# Please Take a Look! What Will Happen Next?



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I especially like the part at the bottom. Look under additional info. Then follow the Utah Statewide Management Plan For Mule Deer link. Go to B. Dates Covered. This plan was approved on Dec. 4th 2008 this plan will be in effect for the next five years. B.S. Get ready for more B.S..

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/2011-deer-changes.html

Proposed Units!

http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2011_prop ... option.php

With the board's input, the DWR has identified three options that could increase the number of buck deer in Utah. These options address hunters' concerns about not seeing enough bucks, but they will not produce larger deer herds. Other aspects of Utah's deer management program are focused on increasing the deer population.

Please educate yourselves. Look at the 3 proposals. Know that this is not over. Will not go into effect until 2012. We have time to stop this. Contact the Gov. your Rep. your Sen. and your fellow hunters and friends.

Another link to follow to contact. Pro, I hope you don't care if I take the link post from you!

Re: Meeting regarding the new deer revisions
by proutdoors » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:22 pm

http://le.utah.gov/house/DistrictInfo/newMaps/State.htm

http://www.utahsenate.org/mapold.shtml

http://www.utah.gov/governor/contact/index.html

Here is where you can find out who your Senator and Representative is, and how to get a hold of them.


----------



## Caddis36 (Oct 26, 2007)

Give it up. Im just about stick of getting on this site and reading about the new deer proposals and everybody's "ideas" of what should be done. The RACS voted 3 to 2 for it the board voted for it. The DWR is going to implement it. Its happening not matter how much you guys complain about it. Im not a fan of option two. but if you looked at the sportsman of the state, I would bet the vote would be split. Everything the board and DWR does will piss some people off, they cant make everybody happy the sooner you guys realize this the sooner you can move on.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm getting pized now,,You guts act like(opt 2)unit management for deer is a new idea??
The the board, RACs, DWR, sportsmen groups and independent sportsmen have been 
looking at this option FOR YEARS!!!!!! It was first presented to the board & RAC in 2004..

We were told then they were going to leave deer management at a regional status and 
see if deer herds improved,,,,they haven't,,,,THEYVE GOTTON WORSE!!
In 2004/05 we really had 300K deer herds,,,,now there are probably 220,000 deer in Utah..

SOMTHING HAS TO BE DONE,,,opt 2, That is were we need to start FIXING DEER ..

In my opinion 2011 is another step in the wrong direction , we don't even have all
the data from this year gathered on a low success 2010 season, overall herd estimates,
Buck to doe ratios for the herds status RIGHT NOW,,,,
And 2011 is set for 9 day rifle hunts, state wide archery, "and I'm an archer",,,,,,,
97,000 permits,,,,WTF???


I for one am going to send letters and E-mails To the governor, senator, and representatives
for the APPROVAL of opt 2........

This was a split issue of approval when the board met,,,but in the last two week
I see the approval rating climbing for option 2 with every sportsmen I talk too..
Option 2 is a done deal,,,,Its time for sportsmen to unite and fix our deer herds..


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I digress. Your right Caddis, Goofy! We should keep changing things before we have any real data to suggest changes. Lets just keep changing. When this doesn't work! What then? Lets change again. Hey how about less opportunity!!!!!! :shock: :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

To me, this isn't really about the decision that was made regarding deer, it is much bigger. I don't know how anyone can be content with the way things are done at the division, regardless of how you feel about _options_.

Stay tuned.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'm getting pized now,, Oh dear, what will we do now that you are "pized"? Oh the humanity. You guts act like(opt 2)unit management for deer is a new idea?? It's not that its a new idea, it's that it is a DUMB idea based on perceptions and lies, and it was passed under dubious pretenses.
> The the board, RACs, DWR, sportsmen groups and independent sportsmen have been
> looking at this option FOR YEARS!!!!!! It was first presented to the board & RAC in 2004..
> 
> ...


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Keep dreaming Goofy. Yes, the final votes presented at the WB meeting showed the overall tally numbers were 3-2 for option 2, but if you took the total individual RAC member's votes for/against, it was 31 for option 1, while there were 18 or 19 for option 2 at the RAC level - so yes there is concern for the changes being made because of HOW it was brought about... Not to mention that we all agree that NONE of this was done to improve our deer herds, it was all done to appease TROPHY HUNTERS. 
We all know the WB was bought and paid for prior to the WB meeting - that was OBVIOUS. 
The 5 year plan was put in place to address the deer numbers, but guys like you didn't even give it one year to try to prove its merit...so what good is it to even take the time to gather data if we aren't going to give it time to establish any kind of trends? 

"Boo hoo, we didn't get what we wanted so we're gonna cry about it!" It's funny how that is exactly what I've read on here and on MM and other sites from guys like you who didn't get unit management in '04... it is sad that there are as many SELFISH hunters out there willing to take away opportunity just so they can see 1 extra buck per season on their general deer hunt. Sad.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I'm sorry you feel that way Caddis36. I do understand that this topic has been addressed for a while now, but I feel that's a good thing. Hunter apathy and lack of proper information has been one of the reasons that has led--to a greater extent--to the status quo of our wildlife management system and applications. You know as well as I do that even though the RAC's voted 3 to 2 for option 2, that in NO way demonstrates the majority of hunters' wishes on the matter. As for the Board voting for it, hell, they are the ones that dreamed that dang thing up and had their minds set before the meeting even took place.

I think for the most part, the folks that are upset (and I use the term lightly) are not so much against the feasibility of most of the parts to option 2, but rather are up in arms over the loss of opportunity (13,000+ tags) and the WAY this whole thing came down the pike. The system is broken and needs to be fixed before we can concentrate on the proper biological methods that serve our herds best.

Please understand that although this version of option 2 passed, that in no way means it will be implemented as currently directed; and though the WB is still a functioning entity, that in no way means it will continue on its merry way refusing to take into account biological data, the concerns of the hunters of this state, or to have it's decisions based so heavily by the influence of one particular sportsmans group.

Rather than taking a "give up attitude" or surrendering to total apathy, we as hunters should get MORE vocal and vested in the future of our heritage. I for one, and many others I know, are going to do just that. I would be awesome if you would do the same...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Goofy, I truely do admire your passion! I wished that a LOT more hunters had some of it. You are not sitting on the sidelines, you are being vocal and following your own thoughts on the matter. I will, however, agree to disagree on some of the issues you bring up. I sincerely hope you follow through and let your representative know your thoughts and feelings, and hope that a hellofa a lot more hunters do the same!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ok ,,,so, today's hunters are pized about loosing 13K tags...??....
BFD.

Here's what I've seen,,,I started in deer camps in the 60s,,about 200,000
deer hunters on the mountain,,LOTS OF DEER TOO.

I started packing a rifle in 1975, soon took up archery and muzzle loader
because we could have two buck permits AND HUNT ALL 3 HUNTS.........
On top of that , the ML hunt was in November!!

I hunted two buck tags every year until about 88, that is when deer tags 
peaked at 250K,,,,,,,,,In my opinion, its been down hill ever since..

They first took away our second buck permit,,(89?).....
We could still hunt 3 season though,,,SO, that was OK.

Then the hard winter 92/93,,,,,,Choose your weapon hit and 100,000 tag
reduction.........I will admit , THAT HAD ME PIZED!!!

So, 1994 we went to regional hunting and basically choose your weapon,,,,
That's were we have been EVER SINCE,,,,,,97K tags, limited weapon choice,
FOR 17 FREAK'in years now!!!
Its time for some TRUE deer unit management,,,IN-FACT, its way OVER DUE!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Good post's Stillhunterman! I have to agree with you on goofyelk's passion. 

Pro thanks for the back-up!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

GOOFY i'm "pized" too!!! So are 75% of the deer hunters in Utah!!! So will be the 13,000 of US that won't be on the hill in 12.

Unite my @ss... When was the last time a Bowhunter asked to reduce rifle or muzz opportunity??? When was the last time an opportunist asked to have general season tags on the Pauns, Book Cliffs, Vernon or Henry's??? Can you tell me when the last time SOUTHERN UTAH INTERESTS DIDN'T TRY TO END STATEWIDE ARCHERY??? Can you tell me when the last time TROPHY HUNTERS AND CONSERVATION TAG PIMPS INCREASED LE ELK PERMITS???
DO YA REALLY THINK YOU ARE EVER GOING TO SEE ONE OF THESE 13,000 PERMITS EVER IN A MILLION YEARS COME BACK???

Uniting is great when your ox ain't the one being gored right???


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> GOOFY i'm "pized" too!!! So are 75% of the deer hunters in Utah!!! So will be the 13,000 of US that won't be on the hill in 12.
> 
> Unite my @ss... When was the last time a Bowhunter asked to reduce rifle or muzz opportunity??? When was the last time an opportunist asked to have general season tags on the Pauns, Book Cliffs, Vernon or Henry's??? Can you tell me when the last time SOUTHERN UTAH INTERESTS DIDN'T TRY TO END STATEWIDE ARCHERY??? Can you tell me when the last time TROPHY HUNTERS AND CONSERVATION TAG PIMPS INCREASED LE ELK PERMITS???
> DO YA REALLY THINK YOU ARE EVER GOING TO SEE ONE OF THESE 13,000 PERMITS EVER IN A MILLION YEARS COME BACK???
> ...


+1,000


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Ok ,,,so, today's hunters are pized about loosing 13K tags...??....
> BFD.


Very telling attitude. And very troubling. It's also very misleading. You yourself made reference to yonder year when there were more than 200,000 permits issued, and these 200,000+ permit holders could kill twp bucks per year and there were MORE deer and bigger bucks then than now. 81,000 permits instead of 200,000 permits is a tad more than a loss of 13,000 permits using actual math. To get back to 200,000 permits there would have to be a *TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN PERCENT* increase in permits. That will NEVER happen in any of our life time! Question: Do you think the decline in deer numbers is due to the harvest of bucks? If so, can you explain why even though we have seen the permit numbers reduced by almost 60% the deer numbers have not rebounded?

You correctly state that permit numbers where set at 97,000 after the huge WINTER KILL of 94, but you fail to connect the dots to the FACT that it was Mother Nature that caused the huge decline in deer numbers, NOT hunter harvest of bucks. So, even after 17 years of evidence that reducing buck permits does NOT result in more deer, you conclude we need to reduce buck permits. This is truly baffling to say the least.

I agree with your last sentence:


> Its time for some TRUE deer unit management,,,IN-FACT, its way OVER DUE!


 Sadly, what the Wildlife Board did is not TRUE deer unit, nor deer management. Instead, it is deer HUNTER management, and it has been mentioned numerous times, focusing in the male portion of the deer herd and thinking that will increase populations is nonsensical.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Sadly, what the Wildlife Board did is not TRUE deer unit, nor deer management. *Instead, it is deer HUNTER management*, and it has been mentioned numerous times, focusing in the male portion of the deer herd and thinking that will increase populations is nonsensical.


Actually its management of poor hunters. Lets not forget the wealthy get to hunt every year no matter how restricted the common man gets to be.

CWMU's must be loving the restricted permits, it makes their permits increase that much more in price.

-DallanC


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is were the ROOT of this whole problem lays,,
It comes downs to were the deer herds stand RIGHT NOW..

I , and a lot of others including 2 biologist, I've spoken with in
the past couple weeks agree,,Utah's deer herd is not 300,000..
Looking more like 220K to the 250K range.........

So 2011 we put 97K hunters back in the field?? doesn't make sense to me..

We need solid deer estimates for each unit and start right there..

And honestly, another fall off on general deer numbers like what has just
happened this past year and there will be waaaaay more than 13K hunters
loose interest,,,,,,,,We may already be there, It will be interesting to see
what the applicant numbers do the next year, wouldn't surprise me to see a drop.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> CWMU's must be loving the restricted permits, it makes their permits increase that much more in price.


 This is, IMHO, an example of what is driving game management in Utah right now. I was watching Judge Andrew Napolitano interviewing John Stossel the other day, and Stossel said the primary problem with bailouts was: "Concentrated benefits with diffused costs." I think this is a perfect summation of what we have going on with game management. Concentrated benefits to a select few; wealthy/lucky/connected hunters and landowners are the primary benefactors of what we have set in motion. This is the case for elk hunting in Utah also, this is not just about deer. Diffused costs; The costs will be paid by the 'commoners' via lost opportunity, higher permit costs (I am hearing that a general season deer permit will cost $140 in 2012 to make up for the lost revenue to the DWR), smaller areas to hunt, and shorter seasons for certain weapon choices, are all costs that the main benefactors won't bear. The bailouts of businesses that are 'too big too fail' is foolish, and catering to a small minority of 'hunters' is just as foolish.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

> Ok ,,,so, today's hunters are pized about loosing 13K tags...??....
> BFD.
> 
> Here's what I've seen,,,I started in deer camps in the 60s,,about 200,000
> ...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here is were the ROOT of this whole problem lays,,
> It comes downs to were the deer herds stand RIGHT NOW..
> 
> I , and a lot of others including 2 biologist, I've spoken with in
> ...


I can't remember the exact numbers, but when I find them I will post them. Wasn't it back in the 90's when there was around 220-250K deer and they were still giving out more than 97,000 buck tags and still had healthy fawn:doe ratios in the spring? Why can't we do it now Goofy?

I see one major difference back then and now and USmarine hit it on the head, ELK. I love elk, but I am not naive enough to let it go unnoticed that they are having a huge impact on deer IMO.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

USMARINE,jahan,,I agree 100% on the elk issue,,,elk numbers have steadily increased
over the same period deer numbers have decreased,,,,,NO DOUGHT!

And at the same time created more opportunity to hunt elk, off setting fewer deer tags.

And as far as predators go,,,,WAAAAY fewer coyotes, BY A LOT!
When cyanide guns and other poisons were used the coyotes were kept in check..

The lions are entirely different, at the same time during the 80s right up until
Harvest objective hunting began in 1997, There were A LOT OF [email protected]!
And I mean o lot,,,we were very selective of what lions we would even turn
dogs lose on......Go through several sets of tracks daily and only run toms..
Now its common to only cut 1 or 2 sets in numerous days of looking..

Bears too 10 to 25 years ago were not any were near as plentiful as they
are today,,,,,But I personally do not believe the impact from the bear is
a significant factor on most units..


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

hears one hunters views on deer. I have hunted deer in the same area for 25 years in that time i have seen my unit go from seeing 12 to 18 bucks a day to some years not even seeing a buck. the past few years the deer have made a small comeback and the bucks we are seeing are pretty much two points and a 4 point on occasion. when we first started hunting this area very few other hunters hunted it probably 4 to 6 camps on the mountain. last year there where close to 20 camps. hunters pushing deer so after a few days the deer where pushed off the mountain into private property. we have considered not hunting deer due to the hunting pressure. I believe that the reason for the explode in hunters in my area is that there is so many areas where there used to be deer, those deer are gone now. so anyone hears of an area where there are deer those areas are getting hit hard. so where I hunt I believe limiting the number of hunters would help me as a hunter enjoy my hunting experience better. the archery hunters are getting hosed with the new proposals and the state needs to work with them I wouldn't mind seeing more areas as extended archery. all of timp would be a good start so the utah county archery hunters have a close place to hunt. and take some of the pressure off the salt lake area.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Good points. There is probably no doubt that more even distribution of hunters might stand to make a fair percentage of their hunts a little more enjoyable. 

Now that we have addressed a small hunter issue, to the dismay of the better percentage of deer hunters, can we get on track and do something for deer??? Now that we have finally all agreed that this horse **** does as much for deer as pissing into the wind does for my complexion, would guys who represent or support SFW ask if it would be permissible for the DWR to allocate money, personnel, RAC and wildlife board meeting time to things that actually do address deer?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The two biggest things that concern me is that the vocal minority is being heard more than the majority, and that biology is not playing a bigger role in the decision making.

Biology aside you say you want to hunt trophy's? No problem, you've got your LE areas. Don't like how long it takes to draw? Fine lobby for more LE tags. 

Bottom line is the recent changes did not represent what the majority wanted and does not make a biological improvement. It seems to me if you are going to make a hutner management change it either needs to make biological sense or at the very least wanted by the majority. The biggest concern here is the broken system.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ramrod said:


> hears one hunters views on deer. I have hunted deer in the same area for 25 years in that time i have seen my unit go from seeing 12 to 18 bucks a day to some years not even seeing a buck. the past few years the deer have made a small comeback and the bucks we are seeing are pretty much two points and a 4 point on occasion. when we first started hunting this area very few other hunters hunted it probably 4 to 6 camps on the mountain. last year there where close to 20 camps.


I can understand the frustration but even when deer numbers were solid the number of deer and hunters we would see in a given area vary from year to year.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> So 2011 we put 97K hunters back in the field?? doesn't make sense to me..
> 
> We need solid deer estimates for each unit and start right there..
> 
> ...





goofy elk said:


> We were told then they were going to leave deer management at a regional status and
> see if deer herds improved,,,,they haven't,,,,THEYVE GOTTON WORSE!!
> In 2004/05 we really had 300K deer herds,,,,now there are probably 220,000 deer in Utah.


Goofy I'm sorry but you're wrong and I can prove it.

After the winter kill of 92/93 there were about 230,000 deer in Utah. As Jahan mentioned in 1994 tags were capped at 97,000 tags (many more were sold since technology was weak) and hunters had to choose a region. By your own admission deer numbers were over 300k by 2004/2005.

That right there proves that the current system worked before and there is SOMETHING ELSE going on with deer herds.

Sorry Goofy but history is not on your side.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well guess what bullsnot,,,,,were right back to were we where back in 1994....

All the way around,,Pized off hunters,,low deer numbers,,and big changes on 
the horizon..........

In 1994 SFW was born out of that mess,,,,,,,,,,,Ironic isn't it???
And I guarantee we haven't seen all the fallout from this deer mess yet either..


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well guess what bullsnot,,,,,were right back to were we where back in 1994....
> 
> All the way around,,Pized off hunters,,low deer numbers,,and big changes on
> the horizon..........
> ...


I agree with your last sentence, there is enough pissed off hunters that change is on the horizon, I guess it is up to all of us to decide what that change is. :O•-:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Here is were the ROOT of this whole problem lays,,
> It comes downs to were the deer herds stand RIGHT NOW..
> 
> I , and a lot of others including 2 biologist, I've spoken with in
> ...


I think you are going to loose hunters because they are tired of getting jerked around.

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that hunters have a tough time with cycles. Cycles are what happens. There is no animal that does not go through cycles. The tough part is sorting out the cycles from the trends. You are never going to stop the cycles, but you can help with the trend. Keeping the LE at un-naturally high bucks and now going to smaller units with much higher bucks is not going to fix the trend.

I'll state it again, one of the biggest problems with our current system is half of the state being tied up in LE hunts that have only a hand full of people hunting them. This is public ground and should be managed for all and not a few. I think if this bitter pill is going to be put down our throat, that at the least all of the LE units above 25 should have a lot more tagges issued. But that will be a cold day in hell and that right there really puts the cards on the table.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

It's good to see everyone be so passionate! I think we all agree that there are problems to be faced. If we keep educating ourselves we will be better outdoors men/women because of it. Read some of the articles the DWR web site has on it. Lots of good stuff on deer problems and management. Also articles on biology and decisions biologists face.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's what might " Happen next"......

In the new application guide book it clearly states that PERMIT NUMBERS will not
be set until the May 5th meeting,,,,,,,,,,,,This is the first time ever general season
deer permit numbers will not be available until AFTER the application period......

Here is the highlighted section from the 2011 app. GB.

How many permits will
be available in 2011?
The Utah Wildlife Board will set permit
numbers for both the big game and antlerless
hunts when it meets on May 5, 2011.
This meeting occurs after the big game
application period and before the antlerless
application period.
Division biologists will collect and analyze
the most recent harvest and population
data before making their recommendations
to the Wildlife Board.


I guarantee with even "half azed" counts the DWR is going to fined
deer numbers DOWN on general season areas.....
With a 9 day rifle hunt already in place for 2011, I believe,,,
(most of you might not like this) the 13,000 deer permits
should be cut out for 2011....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I guarantee with even "half azed" counts the DWR is going to fined
> deer numbers DOWN on general season areas.....
> With a 9 day rifle hunt already in place for 2011, I believe,,,
> (most of you might not like this) the 13,000 deer permits
> should be cut out for 2011....


Why? Do you still believe bucks give birth to fawns? Why should we cut out buck tags? The key to increasing a deer herd is in the does and fawns. Goofy, are you EVER going to answer this question:?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

They need to cut buck tags BECAUSE the general deer herds are DOWN!!!

How can anyone expect to put 97K buck deer hunters on the mountain
and then have a LARGE percentage NOT EVEN SEE A BUCK TO SHOT AT??

And this happened to a lot of hunters this year,,,,,There is a huge fallout from this..
Hunters are becoming more and more dissatisfied with seeing orange EVERYWERE
and VERY FEW deer.....

ONCE AGAIAN<<<<We need acurate deer counts, Determind the number of deer
that can be harvested,,And issue permits acordingly..............

NOT sending 16,000 hunters into a large region and say ,,Have at it!

If Utahs general deer herds ARE found to be in the 220K range + or - 10K,,,
How do we even justify issuing 97K tags,,,,,,,,,That is rediculas to me!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Again, I am still waiting for an answer. How is cutting tags going to help increase the number of fawns? Do bucks give birth?

Also, what about the research other states have done that has shown when bucks are increased fawn numbers decrease? Doesn't that worry you?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> They need to cut buck tags BECAUSE the general deer herds are DOWN!!!


For the most part, I would say that we need to keep tags up BECAUSE the general deer herds are down! We need to maximize the number of does and not minimize them...if we are at carrying capacity, increasing the number of bucks could actually have a very negative effect on our deer herds.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

WtoU,,This can be looked at in two different ways,,,,And I do understand were your coming from.

If, indeed, we are at carrying capacity, YOU say, the only chance for the herds
to expand "or grow" is to keep buck numbers at a minimum....

I SAY,,If we are at capacity ,,let have more bucks to hunt!

AND YOU WILL SAY,,,this endangers are herd to falling to even lower numbers..

AND I SAY,,,,,,Split the state general areas in half,,,
Let WtoU manage the West half ,,,,,,AND I will mange the East half...

In five years we'll see which option works best......


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> WtoU,,This can be looked at in two different ways,,,,And I do understand were your coming from.
> 
> If, indeed, we are at carrying capacity, YOU say, the only chance for the herds
> to expand "or grow" is to keep buck numbers at a minimum....
> ...


Give him the West huh, how about a North-South split. :mrgreen: Not much to work with out West. Your method would appeal to the trophy hunters and wy2out would appeal to the opportunist which makes up nearly 70% of the hunting populus per a little survey conduted a few years ago. :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OK fine ,,,North / south At I-70......... 

And as far as your "surveys" are concerned,,,,,,,
I'd bet if a new survey were to be taken NOW,,,,Post 2010 deer season,,

You would find it split,,,,,50/50.....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

And I _bet_ it would be 85/15 in favor of common sense.

Speculation without disclosure. Aint it a grand misdirection tactic?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> They need to cut buck tags BECAUSE the general deer herds are DOWN!!!
> 
> How can anyone expect to put 97K buck deer hunters on the mountain
> and then have a LARGE percentage NOT EVEN SEE A BUCK TO SHOT AT??
> ...


This has all been somewhat hashed out on this thread already.....but in 92/93 after winter kill there were in the neighborhood of 230,000 deer, give or take. The state capped tags at 97,000 (more were actually sold because of poor technology in tracking tag sales) and forced hunters to choose a region in 1994. Under that strategy deer herds climbed back up over 325k at one point and the number of bucks in Utah grew. So we know that the 97,000 cap is reasonable for the amount of deer we have.

I get your point, where you're coming from, and why you are coming to the conclusions you are. Simply put the plan we have in place has already PROVEN to work. That fact that deer numbers are falling must be due to some other cause. Call it elk ,predators, road kill, but what ever you call it the recent changes address none of these issues. We are barking up the wrong tree with these changes and I view it as wasted effort and resources. It will just put us that much further behind.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I was at the DWR in Springville for a while this afternoon,,,

Must have been a dozen phone calls while I was there pretty much
asking "what will happen next"......
Or " when dose the change take place"
Or " When will the 2011 application G/B be printed"
Or " what are the boundaries"

Gotta tell ya,,,,the gal answering the phone did a Great Job!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Results from a 2008 poll of deer hunters by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 

75 percent of respondents said “getting away from it all” was the main reason they hunt mule deer. “Being with friends” was second at 73 percent and “being close to nature” was third at 70 percent. “Harvesting a large buck” was 10th on the list at 53 percent, and “harvesting any buck” was 17th at 25 percent.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> AND I SAY,,,,,,Split the state general areas in half,,,
> Let WtoU manage the West half ,,,,,,AND I will mange the East half...
> 
> In five years we'll see which option works best......


Interesting that such a compromise was proposed at the Board meeting in accordance with the will of the RACs - Central and Northern stay regional and let the other 3 have their half-baked experiment. The pro-2 voters wouldn't even discuss it except to object on the basis of some farcical "Robert's Rules" nonsense. Make of that what you will.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I don't think splitting the state into 29 Units is a terrible idea, its a great way to manage the hunters. What I want to know is where the 13000 tags are coming from? How did they get that number? What are they doing for the HERD in general? How do they feel about going against the biologists and majority of the public? What SFW and any other individuals payed out during this whole ordeal? What information have they gathered in the 2 years the current mule deer plan has been in effect? What data and research has been conducted on the relationship between elk and deer? What is the long term plan to fix the deer herd?

I would honestly like to see them turn 3 of the "29" units (have to be LE elk units as well) into anybull units and increase cow tags and see what happens. I'd bet the deer herds on these three units would be better after a few years, not fixed but better.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

+1 on the options available with 29 units. I believe this will give the DWR and their biologist some great oppurtunity to try different fixes.

The 13,000 number came from the DWR. It was the easy fix to get to 18-100 that the WB was asking for. Other options could have been used but the DWR chose that route.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The 13,000 number came from the DWR. It was the easy fix to get to 18-100 that the WB was asking for. Other options could have been used but the DWR chose that route.


The DWR might have came up with the 13,000 number, but it was the WB who told them to do it this way.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

None of this is going to matter if it doesn't stop snowing.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> +1 on the options available with 29 units. I believe this will give the DWR and their biologist some great oppurtunity to try different fixes.
> 
> The 13,000 number came from the DWR. It was the easy fix to get to 18-100 that the WB was asking for. Other options could have been used but the DWR chose that route.


Can you list the 'other' options at the DWR's disposal?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

> LARGE percentage NOT EVEN SEE A BUCK TO SHOT AT??


Because they don't get there fat ass out of there truck or off there Atv's. Deer wont hang around roads after there have shots fired at them.It sounds like to me that the WB want so many deer so those lazy ass can see bucks and get there deer next to the road.I use to road hunt and I still do now and again. But 95% of my hunting is hiking in 4+ miles. I'm still finding new spots to hunt and I don't see more then 3 people and most of the ones I see are in my group.We see plenty of bucks and get shots and there some big bucks. So leave the **** a loan and let see who it all plays out.**** OPTN 2


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

With the 29 units it going to make it hard for the fish and game to watch all of the unites. It going to make it hard to know where all of the bounders are.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

No one caught what was said in the 2nd to last post. I thought this forum was better than this.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Did it deserve a response? Ok I guess I'll give one. I spotted my buck from the truck this year, so hunter above that is hiking in 4+ miles to find his buck must not be a very good hunter! Is that the response you were looking for?  

Pro,
I have read many many posts by sportsmen in favor of option 2 and against option 2. They have made some very good and well thought out suggestions. I believe that the DWR could have come up with other options also. More primative weapon hunts, ie archery or traditional muzzy. Antler restriction could have been used (Please lets not get into that as a side arguement, I know the cons probably better than most! But for at least short term it would have been an option.) Those are a couple that would have reduced hunter pressure while retaining overall tag #s.


Here I left you some space for your RED response.  o-|| 


Now here is the funny thing(Not literal, luv2hunt, don't want another verbal junk kicking). Those things can now be implemented much much easier on indiviual units, along with all of the other issues and ideas that have been rightfully brought up in this discussion.

I firmly believe that the 13,000 number thrown in by the DWR was part scare tatic to build support against Option 2. Well hats off to the DWR looks like they almost got something right. 

Believe me when I say I hate cutting tags. Not for myself, because I have killed plenty. It is because of my kids. I have an 18 yr, 12 yr and 8 yr old. They love to hunt! I killed a buck for the first time in about 5 yrs this season. It was a pretty nice buck for Utah General season and it paled in the comparison to earlier that morning with my 12 yr olds first buck. My cousin also shot his first buck and they were both grining all day! It truely was a great opening day, probably one of the best in 20 years. Only one glaring problem, no deer! Yes I know I just said we killed three bucks, and they were actually all decent bucks. The problem was I only saw 12 deer total all day, in an area that in the past I would have seen 100s. The decline is scary and must be addressed. 

I do not believe that Option 2 is a fix as is. It must only be the starting step to fixing and addressing what is hurting our deer herds. I will tell you one positive thing is has done. It has got people standing up and noticing that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. I have heard more ideas and input on this since this option was presented and passed than I have ever heard. Maybe the real threat of losing oppurtunity will tune others into helping fix this problem and if that is the only thing Option 2 does then how can you say it is bad? To just leave it and see what happens as the above well spoken sportsman above put is the last thing that should happen! 

I guess the apple does not fall far form the tree because I believe we have hit a number that is too low(<302,000  ). Option 2 is a tough line in the sand making a statement that me must make big changes and quick. I really liked one of the stories that was told at the WB meeting on Dec. 2nd. It talked about family and outdoor activities. It talked about sleding and going too fast. It was good story to use in our current situation. The only thing I would change in that story is the that I believe the sled took off 25 years ago and is out of control NOW! Lets all not let it hit the bottom and then address the damage!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> I have read many many posts by sportsmen in favor of option 2 and against option 2. They have made some very good and well thought out suggestions. I believe that the DWR could have come up with other options also. More primative weapon hunts, ie archery or traditional muzzy. Antler restriction could have been used (Please lets not get into that as a side arguement, I know the cons probably better than most! But for at least short term it would have been an option.) Those are a couple that would have reduced hunter pressure while retaining overall tag #s.
> 
> Here I left you some space for your RED response.  o-||


No need for RED, since I will respond only to this one paragraph.  IMHO, the DWR never gave adding more primitive weapons more permits while reducing rifle permits is because they knew the uproar and fall out would be HUGE. One thing, again IMHO, that SFW has been very effective at is pitting rifle vs archery, and since there are more rifle hunters in this state they win out every time. There is NO WAY SFW and others such has the two most outspoken Wildlife Board members would let this be an option. The two WB members have made no secret of they disdain for archery hunters. Muzzy hunters, even 'traditional' ones, enjoy success rates that are the same as rifle hunters, so that is not an option. The DWR will NEVER advocate antler restrictions as a means of raising buck:doe ratios since they have mountains of data/evidence that shows this does NOT work. So, I see no other viable options the DWR had/has at their disposal to raise buck:doe ratios than to cuts permits. I have often knocked heads with Anis, but I think he is being used as a fall guy, set up to fail by no fault of his own. The DWR was given a directive from the WB, and now they are being blamed for what was offered up as options. This may be very good politics on SFW's part, but it stinks when it comes to the fall out for the herds and for the hunters. Like I have stated, I am more upset with HOW this was done than I am of WHAT was done as far as policy.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Why are some of you guys "upset with HOW" option 2 passed??

Protocol and policies were followed as far as I can see.....
Unit management for deer was brought up as an option at the RACs 6 years ago..

I THINK what happened is when the mule deer committee met and made the
recommendations last year they should have had unit management as an option..

That is CLEARLY why the board last year ask them to redirect, and represent..

AND HERES THE THING,,,,,option 2 was APPROVED by 3 of the 5 RACS!!!
I know some will say,,,,,,,"But the majority",,,,,,,SFWs presenting the check."
Well, I'm not saying this is good or right,,,,,It's just how politics work..

I've been SCREAMING politics is screwing up wildlife (DWR) for A LOT OF YEARS!
And honestly , as Mulie73 and others have pointed out,,Its opened eyes!!

But has policies or or the system been circumvented,,,,,,,not that I can see..
If there has been something illegal or illegitimate done in the process of adopting
option 2??,,,If so ,,,,,,,I, and many others, would love to hear the details. o-||


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Why are some of you guys "upset with HOW" option 2 passed??


Biologists were ignored, majority was ignored, a vocal minority with a big green apple were listened to. Other than that the process worked great.


----------

