# Possible changes to B to D ratios, per unit. Read this!



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the 'E'mail' Letter.........................

Dear Sportsmen and Women,
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is considering a General Season deer hunt recommendation that needs your input, prior to the next Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting, scheduled for April 12, 2012.

As you will recall, the Utah Wildlife Board amended the existing Statewide Mule Deer Plan, which outlines mule deer management in Utah. They approved two significant changes over the past 14 months: First, the General Season postseason buck to doe ratio objective was raised from 15–25 bucks/100 does to 18–25 bucks/100 does. This objective change will necessitate a significant reduction in the number of buck permits available on deer hunting units, and thus reduce hunter opportunity. Second, General Season deer hunting was changed from Regional hunting to Unit by Unit hunting, resulting in 30 general season units in the state.

Upon further evaluation, the Wildlife Board has asked the UDWR to revisit the buck ratio objectives in an effort to increase hunter opportunity while maintaining healthy deer populations. The Wildlife Board still believes that going to 30 units is a good change, but they have asked us to come up with buck to doe ratio objectives that fit the specific units, as opposed to a one size fits all approach. Some units in the state have good access and lend themselves to high buck harvest. We would need to reduce opportunity greatly on such units to achieve higher buck to doe ratios. Other units in the state are not as accessible, thus we could manage for high buck to doe ratios without losing opportunity.


The Division is recommending each general season deer unit be placed in one of the following 2 postseason buck to doe ratio categories:


- 15–17 bucks/100 does - units that have high harvest, good access and are primarily public land

- 18–20 bucks/100 does - units that are primarily private land and/or have limited access


Specifically for the Northeastern Region, we are recommending our General Season units be placed into the following categories:


Unit


Proposed Buck Ratio

North Slope (8)


18–20

South Slope, Yellowstone (9a)


18–20

South Slope, Vernal – Bonanza (9bd)


15–17

Nine Mile (11)


18–20

Wasatch Mountains, Current Creek/Avintaquin (17bc)


15–17


These recommendations will be made at the April RAC. However, the region would like you to consider these recommendations now, before they go to the RAC. Please discuss this with your constituency. We may modify our recommendation based on the comments we receive. Please give us your input either by email or call the Regional Office and ask to talk to the Regional Wildlife Manager or one of the District Wildlife Biologists. 


Thank You

(From the DWR)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Looks good. I wonder what compelled them to reconsider? :idea: 

Start making those phone calls people. Whether you agree or not, it's your voice they are asking for.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Seems like a good plan to me. It is good to see some progress being made.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Whats the Central region going to recommend Bullsnot?

Any idea yet?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I tend to agree with a smaller window. 15-17 or 18-20 or whatever. The window was increased from 15-20 to 15-25 to accommodate the Regional Buck Management at the time. Now we have micro-buck-management, I see no reason to have such a large window.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Looks good. I wonder what compelled them to reconsider? :idea:
> 
> Start making those phone calls people. Whether you agree or not, it's your voice they are asking for.


I wonder :mrgreen: Looks good to me!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Now we'll see about the next, and most important step,,,,,,,IMHO.

Good herd estimate numbers for each unit........

It is critical to have as accurate numbers as possible so the correct number of 
permits can be issued.....


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Excellent...I like the direction this is going.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Over the next month or so, all of our regions will be asking for the public's input on this issue. Each region will likely have a different approach. The Vernal office sent this letter/email, and I know that our office in Price is planning to hold open houses about it next month (Feb. 16 in Price, Feb. 21 in Moab and another meeting in either Blanding or Monticello on a date TBD).

Our other offices may have a different approach, but they all want your feedback. If you feel strongly about this issue or a particular unit, please contact your regional office and ask to talk to the wildlife manager or one of the wildlife biologists. I'll post the details of any other events or open houses as I receive them.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Good Deal - I like this. We need to manage units specific to their needs.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Whats the Central region going to recommend Bullsnot?
> 
> Any idea yet?


I asked yesterday and there will be a RAC meeting in February where this will be discussed, among other things. There are no action items, it will be dicussion only, but the public is welcome. They aren't tipping their hand until then it seems.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Seems a little strange they (DWR) don't tell all the regions at the same time. Ideas as to why?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

This looks like a good thing to me. 25:100 was just too high, these numbers look much better. My only concern is with the few units in the state that are largely private lands. Take the Morgan/East Canyon/Chalk Creek for example: It's been around 30:100 for a few years now, does that mean they will issue more and more tags until the ratio drops to 20? I doubt it would ever get that low because of all the private land. You'd have a boat load of public hunters packed into the small amount of public land. My take is that a one-size-fits-all approach to ratios was not ideal and a 2-sizes approach isn't going to be perfect either. This will work as long as they make exceptions for units that need it. I'll let the Northern Region know how I feel about this.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

El Matador, that is why there should only be a minimum buck:doe ratio trigger. Issue a generous number of permits as long as the buck:doe ratios are above the minimum. 

As for having "a boat load of public hunters packed into the small amount of public land", that is why I think restricting hunters to small units instead of larger regions or even the entire state is foolish.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

lobowatch said:


> Seems a little strange they (DWR) don't tell all the regions at the same time. Ideas as to why?


It's up to each region to make it's own recommendations which is pretty normal when it comes to tags and such. The head office of course has the final say and can change them.

What I find interesting is each region is doing it's own thing on getting public input. I wish they would all do roughly the same process.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

So, If I understand this correctly we are all happy because we are becoming a unit by unit managed limited entry state for mule deer. I got four words for you; point creep, your kids.

I still advocate unlimited bow tags even if it is unit by unit. Utah could be the stand in line to Rifle hunt or go bow hunting today state!

I also think you can cut the piss out of tags but until the root (habitat destruction/invasion and vehicular impact) are taken seriously, the plan does not have a snowballs chance in hell of working....

*Really mods I cant say Pi55?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Habitat take seriously? Wow we have pumped the most money into habitat. We are not even at carrying capacity. Lets grow some deer and utilize the habitat that is out there. Yes we need to continue to focus on habitat, but just providing the habitat will not add deer to a unit.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

I agree with you Muley just providing habitat will not add deer. Is cutting tags the answer? Here is why I don't think that will make much of a difference in harvest numbers. I have read that some where roughly 10% of hunters take 90% of the game. Logically this makes sense, the elite class in any instance will preform well above the average. So the 13,000 people who could take our leave the deer hunt, don't hunt? If only it were that easy, the reality will be some of those 10% will not draw because they know what unit's the deer are in and will waiting like all of the other serious, dedicated, and informed hunters. From my perspective this is taking away a public resource from those who are most interest and giving it to some who could take it or leave it. And to do this all in the name of more inches per buck (that is what this all boils down to) is irresponsible at best, and at worst goes against the core value hunting was established on, sustenance. Sorry for the rant.... My point is that; I believe this deer plan is a dog an pony show to wrangle unchecked control of deer herds in the entire state so the very best hunting can be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the public can weight there turn, for the scraps in the draw. And it makes me madder then a woodpecker in a tooth pick factory! At least with unlimited archery (of course not in the elite units / premium limited) If you were willing to put in the time/work and had the desire you could hunt every year.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud the DWR for making the pain less. I know option 2 was not in line with DWR statistics.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think this is a great step forward. It's good to see some compromise over these new changes. I can't tell you guys how excited this "average joe" is for this upcoming season and for what the future beholds. Keep up the good work and above all, THINK POSITIVE!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm super pumped about the new deer management!, those B/D ratios will work fine.

I'll bet we see at least some of these units start to improve rather quickly. :O||: 

I get to look some were almost every day, headed out the door now with the camera.
Hope we start seeing the deer numbers on their back up soon!....................


----------



## HUNTIN FOR LIFE (Sep 8, 2007)

kinda funny how one of the things they wanted and passed this year was higher buck to doe ratio. setting it at 18-25 B to D. Now all of the sudden they realize that they will have to cut tags alot more then the 7500 expected, and now they want to go back to 15-17 and 18-20 hum. Id like to see the ratio 18-21 and 22-25 if they are are going to go with different BDR for each unit.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Not all of the sudden.

Ridge and goofy, I'm glad to see you guys are happy with this proposed compromise. I certainly am. These are the exact buck to doe ratios that the UWC has been pushing for and recommended to the wildlife board after they implemented unit management and set their blanket buck to doe ratios at 18-25. I find it funny that we have been bickering about this for months and now these numbers look kosher. Not pointing fingers. I'm just glad that compromise is being looked at and that they are actually looking at something more than blanket management. If things shake out as I hope they will, you guys will get some of what you want and we'll get some of what we want. Of course there's probably more than we will ALL be getting that has nothing to do with buck to doe ratios, but those don't really warrant any debate, so it never really comes up as a point of contention.

Everyone, the time will come for feedback in specific regions, like has been asked for in the NE. Please be sure to give your opinion, regardless of what side of the "fence" you might land. LET THEM KNOW! We all owe it to ourselves to be more involved.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

pkred said:


> So, If I understand this correctly we are all happy because we are becoming a unit by unit managed limited entry state for mule deer. I got four words for you; point creep, your kids.
> 
> I still advocate unlimited bow tags even if it is unit by unit. Utah could be the stand in line to Rifle hunt or go bow hunting today state!
> 
> ...


No, we aren't "all" happy, but I contend that this is MUCH better than 30 units and statewide 18-25/100 buck to doe ratios that cut 1000's of hunters out at the will of a minority.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'll bet we see at least some of these units start to improve rather quickly. :O||:


 Way to go out on a limb...that is like saying I bet there will be clouds in the sky sometime in the next week..... :roll: I'll take it one step further; I bet we see at least some of these units start to decline, some will improve, and some will stay stagnant....



goofy elk said:


> I get to look some were almost every day, headed out the door now with the camera.
> Hope we start seeing the deer numbers on their back up soon!....................


No way! How can this be possible? Has Option 2 worked this 'rapidly'? Hot ****! Just think how many deer there will be by March 1.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Habitat take seriously? Wow we have pumped the most money into habitat. We are not even at carrying capacity. Lets grow some deer and utilize the habitat that is out there. Yes we need to continue to focus on habitat, but just providing the habitat will not add deer to a unit.


How do YOU define carrying capacity? For me, many factors determine carrying capacity, but it is mostly winter range. When I see thousands of deer in fields instead of on traditional winter range, that tells me there are herds not only at carrying capacity, but some that are OVER carrying capacity. Once again I ask, what data/trends/history can you point to that shows raising the buck:doe ratios equates to more deer? Our LE units don't show that, our neighboring states don't show that, so what/where is the results that you speak of?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Pro, Your negativity really sucks......
You know I'm talking a few years down the road for improvement......

I just went and checked Lasson draw, The lake fork Indianola road up as far as we could get,, And the Browns peak road up to the switchbacks.....
Ran the spotting scope and glasses over everything. 62 head of deer with 2 small bucks...
Looked close too, none were mature bucks that had dropped antlers yet.....

Once again, All this new snow and relatively no deer.There should be a 1,000 head
were I just looked...In 35 years of watching this area. These are the lowest
numbers I've personally witnessed on this wintering ground.. It was a beautiful morning to look though...
[attachment=2:2i9hg9x7]100_3041.jpg[/attachment:2i9hg9x7][attachment=1:2i9hg9x7]100_3040.jpg[/attachment:2i9hg9x7]

Had a dozen cows and calves 50 yards from my truck when I went out to start it.[attachment=0:2i9hg9x7]100_3034.jpg[/attachment:2i9hg9x7]

All in all, an excellent day to look for tracks in the snow,,,their simply not there.
Very many anyway..


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Honest question; What makes you think there "should" be a 1000 deer?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Honest question; What makes you think there "should" be a 1000 deer?


Well. A at least a 1K were typical there every year from say 2000 up til 2008....
Steady decline from 2009 til now........EXACT SAME AREA!

In 1980 thru the 1992 winter ....it was freakin crazy, closer to 2,000 head.....
Not uncommon to see 40-50 nice bucks there .. EXACT SAME AREA........

Jack Topham , Retired DWR, Has spent his Whole career , and personally hunting time
in this exact same area...............ask him, you'll get the same storey.

This is a typical wintering ground deer gather in EVERY winter,,,,,
In-fact , the DWR has used this wintering herd for several deer studies
because of its regularity....


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

There is some truth to what Goofy is saying about the Indianola area. Lasson Draw carried close to 1,000 deer until 2008 or 2009. It has steadily decreased. I think I counted over 300 there last year, when the usual count was 500+. The cheat grass slopes are not helping the situation and the habitat rehab done on them failed. I would like to know the reason for the decline-- it sure has not been bucks. Prior to the decline there were enough bucks to cover the doe in the area. The area started to decline WHEN there were enough bucks. Where the #@(*&$ have our FAWNS gone?


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Goofy, are you seeing many does with fawns this winter around the north sanpete area? 

I wonder if the DWR could put some of those new gps collars on the Nebo fawns during the summer and follow up to see what's happening to them when it's determined that the fawn hasn't moved for a day or so. Ya i know it just takes money.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This morning would have been about 1 fawn per each doe.......

BUT, 62 is an honest count glassing pretty darn hard......EXSTREAMLY low numbers.

I'm going back in the morning and looking again.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> This morning would have been about 1 fawn per each doe.......
> 
> BUT, 62 is an honest count glassing pretty darn hard......EXSTREAMLY low numbers.
> 
> I'm going back in the morning and looking again.


I am not questioning what you are seeing, but this reminds me of when I went to a DWR open house in Price. Bullsnot, Nambaster and I headed down from the Salt Lake Valley and lost count of how many deer we saw along the way. Saw several hundred, but we only saw a couple bucks. So I guess you could say our observed buck to doe ratio was 1:100. 8) Anyways the point of mentioning this is almost every doe had at least one fawn, most had two. At the meeting a couple of the folks there were saying there are not enough bucks to breed all the does. I told them what we had saw through the canyon and I asked them how all those does got pregnant if there are no bucks or not enough bucks. They didn't have an answer besides they must be somewhere else right now. I said BINGO, we see such a small percentage of deer habitat, but we love to extrapolate our findings to the whole area, when we see such a miniscule area.

Like Packout said, we need to get fawn survival up. It isn't an issue of not enough bucks to breed the does, it is an issue of fawn and doe survival.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Jahan,
I'm going to look from Thistle to the summit most of next week..........

I'm hearing from the guys that drive it every day the deer numbers are about half
of last year as well........................I'm going to see for my self.
I'll run Sheep Creek, Starvation, Tucker, Long canyon, and Tie fork all so....

I remember your post last year on your one trip and 100s of deer,,,,,,,
You should have see SF canyon 5-10 years ago, same thing , 1000s of deer, not 100s..........

I'll give ya a report next week..


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I look for trends. Deer can winter miles from where they were the year before if the weather is too mild. Of course once they hit the bottom of their winter range then they are there, but this year I have seen deer at over 9,500' and some on the valley floor and everywhere in between. The point is this year is the anomaly and just because we don't see them on our week or day drives does not mean they are not somewhere. Don't get me wrong, deer numbers are down. But, I saw more fawns per doe this year than any year in the past decade and also saw good numbers of deer on the hunts-- doe, fawns, young bucks, mature bucks, and old bucks. Where are all the FAWNS going? Those deer on Lasson Draw (which is trending down) were not killed by doe hunters. 

And I still like the idea of smaller ratio windows for buck-micro-units.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Pro, Your negativity really sucks......
> You know I'm talking a few years down the road for improvement......


My negativity? Coming from you that is beyond hilarious!

I am baffled as to why people think deer 'have to' winter in the same exact location every year, and yet admit to seeing deer in new places. I have more deer on my property this year than anytime my dad and uncles can recall, and they are in their 70's. Does that mean there are more this year? Obviously not. It just means there are more deer on my land this year than ever before. I am sure that means there are less deer on the traditional wintering areas. My point is, there are many factors involved in why we see more/less deer in given areas, population is just ONE of them. Packout referred to the cheatgrass in the Indianola area, availability and quality of feed are other factors. Snow depth, or lack there of, is another. Perception is, IMHO, the biggest problem. I have a cousin who swears the fawn count is worse this winter than he can recall, while his brother thinks there are more fawns this year than he can recall. They both guide for one of the more successful Outfitters in the area, explain that one......they even guide together, so they are seeing the same deer...or lack thereof, and coming up with completely opposing conclusions.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Packout said:


> And I still like the idea of smaller ratio windows for buck-micro-units.


Option 4 does make a lot of sence. Should of been option 4 anyway. I still can't wait for Nebo to be up over 18 bucks per 100 does as Nebo fits the bill...lots of roadless and private lands.


----------



## muzzlehunter (Nov 29, 2009)

I travel alot for my job in 3 different states. With the lack of snow this year Im seeing No deer or elk in traditional wintering areas, Seeing antelope where they usually are in the summer. And road kill has been very minimal. Also see very few coyotes. Compared to years past hundreds of deer and elk very few antelope and road kill that you loose count on, And an average of 4 or 5 coyotes a week. With such a mild winter they are scattered and not using traditional winter range this year, Imo.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Packout said:


> There is some truth to what Goofy is saying about the Indianola area. Lasson Draw carried close to 1,000 deer until 2008 or 2009. It has steadily decreased. I think I counted over 300 there last year, when the usual count was 500+. The cheat grass slopes are not helping the situation and the habitat rehab done on them failed. I would like to know the reason for the decline-- it sure has not been bucks. Prior to the decline there were enough bucks to cover the doe in the area. The area started to decline WHEN there were enough bucks. Where the #@(*&$ have our FAWNS gone?


That' my biggest concern about all of the discussions and arguments that are happening.....most hunters are focused on the both the deer declines and recent hunting changes. Hunting changes will have very little effect on deer numbers in Lasson draw or anywhere else. It's kind of like doing lots of sit ups thinking that it will reduce your love handles......

The recent deer hunting changes will add a few bucks to the herd here and there....but we have done nothing new to address the problems in overall deer numbers is Lasson draw or anywhere else.

On a side note, for hunters sake I'm very glad some compromises could be reached! I'm very glad that most feel good about them. This is a real positive sign for Utah deer hunters.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Kris and Tye, Although I'm not opposed to some compromise to the buck/doe ratio changes. I am still concerned about units being over hunted and so are a lot of other people I hear talking. I think you should really look at the hunter by available buck ratio too. I think it should be set at a 1:1 ratio or at worse case, a 1.5 hunter to 1 buck ratio. I believe right now, many units probably have a 3 or 4 hunter to 1 buck ratios. Which is why the success rates are so low on many units. For example, the Oquirrh/Stansbury unit has a herd count of 8,700 deer with a 13.6 to 100 doe ratio(only raised from the previous 11:100 ratio in 2010 because of the 3 day hunt and big snow storm) and about 2,300 hunters in 2010. With the given herd count and ratio, there was about 1041 available bucks for the 2011 season and probabaly the same 2,300 hunters. I'm sure there will be a big drop in the ratio again on this unit because of the 5 day hunt return with perfect weather conditions. I really think the tags for this unit should be cut down to about 1,100 or 1,200. The have to 1:1 ratio I'm talking about. 
Does this make sense to anyone? 
I'm not looking for high LE success rates but something like 10 or 20% high than what we have now would be nice.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am confused, ridgetop, why is is 'desirable' to have success rates approaching 50% on general season areas? This is an honest question. Isn't managing for high success rates a sure fire way to limit opportunity while doing little....or more likely....nothing to help the herd health?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am confused, ridgetop, why is is 'desirable' to have success rates approaching 50% on general season areas? This is an honest question. Isn't managing for high success rates a sure fire way to limit opportunity while doing little....or more likely....nothing to help the herd health?


I think hunter satifaction should be strongly concidered when condidering tag numbers and I'm not talking about myself. What about those guys that have seen a hundred does but were an hour late on killing the two yearly bucks in the canyon. Should we say... hey there's always next year and BTW, this is what's better for the herds, so deal with it. Good heck, I think you just sucked me into your vortex of opportunity at any cost bit again. No one really knows what will increase the herds for sure but we do know how to increase the huntable bucks and increase success rates a little too. Time to get off this merry go round again. I think I'm going to get sick.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I am confused, ridgetop, why is is 'desirable' to have success rates approaching 50% on general season areas? This is an honest question. Isn't managing for high success rates a sure fire way to limit opportunity while doing little....or more likely....nothing to help the herd health?
> ...


I think this is a fine line, do we make a few lucky souls that can draw happy or do we allow people to hunt with some dissatisfied. I guess the answer to that question is what hunters want and according to the last survey, they just want to hunt.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ON another thread I posted a link to a survey given in 1987 to Utah hunters...in that link, hunter satisfaction rates were nearly identical for LE units, 3-point or better units, and general season units. Interestingly, the data of this survey "indicated that restricting hunters to shooting only large deer, 3-point-and-better hunts, had no value in increasing hunter satisfaction."

The truth is that hunter satisfaction is linked to a lot of different factors and is not always about the number of bucks, the size of the bucks, or the harvest of a buck. Personally, I don't think hunter satisfaction should play any part in determining tag numbers...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I am confused, ridgetop, why is is 'desirable' to have success rates approaching 50% on general season areas? This is an honest question. Isn't managing for high success rates a sure fire way to limit opportunity while doing little....or more likely....nothing to help the herd health?
> ...


Hunter satisfaction _is_ strongly considered when setting permit numbers. Every time I've been surveyed by the DWR, I've been ask to rate my satisfaction with my hunt and I've been allowed to comment regarding my answer.

Your apparent assumption that hunter satisfaction equates to harvest success is where you miss the point. Most of us realize it is a HUNT, not a SHOOT.

And, no one I have seen on this forum wants opportunity at any cost. But to cut opportunity on general units for the sole purpose of increasing the success rate with no benefit to the herds just doesn't make sense. We already have LE units that do that. I would even be in favor of increasing the number of LE units by 3 to 5, if that would help, but let's call them what they are. And let's keep the general units opportunity managed.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> And, no one I have seen on this forum wants opportunity at any cost. But to cut opportunity on general units for the sole purpose of increasing the success rate with no benefit to the herds just doesn't make sense. We already have LE units that do that. I would even be in favor of increasing the number of LE units by 3 to 5, if that would help, but let's call them what they are. And let's keep the general units opportunity managed.


I think the thing that some hunters forget or simply do not understand is that we are talking about general season units...these are units that, by definition, should allow for high amounts of opportunity at the expense of quality. The goal of these units is to offer the maximum number of tags without hurting the viability of the overall herd.

When hunters look to increase the quality of the general season hunts, they are trying to make them like LE hunts which is not the goal. If more hunters want higher quality bucks, we should look at making more LE units...but lets NOT manage general season units for big bucks and low opportunity!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I really think the tags for this unit should be cut down to about 1,100 or 1,200. The have to 1:1 ratio I'm talking about.
> Does this make sense to anyone?
> I'm not looking for high LE success rates but something like 10 or 20% high than what we have now would be nice.


I understand your comment Ridge. I think there are a few things to consider when taking this approach and I'm just putting them out there for discussion.

1 - Would less hunters, based on hunter vs game ratios, really have the necessary success rate to keep buck to doe ratios say in the 15-17 range, or even in the 18-20 range? There seems to be a direct correlation between buck to doe ratios and success rates. If we only allowed 100 hunters on that unit next year and those 100 hunters represented an accurate cross section of hunters like we see today on GS units(meaning some hunters are scouting, using trail cams and others are just weekend warriors that are more concerned with getting out with family and hunt maybe a day and a half and then throw in some road hunters) do we expect to see more than about 35 of those hunters harvest a buck IF that unit is within the target bd range?

2 - What are the budget implications to such a move? Everything from coyote control to habitat work to paying biologists and conservation officers cost money. Does this make the situation with the deer herds even worse in the long run?

3 - Is that really what the public at large wants? Again just asking but haven't we already asked the public if they would rather hunt more often with lower success/lesser quality or if they would rather hunt less often with higher success/better quality? There certainly is not a consesus on the subject but it seems this desire has been measured.

I do understand the desire for change on general units. My question though is don't we already have units in Utah that do exactly what you are looking for? I'm not pointing the finger at you Ridge but I do find it ironic that some hunters even put in for a general unit....it seems they want more opportunity than they are willing to admit. I think it makes sense to make enough LE units to match the percentage of hunters that want a hunt with higher success and higher quality vs those that are more concerned about other factors that make the hunt more satisfying for them.

Without gobs of game around I think it will be very difficult to drive the hunt satisfication rating up much higher than it is today. The debate rages on about quality vs opportunity but the truth is both sides want at least some of what the other side has and without enough game to go around it will be difficult to make everyone happy, if not impossible. I believe that long term the real answer is focusing on ways to improve game numbers.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is all setting up for an interesting round of RAC meetings in April.....


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Every unit in the state is now draw only, so why do we still have 2 drawings for deer? General season tags are a thing of the past and having 2 drawings only reduces your odds in each one. Throw everything in one drawing and lose your points if you draw a 1st choice tag. Guys that want high quality would be 2nd in line to opportunity hunters on "general" units and opportunity guys wouldn't be clogging up the line for premium units.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Ok, so what happens to all of the LE deer applicants? Do we suddenly see an influx of LE elk applicants? If not, do you have to choose between general deer end LE elk?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Ok, so what happens to all of the LE deer applicants? Do we suddenly see an influx of LE elk applicants? If not, do you have to choose between general deer end LE elk?


YES PLEASE!,,,,,,,,,,,choose between LE elk & General deer............. 

That would help fix the LE elk point creep. :O||:

But in all reality, El Matador is right . General deer hunting is gone.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

El Matador said:


> Every unit in the state is now draw only, so why do we still have 2 drawings for deer? General season tags are a thing of the past and having 2 drawings only reduces your odds in each one. Throw everything in one drawing and lose your points if you draw a 1st choice tag. Guys that want high quality would be 2nd in line to opportunity hunters on "general" units and opportunity guys wouldn't be clogging up the line for premium units.


While I do agree that all units are draw now, general seasons are still managed by the same concept--high opportunity/low quality....General season hunts, then, are only gone if hunters continue to allow them to be pushed away! I would love to see hunters have to make a choice and put in for either an LE hunt or a GS hunt and not both! It would sure weed out those who are willing to sacrifice a tag and those who are not!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

w2u I would also like to see them pick le or general tag. this would eliminate the life time license holder problems. They could still get a general tag but they would have to sit out if they wanted a Le tag. 

great idea.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Okay you can start as soon as I draw. Deal?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hmmm, Guess that would mean the dedicated deer hunters would out of the LE stuff too.

Kinda strange,,,W2U, SW, and myself all agreeing on an issue :shock:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

So with that said, could we in good conscience do this with deer without doing it to elk?

I think there would b huge push back if this was proposed. Guys flip their lids when the division wants to give out a a few more tags on an LE elk unit or lower the age objective a year. Taking away the ability for people to apply for both, though I can see the merit and logic in it, is like asking for someone's first born.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> So with that said, could we in good conscience do this with deer without doing it to elk?
> 
> I think there would b huge push back if this was proposed. Guys flip their lids when the division wants to give out a a few more tags on an LE elk unit or lower the age objective a year. Taking away the ability for people to apply for both, though I can see the merit and logic in it, is like asking for someone's first born.


Id also go for it with elk. a bull is a bull no matter what age you shoot it! I dont think a guy should be able to go kill a spike every year then be allowed to kill a big bull. This idea would loosen the butt elk butt plug!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ME TOO,,,,do it with both general and spike as well.....


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Let me see if I get this right:

You can put in for one unit for deer which would include PLE, LE, and General (30 new units).

and

You can put in for one unit for elk which would include LE or Spike/Anybull.

Correct? OR are you saying one or the other (not both species)?

I'll also add, why just limit it to the male species? You can't eat the antlers anyway so why not include antlerless in the above? I think this would cause an uproar.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Any of you who have been on this forum for 5+ years know how I feel about the whole "apply for a GS or LE tag, not both" issue. 

It would be interesting for someone to crunch some numbers and do some projections as to how this might actually play out with both deer and elk. 

I don't think it would be totally impossible for GS tags to be sold over the counter again and almost not sell out. You may actually even see some of the GS areas in good cycles (snow, feed, water...etc.) climb to a 20+ buck doe ratio not because of limited tags but because of reduced preasure from the LE hunts.

On the flip side you may see the waiting period on the limited entry hunts reduced to a reasonable 3-6 year wait.

As someone who would continue to put in for both LE and GS on alternating years I think it is a win, win for all hunters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> Let me see if I get this right:
> 
> You can put in for one unit for deer which would include PLE, LE, and General (30 new units).
> 
> ...


My, oh my! While we're at it, let's throw in the OIL hunts too. In other words, ONE big game hunt per year, period. And we would have 5 choices and could chose ANY 5 hunts available. And if we didn't draw, we could buy ANY permit left over, first come, first served. That way, NOBODY could blame someone else for not getting a tag. :O•-:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I could not disagree more with the idea of making hunters choose either Gen or Ltd. More divisive management of deer hunters. We all go through a progression of what we want out of a hunt. Making a hunter choose today, for what he will be in 10 years, is not what we need. Making the system more difficult is not what we need. The system needs to be streamlined. 

We have micro-units throughout the state. Those units are managed for many different objectives (and possibly more to come). There should be one deer point system- not the 3 we currently have. The whole state is Limited Entry. There are no General Season units. Let a guy choose whatever unit he wants, which may be different today than 5 years from now. 

For what it is worth, some have fought hard to stop a certain someone and a certain group from implementing this divisive idea. The whole "opportunist" and "trophy" label situation is the downfall of our passion.

As for elk, make the whole state draw if you want, but don't make people use points on leftover permits.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I am confused, ridgetop, why is is 'desirable' to have success rates approaching 50% on general season areas? This is an honest question. Isn't managing for high success rates a sure fire way to limit opportunity while doing little....or more likely....nothing to help the herd health?
> ...


What are you getting 'sick; about? Is me asking you an HONEST and SINCERE question so out of line? Good hell..............give me a break! Sucked into "my vortex"....

Wy2UT referred to a survey from the 1980's, I remember one from just a couple of years ago. In it, it showed the hunter satisfaction for archer, muzzle loader, rifle, deer for General season, Limited Entry, and Premium Limited Entry. What I found interesting is hunter satisfaction had little/NO correlation with success rates....or even the number of other hunters in the area. What group had the highest satisfaction percentage.......the GENERAL SEASON ARCHERY. Guess what, it has the LOWEST success rates, by far, of all the options. So, I ask again; why is is 'desirable' to have success rates approaching 50% on general season areas? Isn't managing for high success rates a sure fire way to limit opportunity while doing little....or more likely....nothing to help the herd health?

If those questions are too difficult for you, shoot me a PM, and I will put the kid gloves on for you. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Excellent post, Packout!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> I could not disagree more with the idea of making hunters choose either Gen or Ltd. More divisive management of deer hunters. We all go through a progression of what we want out of a hunt. Making a hunter choose today, for what he will be in 10 years, is not what we need. Making the system more difficult is not what we need. The system needs to be streamlined.
> 
> We have micro-units throughout the state. Those units are managed for many different objectives (and possibly more to come). There should be one deer point system- not the 3 we currently have. The whole state is Limited Entry. There are no General Season units. Let a guy choose whatever unit he wants, which may be different today than 5 years from now.
> 
> ...


Yep.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm all for having different levels of units for the different types of hunters out there. How about having 4 different levels. 1st one could be called the Platium: 80+% harvest rate (Henries, Pauns. And A.I) - 5% of the units. 2nd group called the Gold:50-80% harvest rate (Book Cliffs, Vernon, Oak Creek, Crawfords, La Sals, Elk Ridge and all CWMUs) 15% of the units. 3rd group called the Silver:30-50% harvest rate (the current struggling units and a few others that are close to this description - 20% of the units. 4th group called the Bronze: 20-30% harvest rate( all remaining units) 60% of the units.. All lifetime and dedicated hunter tags would qualify only for the 60%(Bronze units) If one of the others was drawn, the tag would be forfeited like it is now. I also like the idea of combining points on deer.
A person could only apply for elk and deer both if they put in for one of the bronze units or keep the deer points seperate with preference points for the Bronze units and bonus points for the other three.
What do you guys think about this idea?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> If those questions are too difficult for you, shoot me a PM, and I will put the kid gloves on for you. :roll:


Now your just starting to sound like my wife. :mrgreen: 
I thought you would like the vortex line. :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

:O||: on the vortex/wife references. A big thumbs down on the four different types. I am for ONE type....managing wildlife WITH hunters instead of managing wildlife FOR hunters.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- Thinking out of the box is never a bad thing. I guess that managing micro-buck-units through hunters success is not something I would support. I am also not into the whole "Labeling" thing. Labeling creates expectations and we have all seen the ups and downs of herds. 

Your idea, I believe, is being bantered about through the current recommendations. Having these levels of management will provide different levels of success, which you describe. If you had the low (15-17), the middle (18-20), the medium (25-35) and the high (35-45), then you will see different opportunities. (Those above numbers could be whatever is sound to provide for the herds and the hunters).


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

+1 Ridge.....


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I'm all for having different levels of units for the different types of hunters out there. How about having 4 different levels. 1st one could be called the Platium: 80+% harvest rate (Henries, Pauns. And A.I) - 5% of the units. 2nd group called the Gold:50-80% harvest rate (Book Cliffs, Vernon, Oak Creek, Crawfords, La Sals, Elk Ridge and all CWMUs) 15% of the units. 3rd group called the Silver:30-50% harvest rate (the current struggling units and a few others that are close to this description - 20% of the units. 4th group called the Bronze: 20-30% harvest rate( all remaining units) 60% of the units.. All lifetime and dedicated hunter tags would qualify only for the 60%(Bronze units) If one of the others was drawn, the tag would be forfeited like it is now. I also like the idea of combining points on deer.
> A person could only apply for elk and deer both if they put in for one of the bronze units or keep the deer points seperate with preference points for the Bronze units and bonus points for the other three.
> What do you guys think about this idea?


Ridge give me one good reason why we should manage units by harvest success rates? First, you would greatly reduce the number of tags making it a lot harder to hunt deer in utah. Second, it would be more like a high fence operation. Third, what ever happened to hunting deer. We should never manage our deer herds so that people are pretty much guaranted a harvest. This is why it's called hunting. Managing by hunter harvest isn't very accurate because of all the variables in the equation. Some hunters are better than others. Some hunters have more time to hunt. Some hunters are more selective in their harvest etc.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> I could not disagree more with the idea of making hunters choose either Gen or Ltd. More divisive management of deer hunters. We all go through a progression of what we want out of a hunt. Making a hunter choose today, for what he will be in 10 years, is not what we need. Making the system more difficult is not what we need. The system needs to be streamlined.
> 
> We have micro-units throughout the state. Those units are managed for many different objectives (and possibly more to come). There should be one deer point system- not the 3 we currently have. The whole state is Limited Entry. There are no General Season units. Let a guy choose whatever unit he wants, which may be different today than 5 years from now.
> 
> ...


That is exactly where I was going, you just say it so much better!


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

If a single deer drawing were implemented you would indeed need some kind of check on the LE elk drawing. You wouldn't want every hunter in Utah eligible to apply there. One simple solution would be to broaden our definition of "Premium" units to include all units that are currently LE for deer and elk. A person could not apply for more than one premium unit per year, regardless of species. This would maintain the separate pools of hunters applying for premium deer OR premium elk, not both.

I also think the waiting periods need to be revamped. In reality we do not have waiting periods right now. Only a very few hunters that are on a waiting period for deer and elk both will be sitting out of the LE drawing. And they may just go apply for antelope! A system of waiting periods that is tailored to each unit would greatly improve our point problem. The best units could have a 5 year wait (elk and deer), all the way down to a 1 year waiting period for some of the archery elk or CWMU units. If you are on a waiting period you cannot apply for ANY premium hunts of any species.

Our state really does have a lot of hunting opportunities and the ability to grow a tremendous number of animals. Like Packout said so well, a more streamlined drawing system would allow everyone a better chance to get their fair share.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Ridge give me one good reason why we should manage units by harvest success rates? First, you would greatly reduce the number of tags making it a lot harder to hunt deer in utah. Second, it would be more like a high fence operation. Third, what ever happened to hunting deer. We should never manage our deer herds so that people are pretty much guaranted a harvest. This is why it's called hunting. Managing by hunter harvest isn't very accurate because of all the variables in the equation. Some hunters are better than others. Some hunters have more time to hunt. Some hunters are more selective in their harvest etc.


And weather, snow depth, weapon, road conditions, non-hunting activities (logging, firewood cutting, ATV use, camping, grazing, etc.), wildfires, hunter density, and the mother of all, soberness. I'm sure there are others!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

OK, this has been a good discussion, and I can see the various viewpoints. With option 2 being in place, I can see the merit of a single deer point system instead of 3.

One question I do not follow. Several mentioned that a change in the deer system should trigger a change with the elk. Why would changing the deer point system require changing the current LE elk system as well? Why can't the species be kept separate as they are now? Sorry, I'm a bit dense after work.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The point here is you would only be allowed to put in for on limited entry tag,,,

Be it deer , elk or antelope....

No more putting in for a limited entry tag PLUS a general tag as well....


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Catherder said:


> One question I do not follow. Several mentioned that a change in the deer system should trigger a change with the elk. Why would changing the deer point system require changing the current LE elk system as well? Why can't the species be kept separate as they are now?


If the deer drawings were combined into one it would take the LE deer units out of the LE drawing. That would mean every human could apply for a LE elk tag regardless of what they're doing for deer. Obviously that would result in a butt jam of people trying to get elk tags so something would need to be done with the elk draw.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> Ridge- Thinking out of the box is never a bad thing. I guess that managing micro-buck-units through hunters success is not something I would support. I am also not into the whole "Labeling" thing. Labeling creates expectations and we have all seen the ups and downs of herds.
> 
> Your idea, I believe, is being bantered about through the current recommendations. Having these levels of management will provide different levels of success, which you describe. If you had the low (15-17), the middle (18-20), the medium (25-35) and the high (35-45), then you will see different opportunities. (Those above numbers could be whatever is sound to provide for the herds and the hunters).


Packout, I was going to post this as another option but I see you already did.

Coyote, does this sound any better to you? 
Ya, I didn't think so.



proutdoors said:


> :O||: on the vortex/wife references. A big thumbs down on the four different types. I am for ONE type....managing wildlife WITH hunters instead of managing wildlife FOR hunters.


Pro, I believe in both, so I guess that's where we really differ.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

El Matador said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > One question I do not follow. Several mentioned that a change in the deer system should trigger a change with the elk. Why would changing the deer point system require changing the current LE elk system as well? Why can't the species be kept separate as they are now?
> ...


Just the opposite.
All deer hunting in Utah is now Limited entry ..You can only apply for ONE LE hunt
per species........

If applicants had to choose between deer, elk, and antelope,
most would choose deer, taking 'draw pressure' off elk and deer...

If this were to happen, I'd bet over half would fall out of the elk draw 'point pool'..


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Goofy, are you talking about residents or non-residents? Currently residents can only apply for one species in the LE draw, not "ONE LE hunt per species". Non-residents can apply for all 3 species each year. If you're meaning that residents can apply for a LE tag and a general deer tag, I see your point. Technically those are both LE now.

Right now you have the option to pursue both yearly hunting opportunities and build points/take chances on higher quality hunts. People like that. I don't think getting rid of that scenario is a good idea, but "streamlining" the draws would tip the odds in favor of each person's individual preferences. I do not like the idea that if I apply for a "Northern" deer tag I'm out of the running for every premium elk and deer unit in the state. 

I think we're on the same page, we just don't know it yet


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

No it wouldn't, because you just make ut so you have to choose what you want to hunt. General buck to doe with lower buck to doe ratios. Or le unit but can't hunt as much but the trade off is better buck to doe ratios. Non of this hunt every year and put in for le deer. 

Plus you have to choose if you want to hunt elk or deer. 

This makes it easier for those who are applying for deer or elk. Less years for tags!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> We have micro-units throughout the state. Those units are managed for many different objectives (and possibly more to come). There should be one deer point system- not the 3 we currently have. The whole state is Limited Entry. There are no General Season units. Let a guy choose whatever unit he wants, which may be different today than 5 years from now.


This was exactly my point...if we are micromanaging and moving to these small units, make them all LE and force hunters to choose one unit to apply for. Don't allow hunters to choose a "LE" and a "GS" unit to apply for. Get rid of the different point systems and just have one. By doing so, you will force hunters to apply for a unit with high buck/doe ratios and low opportunity OR a unit with lower buck/doe ratios and higher opportunity.



Packout said:


> I could not disagree more with the idea of making hunters choose either Gen or Ltd. More divisive management of deer hunters. We all go through a progression of what we want out of a hunt. Making a hunter choose today, for what he will be in 10 years, is not what we need.


I think you totally misunderstood what we were saying....nobody is saying to make hunters choose today what they want in 10 years. We are saying manage all units as LE with different objectives and force hunters to choose to apply for only one LE on any given year...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey Bull,,,,,

Didn't I tell you I saw this deer one point system, and having to choose between deer elk and antelope coming about a year ago!!!!!!!!! 

I would LOVE to see it,,,,,,Definitely make drawing elk and antelope LE tags easier! 

I can see this being a major issue at the April RAC/Board meetings........


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I would LOVE to see it,,,,,,Definitely make drawing elk and antelope LE tags easier!


FWIW, I don't believe that elk hunters should be forced to choose between applying for an LE tag or buying a general season spike tag. The reason is simple....general season spike tags are over-the-counter and allow hunters to shoot only a spike. Deer hunters can shoot whatever size buck they choose on any deer unit...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Utah is going to shed hunters faster than the spinner ride at the fair. Watch the applicants drop over the next year and the additional drop in license sales... /sigh


-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I'm all for having different levels of units for the different types of hunters out there. How about having 4 different levels. 1st one could be called the Platium: 80+% harvest rate (Henries, Pauns. And A.I) - 5% of the units. 2nd group called the Gold:50-80% harvest rate (Book Cliffs, Vernon, Oak Creek, Crawfords, La Sals, Elk Ridge and all CWMUs) 15% of the units. 3rd group called the Silver:30-50% harvest rate (the current struggling units and a few others that are close to this description - 20% of the units. 4th group called the Bronze: 20-30% harvest rate( all remaining units) 60% of the units.. All lifetime and dedicated hunter tags would qualify only for the 60%(Bronze units) If one of the others was drawn, the tag would be forfeited like it is now. I also like the idea of combining points on deer.
> A person could only apply for elk and deer both if they put in for one of the bronze units or keep the deer points seperate with preference points for the Bronze units and bonus points for the other three.
> What do you guys think about this idea?


Well after this springs RAC/WB meetings we will likely have 4 levels of units. 1) Premium LE, 40-45 BD ratios 2) LE, 25 - 35 BD ratios 3) GS, 18-20 BD ratios 4) GS, 15-17 BD ratios and the success rates are farily close to what you are quoting on the corresponding units, same could be said for the units that fall into those categories. The only real difference in your system and the current system is you are driving tag numbers from success rates rather than BD ratios.

The only real problem I see with measuring tag numbers by success rates is you are very susceptible to changes in technology, weather, or other factors driving success rates up or down each year meaning over time hunters could be more or less successful but you have no way of reacting (cutting tags) when BD ratios decline. You'd see some units where it would work and others would come out looking funny when tag numbers came out IMHO.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Why not just go to what Colorado has now? Some areas are easy to draw, while others take years to get the points needed. I couldn't believe it but there are some deer and elk units that are coming close to 20 points needed to draw a tag. That along with being able to put in for every animal that you can afford to put in for. Do away with the bill me later when I draw a tag and make everyone pony up the money up front along with a application fee. 

This does away with waiting periods since if you draw a tag that requires 15 points your odds of ever drawing that tag again are quite slim. Also on the OIL tags make a hunter put in for them for a minimum amount of years before they are eligible to draw a tag. Colorado has a 3 year minimum and then bonus points after that.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Hey Bull,,,,,
> 
> Didn't I tell you I saw this deer one point system, and having to choose between deer elk and antelope coming about a year ago!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


I can understand using 1 points system for each species, it makes sense. It wouldn't change much but it would simplify things, maybe see my comments below....

I do not think that being able to essentially choose only one species in the draw however makes sense. If I draw an LE deer tag there is no reason on earth why I should not be able to get an archery elk tag or even an OTC general rifle tag. I can't figure why we would want to create a system where a hunter has to even take the chance that if they put for LE deer they may be foregoing all opportunity to get a GS elk tag. If a hunter wants to hunt antelope why would we tell them they may have no chance, or only a small chance, at deer and elk tags? I don't think we want to create segments of hunters that define themselves as a "deer" hunter, or an "elk" hunter, or an "antelope" hunter. It makes sense to continue to give hunters a chance to hunt several species.

I do however think if we go to 1 points system for each species we have to find a way to ensure that we can only put in for one "LE" species in the draw. That's the biggest reason why we have different points systems today.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Critter said:


> Why not just go to what Colorado has now?


I'm confused about what folks are calling for on some of these threads. Let me ask this....do we simply have an elk application and a deer application and so on? Do we only have one application and I can only choose 5 units of any type of any species?

Examples:

1 - 1st Choice LE Deer, 2nd choice LE Elk, 3rd LE antelope, 4th Choice Wasatch West Rifle deer, 5th Choice GS archery elk. 
I only accumulate a point if I draw first choice and do not burn my points for drawing 2nd through 5th choices.

OR...

2 - Deer application, 1st choice LE, 2nd choice GS unit....and so on.
Elk application, 1st choice LE, 2nd choice CWMU, 3rd choice Spike rifle, 4th choice any bull rifle, 5th choice GS archery. 
Antelope application....you get the idea. 
I only accumulate a point if I draw first choice and do not burn my points for drawing 2nd through 5th choices. Add the caveat if I put in for a top tier unit in one species I can't in do the same in another species.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Do it this way. Keep the elk tags the way they are now. Deer tags will be all draw, some will be easy to draw others will be hard to draw and take years of points. For the deer draw have 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices, points will only be used when you draw your first choice and you will only get a point if you do not draw your first choice. Do away with the pay later idea, make the applicant pay the money up front for all spieces that he can afford. If you have 20 elk points and 20 deer points let the applicant put in for both and be able to draw both. Allow both residents and non residents to put in for what ever they can afford to put in for with the money up front not pay now if you draw the tag.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> Do away with the bill me later when I draw a tag and make everyone pony up the money up front along with a application fee.


Absolutely! I've been wanting this for years.

-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

So Critter under the system you are mentioning a hunter could accumulate an elk point, a deer point, and an antelope point every year and I could conceivably draw 1, 2 or 3 LE type hunts in a given year?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> So Critter under the system you are mentioning a hunter could accumulate an elk point, a deer point, and an antelope point every year and I could conceivably draw 1, 2 or 3 LE type hunts in a given year?


Yes, if you have enough points to draw the tags. Then you will go back to the bottom of the pool for the spiecies that you drew and have to start to accumulate points all over again.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I just don't see Utah ever changing the point systems, other than maybe deer into the
current LE for all units........Bonus tags, 50/50 split.

To change Utah to a point system like Colorado or even Nevada would not be good....

Every western state is so different, people in each state seam to understand and adjust
to 'their' system.......A change in Utah's system right now would drive even more hunters away.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> > Do away with the bill me later when I draw a tag and make everyone pony up the money up front along with a application fee.
> ...


How does making it more difficult to apply help the deer/elk populations/quality? :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> A change in Utah's system right now would drive even more hunters away.


 -~|- *()* :-|O|-: *(())* -*|*- *OOO*

We agree on something. :mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > A change in Utah's system right now would drive even more hunters away.
> ...


That quote cracked me up....isn't that what we have been telling goofy now for the past year?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I just don't see Utah ever changing the point systems, other than maybe deer into the
> current LE for all units........Bonus tags, 50/50 split.
> 
> To change Utah to a point system like Colorado or even Nevada would not be good....
> ...


I agree with everything in your quote.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that everyone on here knows that Utah isn't going to change their draw or point system, at lest any time soon. 

But we all put out what we would like it to be or at least look like don't we?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > A change in Utah's system right now would drive even more hunters away.
> ...





Treehugnhuntr said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't see Utah ever changing the point systems, other than maybe deer into the
> ...


We are having a kumbayah moment here on the UWN today.  Can you feel the love?

Back to the deer and elk "LE" draws. I'll admit I can be dense at times, but isn't it still doable to have one deer point system as discussed and still have a separate LE elk draw? If you want to make it so a hunter cannot draw a LE elk tag and a (so called) LE deer tag at the same time, you could still use the designations of "premium" (or other name) deer units for the current LE deer areas and stipulate that you cannot draw a premium deer and an LE elk in the same year. The deer draw could still be done with one point system.

It seems to me that those wanting to heavily restrict what folks apply for are touting it as a way to decrease odds for their preferred hunts, and not as a *requirement* to keep the system working.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Catherder said:


> It seems to me that those wanting to heavily restrict what folks apply for are touting it as a way to decrease odds for their preferred hunts, and not as a *requirement* to keep the system working.


I guess Option #2 and the 3 year inactive rule ain't enough? :roll:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> How does making it more difficult to apply help the deer/elk populations/quality? :?


Right back at you: How does keeping it the way it is help the deer/elk populations/quality?

-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I just don't see Utah ever changing the point systems, other than maybe deer into the
> current LE for all units........Bonus tags, 50/50 split.
> 
> To change Utah to a point system like Colorado or even Nevada would not be good....
> ...


+1


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Catherder said:


> Back to the deer and elk "LE" draws. I'll admit I can be dense at times, but isn't it still doable to have one deer point system as discussed and still have a separate LE elk draw? If you want to make it so a hunter cannot draw a LE elk tag and a (so called) LE deer tag at the same time, you could still use the designations of "premium" (or other name) deer units for the current LE deer areas and stipulate that you cannot draw a premium deer and an LE elk in the same year. The deer draw could still be done with one point system.


Well I've tried to bore everybody in the past with numbers but in short if you were to go to one points system for deer AND put in the stipulation that you can only APPLY for one "LE" type hunt (only on one species) you get the same result as the system we have today. There would be no real change to the end result. In a 20 year period you'd get roughly the same amount of LE and GS tags. It's skinning the same cat in two different ways.

The real change would come if you made it so hunters could apply for deer, elk, etc completely seperate and you could apply for LE units in all species. That would really lengthen the LE lines.

OR if you made it so hunters could ONLY apply for either GS or LE units but not both in the same year. I believe that to be devisive and unnecssarily restrictive since most hunters can't truly classify themselves as a "pure" trophy hunters or opportunity hunters. It seems to me that most hunters want a little of both and each individual has a varying degree of what they prefer. The bottomline is do hunters in Utah want to labled and essentially focus on one type of hunting/unit....or do they want options to be able to apply for different types of units? By and large I think we know what the answer would be to that question. Besides even under this system many would simply play both the GS and LE draws over a long period of time and essentially get the same result anyway.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > How does making it more difficult to apply help the deer/elk populations/quality? :?
> ...


It doesn't, nor is i t intended to. But, it is YOU that is calling for the change, not me......

If I recall correctly, the main reason Utah doesn't charge up front is because is legal reasons. I don't see what would be gained by lobbying the state legislature to change existing law in order to reduce the number of applicants. I see this as yet another divisive action, which is NOT going to help the deer/elk in any way. In fact, more division amongst hunters will likely hurt the deer/elk. Further reducing the number of hunters is a way of reducing hunting for ALL. We should be looking at ways to INCREASE the number of hunters, not decrease the numbers. And yet, requiring hunters pay up front will do just that, and for what purpose, to make it so a select few have slightly better odds of drawing a permit. Is that what being a 'sportsman' is about, ones own self, screw the rest? I certainly hope not!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk said:
> ...


 :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I was talking about a change in Utah's draw/point system.......

Not option 2.........Deer unit management.....Which may turn a few hunters away.
But, in the long run, will help deer herds  ,,Wait and see.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I was talking about a change in Utah's draw/point system.......
> 
> Not option 2.........Deer unit management.....Which may turn a few hunters away.
> But, in the long run, will help deer herds  ,,Wait and see.


Until they get sick of it in 2 years and change the system again.  Wait and see. :lol:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I was talking about a change in Utah's draw/point system.......
> 
> Not option 2


Option 2 is already being disected and will likely change BEFORE it was ever actually used. Unit by unit is here to stay for a while, no doubt. May never leave to be honest. But the buck to doe ratio objectives are already more than likely going to be revised.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Which is what a lot of us agreed with from the begining. I just want to see focus on each unit for the entire season. No averaging and hoping that hunters self manage. I am sure that there will be future discussion of buck doe ratio on each unit and we will all have our own views on that. But now we can at least have the option to try some different things on units.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Which is what a lot of us agreed with from the begining. I just want to see focus on each unit for the entire season. No averaging and hoping that hunters self manage. I am sure that there will be future discussion of buck doe ratio on each unit and we will all have our own views on that. But now we can at least have the option to try some different things on units.


+1000

This is also my biggest reason why I support the new option 2 and here's an example why I do.
My fears from three years ago have come true. In 2009 the DWR went with a delayed WED. opener on the Nebo and Oquirrh/Stansbury units. Which caused a lot of poeple to go West or South and hunt the Tintic and West Desert units(These two units have got pounded the last couple years). Then many others hit the second opener on the struggling units, which did not lower pressure on those units that opened on Wed. but at the same time, the DWR gave out 1,000 more tags for the Central unit. Then in 2010 the Oquirrh/Stansbury had a 3 day hunt. Which caused more pressure on the West Desert and Tintic units again. Now the low buck to doe ratio on these other units show the effects of not controlling hunter numbers. Sure, it brought up the buck ratio a little on the Oquirrh/ Stansbury but at a price of only hunting a couple days. No thanks. For this reason alone is why I support the new sub-unit system and I am excited about the 9 day hunt again. Now lets cut a few tags back on these low buck to doe units.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Which is what a lot of us agreed with from the begining. I just want to see focus on each unit for the entire season. No averaging and hoping that hunters self manage. I am sure that there will be future discussion of buck doe ratio on each unit and we will all have our own views on that. But now we can at least have the option to try some different things on units.
> ...


^^^^^^^Spot on!...You get it!^^^^^^^

Top that off with being able to hot spot under the old regional & state wide stuff,
Hunters were just moving to the best remaining deer spots regardless of unit.....

Now the struggling units with low B to D ratios will have a chance to recover!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Unbelievable! People who distrust the DWR on just about everything, think the DWR and a few guys on the Wildlife Board will be better able to distribute hunters....................nonsensical, at best. I am confused as to why anyone trusts a few to make choices better than the many. Seriously, help me out guys.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Unbelievable! People who distrust the DWR on just about everything, think the DWR and a few guys on the Wildlife Board will be better able to distribute hunters....................nonsensical, at best. I am confused as to why anyone trusts a few to make choices better than the many. Seriously, help me out guys.


Pro, you know the DWR will be setting the tag #s and the WB will then just sign off on it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Unbelievable! People who distrust the DWR on just about everything, think the DWR and a few guys on the Wildlife Board will be better able to distribute hunters....................nonsensical, at best. I am confused as to why anyone trusts a few to make choices better than the many. Seriously, help me out guys.
> ...


Except that the WB hasn't been just signing off on what the DWR wants for tag numbers for years....in elk or deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Unbelievable! People who distrust the DWR on just about everything, think the DWR and a few guys on the Wildlife Board will be better able to distribute hunters....................nonsensical, at best. I am confused as to why anyone trusts a few to make choices better than the many. Seriously, help me out guys.
> ...


I hope you are just joking around....please tell me you are not serious!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Which is what a lot of us agreed with from the begining.


You're right and honestly this where we can likely find some common ground. I'm not a huge fan of unit by unit hunter management but I don't have a big problem with it either. I think it's a system that can be built upon to do some good.

The BD ratio objectives are what I was concerned about and I'm happy they are being addressed.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> You're right and honestly this where we can likely find some common ground. I'm not a huge fan of unit by unit hunter management but I don't have a big problem with it either. I think it's a system that can be built upon to do some good.


Meh this can work both ways. Say a huge wildfire burns out a large portion of a micro unit. Under the old system hunters could re-distribute to other units lessing the pressure. Now the entirety of the hunters of that micro unit will be forced into hunting an even smaller sub-portion, placeing even more pressure on the concentrated animals.

Dont think that can happen? Anyone remember the +600 SQUARE MILE wildfire we had less than a decade ago? Wanna place bets on how bad the wildfire's will be this year with such a lack of moisture this winter?

-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > You're right and honestly this where we can likely find some common ground. I'm not a huge fan of unit by unit hunter management but I don't have a big problem with it either. I think it's a system that can be built upon to do some good.
> ...


Just a bit of devil's advocate.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro, 
Go back from the start an take a look at how many times the WB has rubber stamped the DWRs recommendations. You know how the numbers will look. That has been half the issue all along. The WB giving the DWR the benefit of the doubt! Please!!!!!! The WB FINALLY makes a stand and you guys act like it the norm, when over the years it's been the exact opposite!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I recall several occasions in the last 10 years where the division recommended an increase in LE elk tags and the board didn't follow the division recommendations. There are lots of examples if you look through past meeting minutes.

Of course there are probably more examples of them accepting "as presented". But isn't that why the DWR exists? To have a finger on the pulse on what management should be implemented?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

It's too bad so many folks keep thinking two dimensionally with regards to wildlife and it's management....hmmmmm


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> Go back from the start an take a look at how many times the WB has rubber stamped the DWRs recommendations. You know how the numbers will look. That has been half the issue all along. The WB giving the DWR the benefit of the doubt! Please!!!!!! The WB FINALLY makes a stand and you guys act like it the norm, when over the years it's been the exact opposite!


Please!!!!? Who are you trying to kid? The DWR gets mandates from the WB YEARLY! They are REQUIRED by law to follow/adhere to those mandates. Then yokels like you try and spin it as the DWR's fault/idea. One of my biggest gripes with Anis Auode has been his, IMHO, attempts to split the baby and try to make all sides happy, when he, again IMHO, should be focusing on the biology aspects more. The two issues that broke the camel's back for me was the first time they did away with the deer statewide archery, and the same year implemented spike hunts on all Limited Entry elk units. I was on the Board of Directors for UBA at the time, and BOTH issues were brought before the RAC's/WB by the DWR......due to direct and specific mandates from the Wildlife Board.....Keele Johnson to be accurate. The statewide archery issue had NOTHING to do with biology, I repeat NOTHING to do with biology. Now, according to you...and sadly even ridgetop....it was the DWR who recommended doing away with the statewide archery hunt, and the WB merely "rubber stamped" it..... Same goes for the spike hunt going statewide, it was NOT due to biology that this issue was brought before the RAC's/WB, it was due to the WB giving a mandate to the DWR to present a plan to implement statewide spike hunts. Now, again according to you, the DWR hatched this proposal, and the Wildlife Board merely "rubber stamped" it. I could, without much effort, come up with several other examples for you. I had both the current and the last DWR Coordinator's tell me they recommended permit numbers based on what they think will get approved by the RAC's and the Wildlife Board, NOT based solely on biology. You see, the DWR is FORCED to issue permit numbers based on current management plans, such as the Deer Management Plan, the Elk Management Plan, etc. The Plans are recommended by committees, sometimes with and sometimes without the approval of the DWR, then the Plans are approved, or as more often is the case modified, by the RAC's and specifically by the Wildlife Board.

You can actually go back and read/hear the minutes from the last several years of Wildlife Board meetings and see your assertions are NOT anywhere close to being accurate. I had TWO Wildlife Board members, who by the grace of God are no longer on the Board, tell me they can use the Management Plans as guides/references, they can consider the recommendations of the DWR and the RAC's, they can consider public input, but they can completely ignore all of them and come up with their own policies. Does that sound like "rubber stamping" was/is the "norm"? I contend, not likely!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Pro, you need to get more sleep. Your throwing the "new" WB under the bus before they're even given a chance. Time to lay off the Glen B. and Rush L. for a while. Are you sure you don't want to go into politics? :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I agree on the sleep issue.......but the "new" WB.....new dung, same stink........and I NEVER listen to talk radio.....and I am 'into' politics....


----------

