
> 
> We are feeding deer because they can't survive on their own, and the SFW is concerned about having less snow and more leaves during the rifle hunt. The SFW should focus on herd limiting issues instead of the timing of the opening day of the rifle deer hunt.


Part of this would allow the shift of other species to different dates as well.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Sounds good to me. Whenever it's been brought up that elk seasons should be changed around, there's always the roadblock that the deer season is locked in. Having the ability to move it would open up a lot of possibilities. Just swapping the elk and deer hunt dates would probably reduce harvest of mature animals quite a bit.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't support this. Remember when moving the Muzzle-loader hunt from November was going to save the deer herd? We moved that hunt and it didn't save the deer herd.
> ...


The UDWR already has the ability to shift all of the starting dates accept the opening of the rifle deer hunt. Don't let anyone fool you. This bill is about limiting the harvest of buck deer, not about improving wildlife numbers or increasing opportunity.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

If the soul purpose is to reduce harvest for general season hunters I wonder if this is not something that could come back to hurt all of us as hunters??

I say that because, the general season hunts that represent the majority of hunters (participation %) already do not have super high harvest rates and are loosing hunter numbers. 

Granted most who probably spend time on this forum would still have pretty good harvest odds if your season date was bumped around but to the already decreasing majority, the lower success rates might just be one more reason to quit (remember MOST the majority is in it for the experience and "success", not inches).

I can see moving dates around to make more quality hunts but if the overal successs rates drop across the board or they have to reduce tag numbers I don't think the changes would be worth it.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Longfeather said:
> ...


I understand that. What it does do, is allow them more room to change things around. Nobody is fooling me, I think reduced buck harvest is a good thing and I do think it is about improving numbers.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

> I understand that. What it does do, is allow them more room to change things around. Nobody is fooling me, I think reduced buck harvest is a good thing and I do think it is about improving numbers.


Why do you feel a reduced buck harvest would be a good thing? Do you think it would be a good thing for the deer herd?

I see where reduceing harvest would increase the buck to doe ratio but I don't see where it would increase deer numbers.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

The conclusions are ridiculous. You are all hunters. Honestly- less leaves means better success? You realize the hide is also the most gray later in the season? The rut has started? Hardly. The bucks I hunt are as high as ever in the current hunt. And big messy snowstorms only sometimes hurt deer in localized areas. More often than not, the snow keeps lazy hunters off of sloppy roads. The muzzleloader is in a dream season right now- bucks everywhere and easily seen - even with the leaves. Sliding the rifle any earlier only makes the deer easier to kill IMO. 

Am I nuts? 

Don't answer that specifically. I already know the answer :mrgreen: . I can see that changing no dates is an issue, but do we really believe that moving the deer hunt earlier makes it harder to get them? One of the best things about the rifle - for the deer - is that when you get in a stand of aspen or even in an open meadow the hillside goes crunch crunch - even wetness doesn't prevent noise by that time as the leaves have fully dried out. The species was freakin named after their ears. Move the sucker closer and a rainy day is killer with a rifle.

And yes- I don't care if it is harder to hunt for X Y or Z as long as we still get the ability to go.


----------



## CP1 (Oct 1, 2007)

I think they should leave the general deer hunt alone, move the rifle elk hunt into the deer muzzleloader time spot and put the muzzle deer hunt 10 days prior to the opening of the general rifle deer hunt. I know a lot of people who had poor success on the general rifle, switched to the muzzleloader and have greatly improved their success.

It is way to easy to blast a buck with a muzzleloader when its in september!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> move the rifle elk hunt into the deer muzzleloader time spot and put the muzzle deer hunt 10 days prior to the opening of the general rifle deer hunt


Let me get this right. You want to move the rifle elk hunt into the heart of the rut. WOW if that is what you are saying. That would be a really bad idea.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

A good way to increase the buck to doe ratio is to not have an extended archery hunt along the Wasatch or any other area in the state.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> A good way to increase the buck to doe ratio is to not have an extended archery hunt along the Wasatch or any other area in the state.


Why would you say that? The bow hunt kills very few deer as is. The extended kills even less then that. It does not affect the ratios much ether way.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Why couldn't they allow some seasons to overlap?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

What harvest rates, other than LE Any weapon elk hunts, are harvesting so many animals that we need to move them to reduce harvest numbers? If the DWR has the power to move the hunt dates other than the opening of general deer than what options does this open? All this does is allow three more weeks for them to shift hunts around in. Last time I checked they weren't going to increase the lengths of any hunts. They proved that with the southern season. I've read were people have said it opens several options but, that is like blaming the infamous "Them". I would like a specific "for instance". Otherwise it seems like asking us to for approval on a blank application they can fill in later.

What is the objective?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think this is going to a FANTASTIC idea


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I think this is going to a FANTASTIC idea


Ok, promise it wont be anything sneaky and I'll buy into it. I'm not tyring to disagree, just want to know where its headed before I support it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

This idea gives the DWR more flexible to manage the deer herds and sometimes with early snowfall the bucks are easier to harvest.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

There is a lot of things in the state that budget their time around the third weekend in October, and although it is not as big of a holiday that it used to be, this is at least something to consider.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

truemule said:


> What is the objective?


I would want to know the same thing...what is the motive for changing it?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> This idea gives the DWR more flexible to manage the deer herds and sometimes with early snowfall the bucks are easier to harvest.


That won't be a problem anymore haven't you heard of global warming? 

I understand that with more time they would have more options to move hunts around so they don't conflict and the more leaves less snow theory. Can't the same thing be done with tag numbers? Is this just a way to get around the oppurtunity folks? Give them more tags but lessen there chance at a harvest.

Like I said before, I want an objective. I don't want to hear in a few years that when this was done it was to help the DWR manage harvest numbers and hunt dates but has turned into an trophy mangement system. Much like the current LE areas.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't think the deer hunts are too bad the way they are set up right now. But if, or when we start seeing new elk regulations this change could be a great thing. Currently they are having to schedule the rifle elk hunt around the deer hunt. Having it afterward would not be too appealing, and having it before is a little too early. Assume I400 goes through with its one or two rifle seasons. The ideal time for those seasons is mid- to late october. So if the deer hunt was moved into the first half of October, it would make room for one or two elk hunts during the last half. 

I don't know if this is what Don and Jim and everyone else is thinking, but its a good example of why a change in the dates could be beneficial. Deer can be hunted without too much concern of a "slaughter" from August until the snow flies. Elk, on the other hand, are quite vulnerable right during the heart of fall. Changing the dates probably has a lot more to do with elk than deer.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Don says there is no specific plans to make a change, so why are we making the change now??? I say give me your specifc plans and what your objectives are then come and try to sale me on changing the law. 

As it is this law protects us hunters from getting jerked around. I say give me the specifics THEN come asking for help.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

El Matador said:


> I don't think the deer hunts are too bad the way they are set up right now. But if, or when we start seeing new elk regulations this change could be a great thing. Currently they are having to schedule the rifle elk hunt around the deer hunt. Having it afterward would not be too appealing, and having it before is a little too early. Assume I400 goes through with its one or two rifle seasons. The ideal time for those seasons is mid- to late october. So if the deer hunt was moved into the first half of October, it would make room for one or two elk hunts during the last half.
> 
> I don't know if this is what Don and Jim and everyone else is thinking, but its a good example of why a change in the dates could be beneficial. Deer can be hunted without too much concern of a "slaughter" from August until the snow flies. Elk, on the other hand, are quite vulnerable right during the heart of fall. Changing the dates probably has a lot more to do with elk than deer.


Exactly. This is a good step in being able to juggle seasons and get the Le elk rifle hunt out of the rut.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Flexibility is helpful for something like that, but the statements used in the justification just seem like bull. The rut isn't on for the deer during the rifle and Utah has leaves? One reason for a lot of nice bucks of late could very well be early and snowy hunts. There was the one 3 or 4 years ago that caused localized reports of "slaughter" but for the most part those early snows have probably done a lot of good towards older class deer. 

Move the deer earlier and beware. Anything in September is like shooting ducks on a pond. Ask anyone that hunts the muzzle and they will lie to you and tell you it is hard to see bucks.

Can't see em due to all those antlers!


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

This is a great first step for I400. In a way I think it is directly linked to it. SFW's way of helping out. Lets get a link up or an E-mail address to write these senators.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> This is a great first step for I400. In a way I think it is directly linked to it. SFW's way of helping out.


Ahhhhh yes now the hidden agenda is coming out. I400, SFW, thropy hunting being able to do withthe date as they see fit. :idea:


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Trophy hunting??? I thought I400 would decrease quality? Which is it?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Trophy hunting??? I thought I400 would decrease quality? Which is it?


Just giving you crap.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Contact your senators and let them know you don't agree with this.

No one is saying why we need this change, they say thier is no reason for it but they are trying to push it through as fast as they can. Why couldn't they wait until there is a justification for it? well that is because there *IS*a reason for the change, they just aren't saying what it is.

If ever something smelt fishy, this is it.

Moves like this is how joe public gets the shaft.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Contact your senators and let them know you don't agree with this.
> 
> No one is saying why we need this change, they say thier is no reason for it but they are trying to push it through as fast as they can. Why couldn't they wait until there is a justification for it? well that is because there *IS*a reason for the change, they just aren't saying what it is.
> 
> ...


One thing this cannot be passed this year. Trying to push it through so fast, it would not be introduced until November. It is a law, therefore ALL hunts revolve aroung the rifle deer. One hunt in distress is the rifle LE elk, move that hunt out of the rut and you can triple the tags, sucess rate goes way down, just for starters. ML hunt can change too, the sky is the limit. But without that change we are working around the rifle deer. It would benefit ALL hunters to call and get this changed, no matter what species you hunt. If you are going against it, at least ask yourself "what for?" Not it seems funny, I am against it. Have you even thought about what you would be against?

I can give many reasons why to support this, can you give any why not? This will be hashed out for months. More benefits will come out of this than downfalls.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I agree. But the time of year or dates has nothing to do with how many are killed. If we moved the dates, and less were being harvested, then you could give more permits to that unit. Maybe end the draw for general season deer?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Contact your senators and let them know you don't agree with this.
> ...


There arn't any benifits to making the change. None that are valid, I don't understand I400 so I will assume that is a benefit.

Making the change won't benefit the deer herd and keeping it as it is won't hurt the deer herd. The elk herd is doing great under the current managment plan so why change the opening of the deer hunt?

Also they are passing it this year that is why it is getting ready to go through the senate. that is what the senate does, they pass bills or reject them. The opening date may not change this year, but the law will, and that is what we are talking about.

Why is this being kept so quiet? Why didn't the SFW do their usual poll, why don't they say anything about it in a press release? Why do they even care about when the opening of the rifle deer hunt is? That is what makes me wonder what they have up thier sleeve.

I'm against because I dont' trust SFW and I like having the hunt open when it does and I believe there is no benefit for hunters or the animals.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

edit


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> I agree. But the time of year or dates has nothing to do with how many are killed. If we moved the dates, and less were being harvested, then you could give more permits to that unit. Maybe end the draw for general season deer?


This is conflicting, If the time of year has nothing to do with how many are killed, how does moving the dates make less being harvested?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It strikes me funny that you're talking about changing the rifle deer hunt so as to minimize the number of deer killed and now we're having to feed them. Let's face it. The Wasatch Front's deer herd's days are numbered ONLY because their winter range is GONE and the rest of the state is following right along. Every high mountain valley is getting clogged with houses and they are all taking winter range!
> The total number of deer in this state is too high for the carrying capacity of the winter range unless we have abnormally dry winters like in the past decade. We should be trying to harvest MORE deer during the hunts so they don't die in the winter.
> It really doesn't matter to me when the rifle deer hunt is. Me and my crew will adjust and fill our freezers regardless.


Hahaha with your logic we should you just kill all the deer during hunting season if they are going to winter kill anyways. People havent been worried about the deer winter killing since 1992-1993. This doesnt happen that often or we would never have any deer.

The total number of deer in this state *ISNT* at capacity on the winter ranges. The problem is we have had a lot of snowfall this year so the deer are more concentrated. It has nothing to do with carrying capacity on the winter range because a lot of the winter range that has been used by deer is covered by 3 plus feet of snow. So the deer can't use it like they did in the past.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> One hunt in distress is the rifle LE elk, move that hunt out of the rut and you can triple the tags, sucess rate goes way down, just for starters.


It is not the hunt that is suffering. Record book bulls are being taken every year at incredible succes rates. It is the number of tags (oppurtunity) that is in trouble. I400 is one thing that is trying to address that. Moving the deer hunt may be able to help this or other proposals be implemented easier. My worry is is that there is "NO OBJECTIVE", other than to rearrange hunt dates. This however could work out both ways. One in strong favor of a trophy hunter and one in favor of th oppurtunity/family outing hunters.

As mentioned by Don in his e-mail moving them would cut down on success rates. Thus we could percievably give out more tags. Which brings me to my other worry. This is an attempt to hush the cry of the opputunists while arranging dates and hunts to benefit the trophy hunter.

I am believe that we can work toward a balance that equally benefits both groups and others not mentioned. But removing one of the largest obsticales in that balance without an objective is irresponsible and neglegent in my opinion.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> As mentioned by Don in his e-mail moving them would cut down on success rates. Thus we could percievably give out more tags. Which brings me to my other worry. This is an attempt to hush the cry of the opputunists while arranging dates and hunts to benefit the trophy hunter.


How would any season date benefit the trophy hunters more than the opportunists?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Is it really going to hurt people to hunt deer on Oct 11th instead of Oct 21st? Give me 5 reasons why your hunt would be worse if it was earlier?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > As mentioned by Don in his e-mail moving them would cut down on success rates. Thus we could percievably give out more tags. Which brings me to my other worry. This is an attempt to hush the cry of the opputunists while arranging dates and hunts to benefit the trophy hunter.
> 
> 
> How would any season date benefit the trophy hunters more than the opportunists?


By keeping the already hard to get high success tags that some of these groups are giving and auctioning out in the rut while moving the rest of the hunts further away. Lowering the general success rates and increasing the others. I am not saying that is what is going to happen. I'm not saying i wouldn't support it. I just want some defined direction instead of PI$$(^@ into the wind and hoping a strong wind doesn't blow.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Lets look at this in deer terms since you are not familiar with I 400.

Moving the rifle deer hunt any later will increase sucess rates, if this happens you must decrease tag #'s. And you end up losing hunters or changing how and when they hunt.

Move it earlier and sucess rate more than likley will go down. So you could increase tag #'s.

Right now the hunt is scheduled Oct. 18-26, this is a constant. Deer herds are suffering as a direct result. This and habitat which that is not the subject. But if you moved it earlier one could argue it would be less stress on the deer going into winter. Maybe simple swap ml hunt and rifle hunt, put the ML closer to the rut but not in the rut and after rifle. Any one that knows me knows I want all hunts to be fair, meaning equal sucess rates, equal #'s across the board. I know you may think I am archery driven but if archery guys have so many perks, why is the whole state not archery hunting? Equal #'s across the board does not mean give out 1000 rifle tags and 1000 archery tags and 1000 ml tags. If there is a sucess rate of 50/25/10, rifle/ml/archer, then give out 500 rifle tags/750 ML tags/1000 archery tags. This would diversify the hunting world and the most favorable hunt may not be with the most effective weapon. Of course my example is not exact and would depend on the unit and # of deer needed to be harvested that year, but I think you get my point.

I personally would like to interlace all these hunts. Archery followed by ML then rifle. That would take care of fairness of weapons, throw the rut into the equation and that is where it gets difficult. Elk rut in September and deer in november, so both rifle hunts should be as far away from these dated as possible. I have seen deer shot in the third week in October that were in the rut.


Longfeather said:


> HOGAN said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. But the time of year or dates has nothing to do with how many are killed. If we moved the dates, and less were being harvested, then you could give more permits to that unit. Maybe end the draw for general season deer?
> ...


It does not that would equate directly to how many tags are given out. The more you give the more are killed but again a grey area. LE has so high of sucess because not many are given out. General have a lower sucess rate because too many are given out. So there is a grey area and that is where I400 comes into play. We use this to our advantage. I400 could be used with deer also, it is the same argument. As Fatbass stated Utah can only hold so many deer and elk. So many MUST be harvested every year or it throws both species out of wack.

This is a lot to take on at once, I am just getting back into it so bear with me. We will need to look at deer #'s and harvest goals, in each region to be more exact but having 10 months, we will get it done. It seems funny but has the future of hunting behind it, not inches. Like I said bear with me.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

> I am believe that we can work toward a balance that equally benefits both groups and others not mentioned. But removing one of the largest obsticales in that balance without an objective is irresponsible and neglegent in my opinion.


Well said. Balance is the main thing as I stated above. Balance is essential for the future of hunting. Balance is my own personal goal.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The season dates aren't being changed to screw over the general season hunters. It wont help the trophy hunters get more trophies. We are simply managing the deer better because we can be more flexible with our season dates. Nebo is a perfect example because a lot of times it snowed during the deer hunt and the deer got slaughtered two years in a row. This wouldn't have happened if we had earlier season dates.

Other states have different season dates. Wyoming has a rifle huntin September. Colorado has some High Country season dates. The DWR can be more flexible if they had control over the opening of general season rifle.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> > I am believe that we can work toward a balance that equally benefits both groups and others not mentioned. But removing one of the largest obsticales in that balance without an objective is irresponsible and neglegent in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Well said. Balance is the main thing as I stated above. Balance is essential for the future of hunting. Balance is my own personal goal.


Mine as well. I am an archery hunter first but I have family and freinds that are general season hunters. One day I hope to draw an LE tag so I also want to be as fair as possible. I usually find myself aguing the point I see least represented.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I am an archery hunter first as well, but we will all be rifle hunters one day, so a short term goal of favoring one weapon is out of the question. like i said fairness across the board. I would love to see a LE hunt that is the same odds for each weapon. Adjust season dates, tag #'s and this can be achieved. Adjusted yearly as needed. Having anything set in stone is nothing but a road block.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Nebo is a perfect example because a lot of times it snowed during the deer hunt and the deer got slaughtered two years in a row. This wouldn't have happened if we had earlier season dates.


Isolated incedents or years are nota reason to knee jerk and change everything. Maybe some area restrictions just like the elk areas are in order to help with these problems.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Having anything set in stone is nothing but a road block.


Good point. But, will moving that stone 20 days really free up that much in the mangement of seasons that run almost the length of 5 full months with all included.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Good question. I am all for trying new things. However I do not like putting all your eggs in one basket (statewide). Each unit needs to be managed differently anyways. I would like to try a few different scenerios in different units, and adjust as needed to another. I400 only want 5 units, if it is proven effective add more, if not scrap it. But obviously doing what we have been is getting us by but not in the best interest for future hunters. I want what is best for the animals, future hunters and current hunters, in that order. We MAY have to sacrafice something but as long as it is in the best interest to all, I am all for it.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> People havent been worried about the deer winter killing since 1992-1993. This doesnt happen that often or we would never have any deer.


WHAT People worry about the deer being winter killed each and every year. If people did not care they would not be feeding them each year in the cache valley.  Oh my bad that is one of them secret ( SFW) things that many people do not know. 
As far as the dates changing I am fine with it as long as it is being done for the deer not for I400 or any group. If the DWR has control I will be ok with it.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > People havent been worried about the deer winter killing since 1992-1993. This doesnt happen that often or we would never have any deer.
> 
> 
> WHAT People worry about the deer being winter killed each and every year. If people did not care they would not be feeding them each year in the cache valley.  Oh my bad that is one of them secret ( SFW) things that many people do not know.
> As far as the dates changing I am fine with it as long as it is being done for the deer not for I400 or any group. If the DWR has control I will be ok with it.


Unfortunately, the DWR only has so much control over things. In the end, it's usually not enough and special interest is what gets things done. I agree with they who have said that they need to say something if they don't like it.

If you have a beef with it, by all means, let your voice be heard.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think this is more pointed to the weekend warrior, not you Fatbass. Put a good hunter anywhere, any time of year and his/her sucess rate will remain constant. Like I said, it is a road block, setting the entire state under the same rules is foolish, each unit is different and should be managed to the way it benefits all factors. This would open a lot of doors, but some units may need to have the same rifle date as it does now.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Good question. I am all for trying new things. However I do not like putting all your eggs in one basket (statewide). Each unit needs to be managed differently anyways. I would like to try a few different scenerios in different units, and adjust as needed to another. I400 only want 5 units, if it is proven effective add more, if not scrap it. But obviously doing what we have been is getting us by but not in the best interest for future hunters. I want what is best for the animals, future hunters and current hunters, in that order. We MAY have to sacrafice something but as long as it is in the best interest to all, I am all for it.


I agree that some areas need some special management, and that if it is in the best interest of all that I'm all for it. Although how do we know if it benefits all, if all we have is a blank proposal stating that it will allow for better management that has not even been determined. There may be a management model they are looking at but, without seeing it and believing in their true intent I question whether or not to support it.

Does anyone know if they are pursuing legitimate model that is looked at and supported by biologists or just trying to get this changed so they have freedom to influence the DWR to change dates as they see fit?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

No matter how you feel on the subject. Using the link below you can click on the map a few times and it will take you right to your senators contact info. E-mail, phone, etc...

http://se15.utahsenate.org/perl/spage/distmapal.pl


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Contact your senators and let them know you don't agree with this.
> 
> No one is saying why we need this change, they say thier is no reason for it but they are trying to push it through as fast as they can. Why couldn't they wait until there is a justification for it? well that is because there *IS*a reason for the change, they just aren't saying what it is.
> 
> ...


I am stunned by some of the posts on this subject. I am truly sorry I posted this now. :? 

This has been being 'lobbied' for YEARS, not rushed at the last minute. The season date was set by cattlemen/sheep ranchers, NOT by hunters or having anything to do with hunting. The 'intent' on REMOVING the mandated season deer rifle opener is to ALLOW the DWR the ability to manage and have some flexibility on MANAGING deer instead of being forced to do so by livestock owners on PUBLIC LAND. It also is CLEARLY written that the deer opener would NEVER be earlier than October, in other words, NOT IN SEPTEMBER.

Longfeather, the only thing 'fishy' is your objections to this. How in the hell is "Joe Public" getting the shaft on this?

This is flat out disturbing how paranoid some of you folks are about big bad SFW. DO you really believe the Utah Senate is that easily duped, along with the DWR, and the Wildlife Board? No wait, don't answer that, I can't imagine the 'thought process' on the answers to that question. :roll:

Oh yeah, I also 'just learned' that feeding starving animals is bad and leaving them with no feed in snow over their heads is good. :?


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Thans for the link True Mule. 

Really no big deal Pro, nobody knows why they are against it, they just seem to think everyone is out to get them. It's a step in the right direction.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> DO you really believe the Utah Senate is that easily duped, along with the DWR, and the Wildlife Board?


"Duped"...not necessarily. Influenced...most certainly, as proven by decades of public record and supported by the state constitution. That's as it should be, for better or worse.

But none the less, unlocking the general deer hunt is absolutely necessary. Doesn't matter who's pushing it - it's a good thing. The seasons are all wedged in against each other tighter than a fat lady's thong. Because of that, meaningful season changes can't be made unless all seasons are negotiable. The current seasons are NOT in the best interests of wildlife or hunters and changes are needed, now and in the future. Give the DWR some latitude to do their job!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

fatbass said:


> What's almost embarrassing is our hubris about our abilities to "manage" deer herds.


Utah's State Motto: "Arrogance in Ignorance" :lol:


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am stunned by some of the posts on this subject. I am truly sorry I posted this now. :?


Thats what happens when you leave us to our own devices. We all go crazy wearing our tinfoil hats. 

LIke I have said Pro, I just want to know if they have a direction. Something more than just a generalization. I realize this may have been put into effect by non-hunting groups. But things that start as one concept change over time as we have seen in the management of our herds. For my own piece of mind not anyone else, I just would like to hear if SFW or the DWR has an idea of what they are going to pursue if this gets passed. I am not against SFW. They do great things for our wildlife. I hope I am objective enough that I would be asking the same questions no matter who would be presenting this.

Or..... maybe I just like to argue. :twisted:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am stunned by some of the posts on this subject. I am truly sorry I posted this now.


How could you be stunned? Sometimes even the best laid plans can be over looked by fear of change. The fear gets raised when it is being pushed by groups that many people do not trust in the frist place. Do not be sorry. I like the idea if and only if it give the DWR the power to control the dates as they feel it needs be.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I think anyone with concerns is justified. DWR, SFW....a lot of people want the dates freed up but it is a legitimate question to ask what are the "tenitive" plans and motives for each group. I know the new deer management plan is coming up and some are saying we will see some groups lobby to make Utah's deer hunting like Utah's elk hunting (lots of LE, less general season) and I think the fair questions are, DWR what would you do with season dates? SFW what do you hope will be done with season dates? I'm not against it but I'm not for it because nobody is saying what these powerful groups have in mind.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

http://se15.utahsenate.org/perl/spage/distmapal.pl


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Guys, 

Bottom line it is about helping the biologists do what they need to do to sustain a huntable wildlife population.

The change of the legeslated mandate for the openers is the right thing to do. If nothing else it is one less step away from the legislature telling us when we can wipe our butts and how many squares we can use.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

What is wrong with a little flexibility? I really don't see any bad coming out of this. I see this opening up huge opportunities in the future.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

I don't see why the fish and game is even wasting time on this issue. The health of the deer herd will not be affected by changing the opener of the rifle deer hunt. They may be able to shuffle around a bunch of hunts and manipulate the hunters more but it will have no affect on the health of the deer herd. 

I would like to see less manipulation of the hunters and more focus on the animals.


----------



## itchytriggerfinger (Sep 12, 2007)

i read pages 1 and 2 then skipped to page 8 but i'm not really for this. Why would i be trying to put in for a buck/bull combo tag if i'm going to be able to hunt both species at the same time next year. that doesn't make sense.
unless the buck/bull tag was a pilot for this upcoming event. hmmmmmm........


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> The seasons are all wedged in against each other tighter than a fat lady's thong.


Wow, that is tight. :shock:


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

Once again it seems that someone is trying to maneuver hunts for there benefit and calling it something else like "deer management" for one deer management in the state of Utah is having deer herds small enough that there would be no winter kill. Thus the phrase "Self sustaining deer populations" this in turn means that enough deer per square mile to survive the winter months in “normal winter conditions" which according to meteorologists this is. So if you where at all concerned with the deer management issue we would not be feeding deer because DWR would have issued the correct number of permits to allow for winter kill to be harvested during hunting season. Now this is where it gets tricky because of shrinking habitat DWR say's that the deer herd in some areas are over populated, (however I have never seen this) and must be fed throughout the winter in extreme conditions “in designated areas" 

Not in my back yard this is against the rules. DWR has to decide after a number of deer are lost if this area is in need of loss prevention. SO WHY IN THE HECK CHANGE THE RULES OF THE DEER OPENER TO SAVE MORE DEER WHEN I HAVE 5 DIEING IN THE BACK YARD RIGHT NOW.:evil: 

The DWR does not care I know because I’ve checked. The most productive hunt is the Rifle at a whooping 35.3% state wide success rate if you don’t believe me all this information is in the “ Utah annual big game report” ALL of it including strategies for reducing deer populations in key areas. So come on guys jump on the band wagon lets move the hunts around to benefit the few and call it something else to please the many that really care about our deer herds numbers hey and while your at it just come to my house and club these deer in my back yard they are to week to run and the DWR wont let me feed them with out me getting a fine. Then everyone can be happy


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> Once again it seems that someone is trying to maneuver hunts for there benefit and calling it something else like "deer management" for one deer management in the state of Utah is having deer herds small enough that there would be no winter kill. Thus the phrase "Self sustaining deer populations" this in turn means that enough deer per square mile to survive the winter months in "normal winter conditions" which according to meteorologists this is. So if you where at all concerned with the deer management issue we would not be feeding deer because DWR would have issued the correct number of permits to allow for winter kill to be harvested during hunting season. Now this is where it gets tricky because of shrinking habitat DWR say's that the deer herd in some areas are over populated, (however I have never seen this) and must be fed throughout the winter in extreme conditions "in designated areas"
> 
> Not in my back yard this is against the rules. DWR has to decide after a number of deer are lost if this area is in need of loss prevention. SO WHY IN THE HECK CHANGE THE RULES OF THE DEER OPENER TO SAVE MORE DEER WHEN I HAVE 5 DIEING IN THE BACK YARD RIGHT NOW.:evil:
> 
> The DWR does not care I know because I've checked. The most productive hunt is the Rifle at a whooping 35.3% state wide success rate if you don't believe me all this information is in the " Utah annual big game report" ALL of it including strategies for reducing deer populations in key areas. So come on guys jump on the band wagon lets move the hunts around to benefit the few and call it something else to please the many that really care about our deer herds numbers hey and while your at it just come to my house and club these deer in my back yard they are to week to run and the DWR wont let me feed them with out me getting a fine. Then everyone can be happy


Not that I think it is relative to the season changes, but 35.3% of 60,000 some odd tags is a lot of dead bucks.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

> Not that I think it is relative to the season changes, but 35.3% of 60,000 some odd tags is a lot of dead bucks


88,800 some odd actually is the correct # for 2006 which is 35,000 some odd bucks. You are right that is a lot of deer taken and but these are season totals you success is almost as good for muzzle loader as it is fro rifle and archery is still 22% so where does the problem lye? I don't know for sure but it isn't changing rifle seasons maybelimiting tags would be the better solution


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

here was 88,000 rifle tags given out? don't think it's necessarily about limiting kills. I think it just gives them room to manipulate other season dates. I've been at RAC's and had them explain that a lot of the problem with the DWR implementing new season changes has been because the legislature controls the general deer season dates. I won't go into detail, but they have been talking about it for a long time. It's nothing new.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

150% of snowpack is not an noirmal winter. That may be fine if it came and melted, but as soon as it has melted another storm comes. Have not seen bare dirt for more than 12 hours. That is not even close to a normal winter. If we are able to move the rifle hunt it opens a lot more doors for other species as well. You can move the season dates or limit opportunity (cut down on tags). Limiting opportunity is not a very good solution for the long term or future generations. Create a hunt that lowers sucess rate and give more tags is a more acceptable solution.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Again, I ask...why are we wanting to lower the number of bucks taken if they are starving in winter. This winter is "normal"! There's just above average snowfall compared to what we have records of. And without the critical winter range available, the total carrying capacity has to be fewer deer, unless we just decide to feed the deer every winter. The weak link in the whole deer "management" plan is winter range.


There is a lot of truth in your statement, but I think this year we have had storm after storm for several weeks. Usually it will snow for a few days and then be clear for a week and during that time the snow melts and the deer move higher and more winter range is used, but when you have storm after storm then the snow doesnt melt as fast and its been cold.

Today was a good day because it was warmer and snow has melted on the south slopes where deer can easily feed and get out of the deep snow. If it stays like this for a week then the deer has a better chance. January is when we have the winter thaw but this year it will be February


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

> Please contact your senators and tell them this is for the best interest of the deer herds in Utah!


DONE!


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Well done Suave!!! You mind sharing what you sent? I want to put a universal e mail together so people can copy and paste it and send it to the senetors. That way it ends the prdcrastinating excuse. What do you think???


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> http://se15.utahsenate.org/perl/spage/distmapal.pl


Just a reminder of the link guys.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

If you are in favor of some more flexibility, please contact your senators and ask them to vote Yes on SB 59, sponsored by State Senator Allen Christensen

And the purpose


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

I have read all of the threads you have posted, and with curiosity I went to the senate site and read the bill myself. It's pretty straight forward.
I'm not the brightest bulb in the lamp, but it just makes sense to me that if the DWR had more flexibility in determining when to begin and end hunting seasons, that they should be able to do a better job at managing whatever it is they are managing. That could be the hurds, hunters in the field or whatever else it is they try to manage from time to time.
I wrote my Senator and asked him to vote *FOR* S.B. 59.

As is always the case, time will tell if our DWR guys make the right decisions on the deer, elk and other game they manage. At least this freedom from having to start the general deer season on the third saturday in October will allow them to move it to a timeline more suitable to say a different start date for the elk hunt etc.

My take on it is this: This bill is NOT about deer, it IS about elk.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think it is about both, as previous stated in my other posts. It would not hurt to have the season ealier, IMO it will help the herd.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Put a tech restricted muzzleloader hunt before the rifle hunt, push the rifle hunt back simultaneous with the high tech muzzies. Reduce rifle/inline tags to encourage primtive weapons.

Don't require volunteer hours, but offer volunteer hours for bonus points. (Say 20 hours per point and a max of 2 points a year.) Rather than require DWR personnel to supervise the volunteer hours, establish a stewardship program with volunteer unit coordinators to supervise. DWR would supervise the coordinators.

Don't mess with the archery hunts. Sweeten the deal whenever possible. We (everybody who hunts) like bowhunters, or should. But remove their current ability to apply for a gun hunt and then pick up an archery tag as a consolation - get them out of those draws.

...since we're talkin' out of our hats and all anyway. :wink:


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Sounds good, when do we start? Brilliant Fin.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I have just finished reading S.B. 59 and personally think the antiquated starting date for the general deer season in Utah needs to be changed. The passing of Senate Bill 59 is very important, not only for the freedom it will give the DWR in adjusting the starting date of the deer season, but also to allow them to adjust the other big game hunts. Time will tell how well they do with this added management flexibility, but it is long overdue.

Please vote FOR S.B. 59!

Thank you!

Sincerely,




Here is what another forum member came up with. Copy, paste and sign your name, all the work is done.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Put a tech restricted muzzleloader hunt before the rifle hunt, push the rifle hunt back simultaneous with the high tech muzzies. Reduce rifle/inline tags to encourage primtive weapons.
> ...since we're talkin' out of our hats and all anyway. :wink:


Yeap, the above would go over like a fart in church. :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

We should also give disabled hunters the ability to hunt from Aug 1st to Dec 31st with any weapon because there isnt any biological reason against it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The Proclamation says that if a disabled hunter draws a LE tag then they can get a 30 day extension so if they divide the state into 25 to 30 LE units then a disabled hunter should be able to hunt 30 days before or 30 days after the season dates.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

fatbass said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > We should also give disabled hunters the ability to hunt from Aug 1st to Dec 31st with any weapon because there isnt any biological reason against it.
> ...


I propose 10 days for every 4 inches of mullet. I'm half way there!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> [quote:8lveuewb]quote="fatbass"]
> 
> 
> coyoteslayer said:
> ...


I propose 10 days for every 4 inches of mullet. I'm half way there![/quote:8lveuewb]

I think they should issue a statewide mullet voucher because their isnt any biological reason against having a mullet while harvesting a deer.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I am a pharmacist and nothing is more irritating then when a customer(with no medical background) asks me for my professional opinion and when I give it to them they tell I have no idea what I am talking about. If the biologists say they need to change the season dates to better manage the deer herds, I say they should have that ability. After all that is what they are trained in(many years in school and countless field hours). 
My problem with the whole thing is that is an e-mail from Don Peay to Pro. If the DWR wants to change the season dates why don't the make a formal anouncement and post it on their website. I am sure it would get a better reception by the hunting community than if it comes from a special interest group.
Later,
Griff


----------



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

I like your style griff.....


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

idiot with a bow said:


> I like your style griff.....


+1


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> My problem with the whole thing is that is an e-mail from Don Peay to Pro. If the DWR wants to change the season dates why don't the make a formal anouncement and post it on their website. I am sure it would get a better reception by the hunting community than if it comes from a special interest group.


Don's email went out to a whole bunch of folks...folks who understand that government and wildlife management are public processes. Get involved!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Griff, you stated that it irritates you when the public comes and tells you your business, I can see how it would rub you wrong. But also realize that since this is a public process and not only biological issues, but public hunter issues, are what goes into these decisions. It would be great if it were as simple as "we need X amount of deer and we have X amount of winter range/carrying capacity, buts that not the case. Since sportsman's dollars are what funds the DWR to a great degree, they are a large consideration. Also, don't discount the public. Many are dedicated to knowing what's going on when it comes to things like this. Many attend RAC meetings, Board meetings and are a big part of organizations such as SFW.

Like Fin said, GET INVOLVED!


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Just got a response back from one of the senators I e-mailed, here is his reply-

Joey,

I support SB 59.

Senator Knudson


8) It is underway.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Hogan, sorry I wasn't able to get back on this site until now. I said something like...


Please vote Yes on SB 59, sponsored by State Senator Allen Christensen. This bill would give more flexibility to the DWR in managing wildlife. This is in the best interest of the deer herds in Utah!

Plain and simple.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Copy and paste this-

I have just finished reading S.B. 59 and personally think the antiquated starting date for the general deer season in Utah needs to be changed. The passing of Senate Bill 59 is very important, not only for the freedom it will give the DWR in adjusting the starting date of the deer season, but also to allow them to adjust the other big game hunts. Time will tell how well they do with this added management flexibility, but it is long overdue.

Please vote FOR S.B. 59!

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Type your name and send it to your senator or however senators you want. That easy. Get 'r done!!!
http://se15.utahsenate.org/perl/spage/distmapal.pl


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Wildlife management should never be a pulbic process. Why? The public gets to emotionally involved. 

The public has been told not to feed the wildlife, but yet they continue to do so. "They can not stand to see wildlife starve in their backyards."

The biggest reason this law may not be changed is people are emotionally connected to this weekend. That is same weekend people have hunted with their grandfathers for the last 50 years.

You guys are emotionally involved because you pay money for your tags and feel that you deserve a say in what goes on.

I do not care if the season gets changed or not, but if it does get changed I want it to be for sound bioligical management not to manage the public.
Later,
Griff


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Griff...you nailed it; my sentiments exactly!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I prefer the DWR deciding when to open the rifle deer hunt over a state mandated date put in place by people NOT concerned with the welfare of the deer, but of the welfare of livestock.

Griff, you now know you are off base when wyo2ut is agreeing with you. _(O)_ :mrgreen: The public SHOULD and does have a say in wildlife related issues, who do you think is funding it? It makes no sense to ask the public to pony up MILLIONS of dollars, then turn around and tell them they should have no say on the decisions made that directly affect them. Isn't that a form of "taxation w/o representation"? what a socialist mindset, give us your hard earned money, and we will take care of everything and TELL you what you really want. :roll:


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro: I agree with you as far as letting DWR decide dates, but since you brought up livestock, what is your solution for the following scenerio. 
I'm riding my horse on the Boulder looking for cattle during the deer hunt, riding on trails in the bottom of canyons, sidehills, aspens, etc, I'm not worried about spooking deer, concerned only with finding cattle to get them off the mountain, we have approx 800 cows to find. I will guarantee 2 things will happen:
Angry confrontations with hunters
Cattle will get shot
I know not every area in the state would have this problem, but most areas in the Southern region would including your Dutton.
Grazing rights and dates will not get changed to accomodate any hunting season and the combo of rifle deer hunters + cattle + ranchers = DISASTER


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fair question hockey. Point is, the LE hunts are going on in September already. The general season spike hunt/any-bull hunt opens the first part of October, along with the muzzy deer hunt, what difference does it make if the hunters are rifle deer hunters or 'other' hunters?



> Grazing rights and dates will not get changed to accomodate any hunting season and the combo of rifle deer hunters + cattle + ranchers = DISASTER


I find this kind of attitude troubling. Hunters work with ranchers all the time, why should it be a one way street? Cattle ranchers have benefited more than any others from the conservation program in Utah. More habitat has been improved, while keeping deer/elk objectives at the same levels for several years now, when are the cattlemen going to step and do their part? Greed from either side is not in anyone's best interest.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I am not socialistic just scientific. If the DWR has sound biological reasons for changing the season dates I am all for it. I just wish the DWR would make a public statement stating why they want the law to change and this is their plan. 

In the e-mail that I read it stated their are no current plans, so make a plan. That is all I am asking for, a plan that shows bioligically more leaves on trees increases the deer herd. Right now I do not believe that is true. Montana and Colorado offer rifle hunts during the rut and their deer herds are in a lot better shape than ours. I know that their are other factors that go into why their herds are better than ours, but I don't think more leaves on trees is going to save ours.
Later,
Griff


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Griff, the season dates may not even be changed, the point is to give the DWR the ability to do so if warranted. As it is right now, the DWR has NO say in the deer rifle opening date. How does that make any sense? And yes, the public MUST be included in the process if/when the season dates are ever changed. If the public is left out of the process, that is when we should become wary of those in charge.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Pro,
I understand it takes the public to change the law. All I am saying is why can't the DWR come out with a statement and plan of what their intentions are. It is going to be received better than if it comes from a special interest group. I have already said I think the DWR should have control of the dates, but it should be changed for biological reasons.
Later,
Griff


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

This would never get changed simply by having the DWR 'ask' for it. This has taken a lot of lobbying and 'reminding' legislators how much money these 'special interest' groups raise and bring into the state of Utah. The DWR isn't very good and politics, and in truth they shouldn't be. That is why these 'special interest' groups are so valuable to wildlife and hunters alike.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Pro,
That is exactly my point. Lobbying brings in money. Money brings influence. Influence brings change that is not always based on science. 
Right now the hot topic is feeding the wildlife. Scientific studies have shown feeding them does little or no good, but everyone gets emotional about the whole thing and now they are being fed. I do not want to see them starve, I want a good deer herd as much as the next guy. Scientifically it just doesn't make sense.
Later,
Griff


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> This would never get changed simply by having the DWR 'ask' for it. This has taken a lot of lobbying and 'reminding' legislators how much money these 'special interest' groups raise and bring into the state of Utah. The DWR isn't very good and politics, and in truth they shouldn't be. That is why these 'special interest' groups are so valuable to wildlife and hunters alike.


Which is fine until the special interest group is a anti-hunting group. Then we would all be pissed off over the lobbying and money buying influence.

SFW should save it's firepower for when the anti's come calling instead of trying to set the opening day of the deer hunt.


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

LE hunters are not the problem, there is not enough of them in the field at once. The area I am most familiar with you have 10x the rifle deer hunters than muzzy or spike elk hunters. Throw in the dymanic that there is a better chance of running into "slob" hunters during rifle season


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> SFW should save it's firepower for when the anti's come calling instead of trying to set the opening day of the deer hunt.


One more time, SFW is *NOT* "trying to set the opening day", they are trying to make it possible to change the deer date if warranted. As it stands now, the DWR has NO flexibility and have been told by cattlemen when to open the deer hunt. Why should cattlemen be the sole voice on this? Hockey, I noticed you forgot to answer my question regarding cattlemen giving something back for all the perks they have received from sportsmen. I'll give you another stab at it. Before you answer, be mindful that I grew up on a cattle operation and ran several hundred head on forest service lands myself.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > SFW should save it's firepower for when the anti's come calling instead of trying to set the opening day of the deer hunt.
> ...


That is true the SFW isn't saying when the date should be but, Don Peay says that is only because they haven't got a plan *YET*. They don't have a day set yet but they want to move the date so that they can move the elk hunt around.

The SFW isn't just doing this to help the DWR to have more autonomy. It is because they see a use for it in their future goals.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> That is true the SFW isn't saying when the date should be but, Don Peay says that is only because they haven't got a plan *YET*. They don't have a day set yet but they want to move the date so that they can move the elk hunt around.
> 
> The SFW isn't just doing this to help the DWR to have more autonomy. It is because they see a use for it in their future goals.


The new wording will mandate the rifle deer opener be in October, the option to have it earlier/later will be off the table.

I am confused why SFW shouldn't be fighting for the ability to change season dates for the good of wildlife and hunters alike. :? Isn't that what they should be fighting for? _(O)_


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > That is true the SFW isn't saying when the date should be but, Don Peay says that is only because they haven't got a plan *YET*. They don't have a day set yet but they want to move the date so that they can move the elk hunt around.
> >
> > The SFW isn't just doing this to help the DWR to have more autonomy. It is because they see a use for it in their future goals.
> 
> ...


They have the right to fight for whatever they want. But if they are going to claim they are "the few speaking for the many", they had better make sure what they are pushing for is wanted.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> They have the right to fight for whatever they want. But if they are going to claim they are "the few speaking for the many", they had better make sure what they are pushing for is wanted.


Alrightly then. Thanks for the advice, I'll pass it along. :mrgreen:

This has been requested at pert near every RAC/Wildlife Board meeting I have ever attended, and NOT by SFW. I am confident the majority of hunters are in favor of having the DWR be given the ability to move season dates around instead of a cattlemen pushed mandate that has been in affect since the 1950's. Just a hunch though. _(O)_


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > They have the right to fight for whatever they want. But if they are going to claim they are "the few speaking for the many", they had better make sure what they are pushing for is wanted.
> ...


Again you missed my point. Also you must attend different RAC meetings then the ones I attend, because it wasn't mentioned at the ones I was at and I make nearly all of the ones with big game issues on the agenda.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> They have the right to fight for whatever they want. But if they are going to claim they are "the few speaking for the many", they had better make sure what they are pushing for is wanted.


Good advice for all organizations out there lobbing for changes. Too many times organizations are driven by a minority's need to change things to benefit themselves instead of asking themselves "Does the majority really want or need this change to happen?"

For the record I think the DNR should have the authority to conduct all aspects of wildlife management as they see fit, they are the professionals not the politicians who set the opening day date years ago.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Another reply from another senator-

Dear Joey,
Thank you for taking the time to express your opinions and your support of SB59.
Carlene Walker


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

fatbass said:


> After giving it some thought, I won't mind an earlier rifle hunt, but I sure would like a ten day hunt in the southeast region again.


The earlier the hunt is, the warmer it will be. The heat is going to destroy the perm I have planned for my now infant mullet.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

> Another reply from another senator-


Man, how come I don't get any response. My senator must be against the bill :evil:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

suave300 said:


> > Another reply from another senator-
> 
> 
> Man, how come I don't get any response. My senator must be against the bill :evil:


Carlene is a rare politician, she actually values public input. I have worked with her on a few non-hunting related bills in the past. I have yet to receive any feedback from my lawmakers either. I expect Jim Gowans, a hunter, to support this, but I have yet to get feedback from him in several e-mails on many different topics. I even got blown off when I was up lobbying by Mr Gowans, I met with more than 50 folks, but not my own 'representative'. :?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

> *proutdoors wrote:*
> Carlene is a rare politician, she actually values public input. I have worked with her on a few non-hunting related bills in the past. I have yet to receive any feedback from my lawmakers either. I expect Jim Gowans, a hunter, to support this, but I have yet to get feedback from him in several e-mails on many different topics. I even got blown off when I was up lobbying by Mr Gowans, I met with more than 50 folks, but not my own 'representative'.


That would actually be really cool up there lobbying. What was that like? Were you getting good responses?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Being part of the 'process' is cool, but it also can be very frustrating. But, it must be done in todays world, so why not be a part of it? Most of the lobbying I have done was for the union I belong to, so it was on issues related to the field I work in. I got to meet some great folks, and some folks that could care less what the citizens want/need. I hope to get more involved in this process in the hunting sector here in the next little bit.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Being part of the 'process' is cool, but it also can be very frustrating. But, it must be done in todays world, so why not be a part of it? Most of the lobbying I have done was for the union I belong to, so it was on issues related to the field I work in. I got to meet some great folks, and some folks that could care less what the citizens want/need. I hope to get more involved in this process in the hunting sector here in the next little bit.


Amen. I would love to help if you need more voices! Let me know.


----------



## 4x4 Bronco (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't mind being able to hunt earlier in the month. It was nice, though, last year when the snow flew and everyone left. I had the mountian to myself last year and it was beautiful. Again thoug. Hunting in a short sleeve shirt instead of my winter coat wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit.


----------

