# 2011 changes



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Looks like the UDWR is swerving in another direction for 2011 deer hunts. I'm not sure what I think of this.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -hunt.html


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

And then there was none... :?


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

none what?


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

None? We don't even know the full details yet. Jeesh. :?


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

I like the idea to do some thing about the deer herds. I hunt way back in and have no problem seeing big bucks, yes they seem to out smart me but this would mean less hunting for me. I would like to see it in smaller units to manage. If you are in a group of lets say 5 and 2 draw that year what is wrong with only to shooters and 3 spotters. I get a kick out of just being with a shooter it doesn't always need to be me pulling the trigger to enjoy hunting. That would allow more deer to grow up. But still enjoy hunting while being a spotter in camp


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

"Hunting is a family tradition in Utah" as true as this statement may be, if something isn't done it will be history. I don't see anything wrong with micromanagement. If 2 out of 5 in your group draw, make it a fun hunt anyway. I think micromanagement worked quite well in Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Arizona to name a few.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Another quote from the story: "A second idea that's been proposed would likely result in the regions being divided into smaller units. All hunters-archery, muzzleloader and rifle-would be allowed to hunt on only one of up to 29 smaller units in the state."

Okay, there might be some benefits in managing smaller units, but this fuzzy plan with no details would seem to totally scrape the statewide archery hunts in favor of picking one of these micro units. I'm kinda thinking this ain't going to sit too well.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> "Hunting is a family tradition in Utah" as true as this statement may be, if something isn't done it will be history. I don't see anything wrong with micromanagement. If 2 out of 5 in your group draw, make it a fun hunt anyway. I think micromanagement worked quite well in Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Arizona to name a few.


BOTH suggested ideas are HORRIBLE! Micromanaging is good for managing hunters, but is bad for managing game. WTFU people! This is nothing more than an end around to get Limited Entry deer units state wide. If this goes through, hunter recruitment/retention will take a nose dive, and they are already suffering. Raising the buck:doe ratio objective from 15 to 18 does NOTHING to help the deer herds in Utah. In fact, higher buck:doe ratios will hurt the deer herds in most, if not all subunits. Why the DWR is willing to go along with this instead of taking a stand for biology is a mystery to me. I will be listening to the audio of the meetings before I draw any more conclusions. I am interested to see what special interest groups have been pushing to end general season deer hunting, and what Anis and his group has done to resist the open attack on sound game management based on science. :evil:


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

even if that is true everyone has there favorite archery spot. Plus being a archery hunter you will always have the Wasatch front as a back up to get all the hunting getters out plus your lucky spot on that mini unit you choose. I think its always easier to focus on a smaller spot to scout. There are most likely a good shooter hiding real well. If you have a smaller unit to scout it will discipline you to have to scout that area which could result in more success than you have found in the past. To much land can over whelm hunters to not focus on the detail that is right in front of them. It will help manage hunters and game better. If you want to hunt trophy game which 70% of hunters want then change needs to happen. If you like the game of killing then put in on anterless hunts or wyoming speed goats. Or get into small game hunting. Big muleys are a different game and I think smaller units is worth a try. If to many people shut down all the ideas then it will just stay the same.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> If you want to hunt trophy game which 70% of hunters want then change needs to happen


Large bucks are great, and it's not like most of us would turn one down. But if that's what's driving this my best guess is that 70% of hunters won't think it's too sweet of a deal. Losing hunting opportunity and flexibility for something that does nothing to increase herd size and just gives a select few bigger bucks to hunt doesn't seem too smart unless you're one of those who can afford to buy his way into hunting them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm all for the 2011 changes and going to support them 100%......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> even if that is true everyone has there favorite archery spot. Plus being a archery hunter you will always have the Wasatch front as a back up to get all the hunting getters out plus your lucky spot on that mini unit you choose. I think its always easier to focus on a smaller spot to scout. There are most likely a good shooter hiding real well. If you have a smaller unit to scout it will discipline you to have to scout that area which could result in more success than you have found in the past. To much land can over whelm hunters to not focus on the detail that is right in front of them. It will help manage hunters and game better. If you want to hunt trophy game which 70% of hunters want then change needs to happen. If you like the game of killing then put in on anterless hunts or wyoming speed goats. Or get into small game hunting. Big muleys are a different game and I think smaller units is worth a try. If to many people shut down all the ideas then it will just stay the same.


So, what you're saying is.................the DWR, the Wildlife Board, the special interest groups know what areas for you to be focused on better than you do. You seem to think the above mentioned know which "smaller spot" to scout, how to make you more "disciplined", keep you form being "overwhelmed", and have better attention to detail, than you/me/every other Utah deer hunter. And to boot, you buy into the hype that "70%" of Utah deer hunters prefer to trophy hunt than to just hunt. Shutting down DUMB ideas is not the same as shutting down "all" ideas. Ironically, it is the 'trophy' hunters who want to shut down all ideas that don't equate more trophy animals, at whatever expense(s).


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

The way I see it, let the people decide..............give them options and let the majority of people choose what they want. I fear the majority will continue to go with the way things are now, but thats the way it really should be, even if I might not agree with it. It seems like everyone wants, wants and wants but are not willing to give up a **** thing to get it.

I for one, AM SICK of the way Utah manages deer and love the new ideas and can not wait to see the details, what they are doing now isn't working out to well in some areas.

Pro- 
How can you say micromanaging is good for managing hunters but bad for game??????? Are you saying the UDWR can effectively manage deer 200+ miles apart, in total different climates, elevations, snow loads, hunter pressure etc.???????? Please help me here as I am all ears.



> Why the DWR is willing to go along with this instead of taking a stand for biology is a mystery to me.


IMO they cannot ignore upset people any longer, people up here (true northern Utah) are louder and more upset than ever as I am sure they are in other places. Uneducated maybe, but they are the peoples deer, not Anis's or the wildlife board and the b.s. and excuses aren't working either.

Mark my words if something is not done, something is going to hit the fan up here.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I truly would like to see an unbiased poll (this means the UDWR, SFW, ETC is OUT with the loaded BS questions) and somehow find out what exactly the majority of the people want.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Pro-
> How can you say micromanaging is good for managing hunters but bad for game??????? Are you saying the UDWR can effectively manage deer 200+ miles apart, in total different climates, elevations, snow loads, hunter pressure etc.???????? Please help me here as I am all ears. They already manage the DEER via micro-units, all that the 'new' ideas will do is manage hunters and limit hunters ability to HUNT. Look at the Central Region right now, it is a big unit, but it is NOT all managed the same, as evidenced by parts of the Region being a 3 day hunt this year and the rest being a 5 day hunt. I contend hunters are better able to adjust to hunter pressure than the DWR/Wildlife Board/SFW.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The UDWR's proposal is more acceptable than complete micro-management. I like their plan, because it addresses the chronic problem units.

Also, the current numbers show that the remaining units within all regions are within the management objectives for buck to doe ratios. So why do we need complete micro-management? 

Micromanagement in Nevada and Colorado has grown more bucks, but micro management has not grown the productivity of the herd-- no more doe, no more fawns. Just bucks competing with doe for forage. 

Nevada's herd is carrying an all-time high for bucks and their doe population has decreased. Nevada hunters get a tag every 2-6 years and most units have a 40% success rate. Half of those successful harvest a 4 point buck. Who here wants to sign up for a 2-6 year wait just to have a 20% chance to shoot a 4 point?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

packout hits this one out of the ball park. 

I don't want a 20% chance at a 4 point every 6 years. I take every tag to the max and I'm sick of it. 6 years for a turkey. 4 years for a doe antelope ect. I still haven't drawn a buck/bull tag in my life. So go ahead and tell me i'm going to draw a general tag every 2 years and ill call you a liar. 

NO thanks 
ill get off my backside and get a 4 point every year the way the system is. Tell the Carters there are no big bucks deer on public land in Utah and they'll laugh in your face. Tell me there are no big bucks in Utah and ill laugh in your face also.


We dont need to turn the whole state into a LE unit and that is exactly what micro managment is. 
WAKE UP PEOPLE.


----------



## MuleyCrazy (Jun 6, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> The way I see it, let the people decide..............give them options and let the majority of people choose what they want. I fear the majority will continue to go with the way things are now, but thats the way it really should be, even if I might not agree with it. It seems like everyone wants, wants and wants but are not willing to give up a **** thing to get it.
> 
> I for one, AM SICK of the way Utah manages deer and love the new ideas and can not wait to see the details, what they are doing now isn't working out to well in some areas.
> 
> ...


I agree with you 100%, for one I love the idea of having smaller units throughout the state. In my opinion, i think you can manage deer so much more effectively. Due to varying elevations, climates, etc. Take elk for example, they micro-manage elk and look how good the state's elk hunting has become. I hope this proposal goes through because I too am sick of the way Utah manages its deer.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

I want to be on the side that supports sheer numbers of deer. I think most deer hunters in Utah don't want to wait 2-6 years to draw a GENERAL tag. I would rather wait and see the results of the few units that had shortened seasons this year. Such as the Cache unit. Maybe shortened seasons could be a better way of going about things. But I still want to hear the specifics of their plan when it gets released in October. Plus, I think 1 year of shortening seasons probably isn't enough to draw conclusions as to whether the deer herds have improved substantially. I think 3-4 years would be more adequate.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> packout hits this one out of the ball park.
> 
> I don't want a 20% chance at a 4 point every 6 years. I take every tag to the max and I'm sick of it. 6 years for a turkey. 4 years for a doe antelope ect. I still haven't drawn a buck/bull tag in my life. So go ahead and tell me i'm going to draw a general tag every 2 years and ill call you a liar.
> 
> ...


+100 what he said!! -_O-


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

I didn't mention herd sizes going up with fewer shot because that is pretty clear. what is wrong with what I mentioned before about joining a youth or a good buddy with a tag that year with out being the shooter. You don't think it will even be good for are youth to take a year off and stand behind a experienced hunter to learn more every few years. And when that young hunter does hunt it will be a better experience to teach him patience knowing there are more deer in that unit so you don't need to take the first 2 point that walks out but hunt slower and deeper to have the dream of harvesting a smart mature animal. If this gives you a chance to hunt every 2 years as the shooter. To have a chance to see more wildlife then its worth a chance. You need to agree that change needs to happen. You hear of so many complain about the deer herds and we finally see something maybe moving that direction and then you hear its not a good idea any more. I mentioned before I see good deer where I hunt. I hunt real hard. And I am still for this even if I pull the trigger less because I know that not everyone can hunt the way I do. Maybe bad knees or back to walk that far. There is tons of reasons. And I would like to see more game. I dont think you can have it both ways in a growing sport. You cant want to hunt every year and still give out a tag to everyone that wants to hunt and expect the deer to survive.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Oh how we forget!*

This Idea is nothing new and strangely enough produced the same results as we are now facing with our deer herds.

Back prior to 1993 the state was managed by sum one hundred deer management units with a general season unlimited tags and mainly the same limited entry units as we now have. The argument then for the change in the management structure of herd units, was that herd units could be better managed when and only if the unit contained a four season deer utilization areas within the unit boundaries. This meant that in order to qualify as a deer management unit it must have within its boundaries forage areas used by deer in all four seasons. You see deer, elk and wildlife are mobile creatures and the majority of the herd maybe in one place in the summer and all but abandoned that same place in the fall or winter.

Some fifty years ago Utah had one of the largest mule deer migrations in the west with deer migrating from off the Oaker- Stansberry mountain ranges across the desert and out to mount Moria Nevada. Today we still have deer migrations in every one of the five deer management regions of the state and Utah deer may not always reside in Utah. For this reason it is very important to have cooperation with wildlife agencies that surround our state and agreements in place that recognize Utah's Interest in wildlife that are part time residence. For example; the majority of those large Arizona Strip bucks harvested each year inhabited Utah for eight out of the twelve months in the year.

Dividing the state back up into smaller deer units does nothing but distribute hunting pressure into areas of the state that may or may not have deer occupying that space come hunting season. And to reinforce what Pro and others have pointed out here, this has little to do with effective deer population management or strategies to increase deer numbers and everything to do with hunter control and distribution of sportsmen and dollars&#8230;..Big


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

so reducing hunting pressure on certain units where the deer numbers are struggling wont help the herd at all? I can relate to the hunter recruitment idea, but who's going to want to hunt if there is no bucks, I know there are bucks but, most hunters (not most hunters on UWN) that are introducing kids to the sport are not going to go on 5-10 mile back pack hunts to find a buck. Its great that there are hunters that want meat bucks, the majority of new hunters probably do. My son will be hunting for the first time this year and will probably shoot a meat buck just to get a kill under his belt, but what about beyond that? In addition to smaller units IMHO, they need to reduce antlerless tags and step up predator control, the winter range that has been lost isn't coming back, they need to put restrictions on what can be developed as well, to protect what is left.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> bugchuker said:
> 
> 
> > "Hunting is a family tradition in Utah" as true as this statement may be, if something isn't done it will be history. I don't see anything wrong with micromanagement. If 2 out of 5 in your group draw, make it a fun hunt anyway. I think micromanagement worked quite well in Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and Arizona to name a few.
> ...


THIS is what I mean by none!

When I was a kid we all hunted together as a family and we all got our deer. Now, we NEVER hunt as a family, my kid could care less about it, and my dad thinks it's a big waste of time and money. Very soon hunting will be a limited opportunity across the board and an even more limited opportunity for the very rich. For years now our deer herd has been "Managed" right into the ground because of politics, money, and special interest. I saw it starting 20 years ago, and nuthins ever gonna change. I doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

and then there was none...


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > bugchuker said:
> ...


 Yoa- and it's not just hunting


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I counter propose statewide archery only 8)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't even know where to start.

I don't believe Utah's DWR has any handle on if the deer herd sits at 15 buck per doe anyway. I would bet its lower.

Limited Entry has become a bad word in Utah because the way the DWR uses it. There is such a thing as Liberal LE.

And predators don't even hit the radar. Not even on one single unit.

I know it has been proposed at every single turn.

I have read of estimates near 100,000 deer being killed per yr in Utah by predators. Why cant this be addressed? Why do cougars and coyotes get the *lions share*? I think we should get it or at least a little more of its share.

Thinking about the hunting worlds complacency on the predators we already have paints a dismal picture for the fight against a healthy wolf population in Utah.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Tex, I see that I'm not the only one. While growing up, "the hunt" was not only a family affair, but businesses, schools, churches, towns, and social activities willingly worked around it. Now it's hard to even get vacation days for "the hunt" from some employers. Here in Iron County, the schools still have the Monday of opening weekend off, but now it's called Harvest Day. And I suspect it won't be but a few years when that will be gone as well.

My father passed away a few weeks ago and of his over 100 descendants (counting step children and in-laws), there are now only about 7 hunters left. And only 2 of us live in Utah. 5 of my 6 children used to hunt with me, but none of them now do. It's too expensive and too much bother applying for tags and vacation time in January for 3 or 5 day hunts that may start any day of the week and don't take place for 8 to 11 months. Additionally, I'm now 69 with a heart rhythm problem and my family tells me I can't go alone any more, but I can't get any of them to go with me, so I just carry a cell phone. Too much management, too often, too soon eventually may end all of it for all of us but the most overly-dedicated/wealthy.

Add to this all of the road closures, gun and ammunition regulations, animal rights advocates, environmental issues, further loss of habitat, etc. and we don't have much of a chance of continuing the hunting traditions. 

However, that doesn't mean we should give up. Over-management needs to end and I, for one, will have my say when the time comes!


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

What you guys don't hear in that little blurb on the changes is that with these changes they do not intend to lower tags numbers. They will however be taking northern area tags and moving them down south. These ideas are only going to make sure there is a hunter in every corner of the state which is going to put a bunch of people in your little out of the way honey hole because that is the only place they will be able to hunt. So even if you draw you little area every 2-6 years you will be lucky to see a deer let alone kill one.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> What you guys don't hear in that little blurb on the changes is that with these changes they do not intend to lower tags numbers


That's not actually the case anymore. After listening to the minutes, they intend to cut about another 4000 tags beyond where we are now. This is a complete 180 from what the DWR has been working towards for the last year and a half. The orginal timeline called for the new season structure in 2011, and unit-by-unit deer hunting (which I am adamantly against) in 2012 with no reduction in tags. Now they want to put the new season structure on the back burner for one to three years and move towards either the unit-by-unit deer hunting, or the DWR's proposal with 18 bucks/100 does for 2011 with a total reduction of 9000 tags from the cap. Actually, it seems like I recall from the minutes that Karpowitz said they couldn't implement unit-by-unit until 2012, even if that's what the board decide to go in December. Regardless, this is coming as a bit of a last minute blind-side to me and the Utah Bowmens Association, as we just met with Anise in August and none of this was mentioned.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

archerben said:


> > What you guys don't hear in that little blurb on the changes is that with these changes they do not intend to lower tags numbers
> 
> 
> That's not actually the case anymore. After listening to the minutes, they intend to cut about another 4000 tags beyond where we are now. This is a complete 180 from what the DWR has been working towards for the last year and a half. The orginal timeline called for the new season structure in 2011, and unit-by-unit deer hunting (which I am adamantly against) in 2012 with no reduction in tags. Now they want to put the new season structure on the back burner for one to three years and move towards either the unit-by-unit deer hunting, or the DWR's proposal with 18 bucks/100 does for 2011 with a total reduction of 9000 tags from the cap. Actually, it seems like I recall from the minutes that Karpowitz said they couldn't implement unit-by-unit until 2012, even if that's what the board decide to go in December. Regardless, *this is coming as a bit of a last minute blind-side to me* and the Utah Bowmens Association, as we just met with Anise in August and none of this was mentioned.


That is what I was thinking, when I heard about this on the news last night I just thought they had their facts wrong, but I guess they were right. It is very frustrating. :evil:


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

+ 10,000 to what PRO said.

We need to make hunters choose each year between a GS tag or a LE point. NOT BOTH! 

Then if you want to take a bigger buck or bull then you have the ability to find on a GS hunt you can leave your weapon home a few years (maybe ten) and go hunt a LE unit. 

Don't be so damm selfish to restrict others opportunity and kill hunter recruitment so you can have an easier crack at a trophy.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Here are some notes I took while listening to the minutes. This is far from a complete recap of the 4 hours worth of minutes.

Anise presented the 2007 deer survey.
2007 Deer Survey Conclusion: General population wants to hunt every year regardless of trophy oppurtunity, or lack thereof.

Current deer plan:
Peoples biggest concern: How to increase size of deer herd.

Jim Karpowitz: "We're doing more now than ever before for our deer herds.
Good old days (1983 - 84):
100 fawns per 100 does.
1983: 82,532 bucks harvested. 13,000 does harvested.
Deer herds we're way too big and should have been reduced.
Habitat changed from shrubs to grasses due to over grazing which is bad for deer recruitment.
We've now bottomed out and are turning the corner.
Buck to doe ratios we're lower then than now, but there was a lot more deer.

1983 - 84 Deer Herd: No estimation but a lot bigger than now.
1980s had largest deer herd in history.
With those fawn numbers, it was easy to recover from a bad winter.
1960s had big bucks, but not the numbers of deer as the 80s.
1972: Nixon bans poison for predator control by executive order.
1950s - 60s: Largest harvest in Utah's history.
Current Objective: 15 - 25 bucks/100 does.
Jim Karpowitz: Hunters are happy at 18 - 20 bucks/100 does.
Current Buck to doe ratio:
18+: 15 units
NR: 17
NER: 15
CR: 16
SER: 18
SR: 18
Jim Karpowitz: "We don't have to make big changes to make a difference and make hunters happy."
Minute 104: Jim Karpowitz starts his proposal.
Take poor performing units out of regions, cut tags by half, and manage as a general season le unit.

Jim Karpowitz: 10 bucks / 100 does is enough to breed all the does.

This purely a social issue. Do we manage more for trophy or oppurtunity.

Will have to take 9000 tags out of the pool to maintain the 18 bucks per 100 does. We can do this for A few years without a price increase.
Unit by unit would destroy the DH program. Loss of 10,000 volunteers would hurt DWR big.

Postpone 2011 season structure.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> + 10,000 to what PRO said.
> 
> *We need to make hunters choose each year between a GS tag or a LE point. NOT BOTH!
> *
> ...


That's a good idea.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

In the unit we archery hunted. infact 3 different units all sucked! I posted an" OPINOIN " about the lack of mature bucks in the Fishlake, Mt. Dutton area Wolfcreek and the surrounding areas. Soapstone . Westfork, Strawberry, Currant Creek Tabby Mt. . The poor small bucks 2's and spikes. that we did see will be killed on the Muzzy and them that may be left over will get the hell shot out of em on the rifle hunt. So DWR how do you address the fact that people have been bitchin bout these units and others for years and you wait until it's a CRISIS than start to respond.? I think you blew it on this one...


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I attended the Board Workshop which covered this proposal. I'll bet one of these plans will be adopted by the Board. 

The Micro-Units idea is NOT from the UDWR. The Micro-Units proposal came from the Board. The UDWR proposed making 3 units, which have had chronically low buck doe ratios, as limited general units. Those units are: Stansbury, Monroe, and Vernal. The UDWR would voluntarily reduce tags by 12% in Regions and those 3 units above.

The UDWR was directed by the Board to present both the UDWR's proposal and the Board's proposal at the RACs.

Here is what I for see happening with Micro-Units. The units will be created. Special Interest groups will lobby for tag cuts on their own little units. Tag numbers will be cut. Buck numbers will rise, but doe numbers will fall (this is what happened in Colorado, Nevada and some Utah LTD Units). Waits to hunt will be in the 4-8 year range. Archery will be by unit, no more Front for everyone. The fawning ratios will not increase. Dedicated hunter will be over (good for some, bad for others). License fees will increase substantially-- we pay $280 for a Micro-Unit elk permit.

If you want to hunt Utah every 4+ years for a 50% chance at a 4 point buck then support Micro-Units. But if you love to hunt then it is time to get behind the UDWR's proposal of Regional hunting mixed with 3 general season restricted units and some very nice LTD units which we currently have.


----------



## Troutsman (Aug 13, 2010)

If they are trying to get to 18/100 then why not do a pilot program on the units that are below this instead of every unit. This looks like one RAC meeting I will have to attend and give an opinion on. I personally feel that they are not doing anything for the herds by cutting down the units to 3 and 5 day hunts. This just puts the idea in peoples heads that they need to take a buck faster and be less choosy about it. People that would have held off on a bigger buck that may or may not come around on the next day will not hold off any more. Coming from Alaska, I feel that it is amazing that hunts are this short. Alaska opens hunts up for much longer periods of time which builds a different culture of hunting.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the update Ben. I remember you telling me they wanted state wide archery and now tag reductions in the original plan. This is quite the change. Man the whole thing is a bunch of B.S. Ben are you going to try and get a hold of Anise and see what is going on?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I do not want to hunt every other year or every 3 years. I like hunting every year. It will be a sad day when we have to choose a point or a tag. What fun that will be! Hopefully it will be GS deer tag OR deer point because i don't waste my time on LE deer points. If it is the option of a GS tag or 1 LE app. for any species, piss on that.
Man, the end is near!


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> Ben are you going to try and get a hold of Anise and see what is going on?


Yes, I'll try to talk to him and have a better understanding of all that is going on before the UBA convention.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

archerben said:


> Regardless, this is coming as a bit of a last minute blind-side to me and the Utah Bowmens Association, as we just met with Anise in August and none of this was mentioned.


Anis is famous for this, in fact I think he does this EVERY year!

I agree with Packout's assessment. If the special interest groups (SFW!) get what they want we can kiss general season deer hunting good bye. This is NOT good for the future of hunting. Ironically, SFW goes around tooting their horn how they are fighting to 'save' hunting by going after the wolves, while at the same **** time pounding a death nail by catering to the 'trophy hunters' that make up a SMALL percentage of the hunting population. :? Why is it good to save the elk/deer from the wolves when only the rich/connected can hunt them?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Packout said:


> I attended the Board Workshop which covered this proposal. I'll bet one of these plans will be adopted by the Board.
> 
> The Micro-Units idea is NOT from the UDWR. The Micro-Units proposal came from the Board. The UDWR proposed making 3 units, which have had chronically low buck doe ratios, as limited general units. Those units are: Stansbury, Monroe, and Vernal. The UDWR would voluntarily reduce tags by 12% in Regions and those 3 units above.
> 
> ...


listen to what this man is saying!!!!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> archerben said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, this is coming as a bit of a last minute blind-side to me and the Utah Bowmens Association, as we just met with Anise in August and none of this was mentioned.
> ...


listen to what they are saying


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

listen to what i am saying LE is the end of our family hunting traditions. There are big bucks in Utah if you get off your backside. 

Hunting every 4-8 years sounds like a load of crap. 

SFW would love to see this so they can tag grab some more. Then issue the tags the good ol boy system behind closed doors to each other. 

The whole plan stinks to high heck. 

When are people going to get a sniff they already hate the bookcliffs and the 10 year wait to hunt 3x4's 
we cannot make the rest of the state a bookcliffs hunt you will never be able to hunt. there are only about 300 tags on the bookcliffs. when the rest of the state goes to that quality they will have to cut the crap out of the tags to get the buck to doe ratios they want.

So don't tell me sfw is going to be happy with 18 buck to 100 does they are already complaining at 15/100 so what diff does it make to have 3 more. NONE!! 


I told you the plan that they were throwing around earlier wasn't the plan that would get pushed through. I told you they would bastardize it. SFW/wildlife board is famous for this crap.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I am sure glad I love bird hunting because big game hunting in Utah is a joke.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I am sure glad I love bird hunting because big game hunting in Utah is a joke.


Not to mention you have a great hunting partner! Your girl is quite the hunter.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

jahan said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure glad I love bird hunting because big game hunting in Utah is a joke.
> ...


She is getting there. I can't wait to see how she does saturday.


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> I like the idea to do some thing about the deer herds. I hunt way back in and have no problem seeing big bucks, yes they seem to out smart me but this would mean less hunting for me. I would like to see it in smaller units to manage. If you are in a group of lets say 5 and 2 draw that year what is wrong with only to shooters and 3 spotters. I get a kick out of just being with a shooter it doesn't always need to be me pulling the trigger to enjoy hunting. That would allow more deer to grow up. But still enjoy hunting while being a spotter in camp


Some people don't have the money just to go spot deer, or have the excuse to get out of the house. Sure it helps your buddies out.

Smaller units would be bad if they were really small. I hunt two areas over 70 miles apart, and only reason I do this is . My dad doesn't archery hunt he only rifles. So I find a place to go for archery. He isn't in the best of shape so he couldn't hunt the area I do. So then I would have to chose between family/tradition, and going more often with the bow.


----------



## jsc (Nov 13, 2007)

> Re: 2011 changes
> 
> Postby swbuckmaster » Sep 30, '10, 8:42
> listen to what i am saying LE is the end of our family hunting traditions. There are big bucks in Utah if you get off your backside.
> ...


+1
Listen to what these guys are saying. The board will vote for SFW and their agenda's if voices are not loud enough. It will also hurt our recruitment for the future generations of hunting here in utah.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I run a specialty hunting shop ... and for anyone who works in a small hunting pro-shop or anyone who manufactures products in utah that are sold in that type of shop, I say you better get involved and speak about the direction the Utah Wildlife Board and the DWR are going ... if the state goes to a statewide micro-managed LE deer tag allocation system like they have done with elk, many small specialty hunting stores will be forced out of the game.

For example: on average in N. Utah, bowhunters buy a new bow every 6-7 years while the natl avg is closer to 3 yrs. If archery deer hunting goes to a micro-managed hunting opportunity like elk, hunter recruitment will drop drammatically for lack of opportunity their first years in the field. New hunters are looking forward to the opportunity to actually hunt and if they only get in the game for 1 out of 4+ years how long do you see them staying in the system? ... who likes to ride the bench 3 out of 4 quarters or 8 of 9 innings?

On the other end of the spectrum, hunter retention is already on the rapid decline as many find the ever more complicated rules and seasons further restricting them to the point that they lose interest...not to mention the significant increase in costs associated with applications and being required to buy a license even if you likely won't draw the tag, then there is the staggering LE permit fees, the funnel shaped points systems that are butt-plugged, once you do win the lottery, you then have that llong waiting period before being able to even apply again... not to mention the infighting amongst ourselves for ever diminishing access to shrinking public lands where private lands have all become comercially managed....etc, etc, etc.

If we don't take up the slack and make a stand we'll all be out of the game... wish DWR would wake up and see what they are promoting. Right now we are paying their salaries, but as tag sales decline they'll have to either incorporate or work under some private holding where biology is the last thing they are concerned about- 

Oh wait, I think Pro already stated that they are on that gravy train already. :/


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Its crazy! Mule Deer predation is like illegal immigration.

A majority of us don't see it everyday therefor we don't think of it much. But when you see it on paper or hear the statistics and effects. You cant help but to think WTF? Why is this going on what are our policy makers doing? I know Hatch is not in favor of illegal immigration either is any politician publicly. Or is he? Who knows what is going on? For what reason could this go on year after year after year and no progress on the matter? Insanity I tell ya!

Predation same thing sure you can choose to ignore or deny it but it is there. And when you see it on paper anyway you want to quantify it. Smack! Right in the kisser! And amazingly right back into denial. :roll:

No its not the only factor hindering deer herd recovery. But it is a keystone piece to the puzzle. And the one issue that exists in every single unit in the state. And the one controllable issue and least expensive as well that would result in even more hunting opportunity in big game as well as predator hunting.

If I can see any silver lining in micro management is that it may provide an opportunity for a small special interest group to influence deer management on there unit. And I just happen to be a lifer on Monroe and I figure as passionate as so many are about Monroe we have as good of a shot as anywhere to get a strong group together.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> wish DWR would wake up and see what they are promoting.


I've listened to the entire audio recording of the wildlife board meeting, made a few phone calls today and believe me, there are several in this thread who understand what's going on.

The UDWR, as far as I've been able to determine, does not favor this unit-by-unit scheme whose main purpose is to increase trophy buck numbers at the expense of deer hunting opportunity, bow hunters and the UDWR's dedicated hunter program. This was something forced on the UDWR by the state wildlife board, that group of retired armchair biologist wannabes, who mostly represent the objectives of special interest groups and who actually make the policy decisions.

Listen to the audio, http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -09-22.mp3 . It's some four hours long, but after going over it from one end to the other and relistening to several parts of it, it's plain as day that this whole things is something that the wildlife board cooked up, then blindsided the UDWR with it. Director Karpowitz (or however it's spelled) even says in the audio that he spent the weekend before the meeting scrambling to come up with an alternate proposal to counter the screwball trophy buck plans the board decided to suddenly ram down his throat. He says it more politely than that, but it pretty clear what's going on.

My calls today to a couple of aquaintances at the UDWR lead me to believe that hardly anyone there thinks that micromanaging hunters will produce more deer -- just possibly bigger bucks for the select few at the expense of nearly everything else.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Consider how this will affect recruitment.... 
Hunter: "Hey Billy do you want to go hunting this year?"
Non-hunter: "Yeah I would love to. What do I have to do?"
Hunter: "Well first you have to go through hunter education. $10.00 (a good deal)
Then we have to find a place to hunt. (possibly a good month worth of scouting)
Then we have to figure out which micro managed unit it is in. (could possibly be sold out)
Then we have to purchase a tag for the micro managed area. 
Then after all is said and done we only have 3 days to hunt. 

It's kinda like... 
Player: Hey Billy want to play baseball?"
Billy: Sure let's go!"
Player: First you have to register its $10.00 then i'll teach you all the rules. 
Then we need to reserve a baseball diamond somehow or wait til one opens up and becomes free. 
Then we need to make sure it is a diamond open to the public and not privately owned not to mention pay a fee to use the field. 
Then we can play a few innings and call it good until next year. 

One last word of discouragement... There are these bully's on the field that are all heavy hitters. They are just good at batting and won't give you any infield positions. The umpires kind of just go along with what the bully's tell them to do. It sure is cool to see them hit a home run, but you won't get any batting practice, just sit in right field and swat at the flies and let them have their runs. Every once in a while a newcomer will hit a good ball to the outfield. 

Oh yeah... One more thing... They changed the batting line up... Instead of getting up to bat 7-8 times a season you will probably only get to bat 3-5 times. Oh yeah... I forgot to mention that you will have to diffuse curve balls, knuckle balls, and fast balls. The bully's get the straight and easy pitches. 

So what do you think? Want to play?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

What's really ironic about the predator problem is you've got one group of people yelling at the DWR to kill more lions and tigers and bears (oh my) ant then on the other side of the table you've got the houndsmen screaming that there aren't any cats left and they need to shut the seasons down and cut tags way back. (TOTAL BS IN MY OPINION!)

What the houndsmen are forgetting is that along with their numbers of guys toting dogs into the woods by means of sleds and 4X4's you've got those same cats that have been treed and let go for "fun" getting wiser and wiser to their ways. It doesn't take a cat with a Matsers degree to figure out that if he stays by the roads and wheeler trails he's going to get chased by dogs. They have just gotten smarter and have adapted to their environment. To think that there are less cats out there is absolutely retarded. There are MORE cats out there and they are getting bigger, faster, fatter, and smarter.

The houndsmen just need to cut back on their "fun chasing" and stick to running cats when someone has a tag. Go chase ***** for hell sakes! There's plenty of them bastards! And you can KILL all those things you want! Houndsmen back east would LOVE to have our **** problem.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

So this new plan the DWR is talking about, is that going to involve just the deer hunts? 
I have seen the plan they had to change the hunting dates around (which I kinda like) but that was for all animals not just the deer. On the DWR site, they make it sound like the plans they had been working on were being scrapped. I was just wondering if they still intend on setting firm start dates for each year and then combining the elk and deer hunts per weapon like they had previously released.

Anyone know when the most current plans are going to be released?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Nambaster, that was SPOT on!!!

Great analogy!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Cougar have houndsman and biologist. Illegal immigrants have the SPL and Tony Yapias.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> TopofUtahArcher said:
> 
> 
> > wish DWR would wake up and see what they are promoting.
> ...


+1

The DWR's plan is good and the WB plan is bad!


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I liked the DWR idea alot better. This plan is for trophy animals and rich hunters. I am sticking to archery deer from now on and have not had a problem finding big deer. Shooting one has been the challenge :mrgreen:. I would hate for it to get to a point were we are waiting 2-6 years to get a general season deer tag for a small chance of getting a 4 point. I'm trying to get my wife into hunting and if they do this I might has well forget it. She already has a hard time understanding the draws, points system shortened seasons, etc.
There are more pressing issues that are affecting our deer herds than hunters. Loss of habitat, predators, how about vehicles, how many deer are killed each year by being hit by a vehicle? 
Nambaster analogy was spot on. Its turning more and more into a rich mans sport.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

mikevanwilder said:


> There are more pressing issues that are affecting our deer herds than hunters. Loss of habitat, predators, how about vehicles, how many deer are killed each year by being hit by a vehicle?


Not as many as you many think. At least not a significant amount warranting 10s of millions wasted on deer fencing. Be it better than money wasted on some habitat projects.

According to the DWR's last published stats. We had as many as 3000 reported incidents in 1990 and last report published in 1995 was 609 reported. *Reported*being key. I will happily concede a majority of deer vehicle incidents aren't reported. The number of deer hit on highways directly trends the deer population. So the fewer deer present equates to fewer deer being hit. I would estimate it lies well below 3000 statewide annually.

Anyone noticing skinny dry doe's this yr?


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > There are more pressing issues that are affecting our deer herds than hunters. Loss of habitat, predators, how about vehicles, how many deer are killed each year by being hit by a vehicle?
> ...


Thanks for that info, it is intresting.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > There are more pressing issues that are affecting our deer herds than hunters. Loss of habitat, predators, how about vehicles, how many deer are killed each year by being hit by a vehicle?
> ...


I will have to try and find some numbers, but I think your 3000 number is low, I have heard it is much higher than that, like a significant figure higher, 30,000+. :shock: I see several hundred killed between Provo and Price every year and that is just one little stretch. I would be curious to know the numbers.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

That is what I was thinking Jahan. I know working at the sheriffs office that we only report deer being hit to the DWR when its a buck or the animal is still alive(which is less than 30% of the car/deer accidents). I thought the numbers were in the 10,000 range.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

jahan said:


> I will have to try and find some numbers, but I think your 3000 number is low, I have heard it is much higher than that, like a significant figure higher, *30,000+*. :shock: I see several hundred killed between Provo and Price every year and that is just one little stretch. I would be curious to know the numbers.


I remember reading somewhere in the area of 22,000. Ironically it was just slightly lower than the amount of deer harvested by hunters.

To go back to topic.... the WLB is only looking out for those in special interest groups. How do these guys get on the board and more importantly how do we get them replaced? I do not agree with the micro managed units.

Managing for higher buck/doe ratios does us no good if there are only 200 does. That means we are all fighting for 36 bucks. Does need to be managed to increas their numbers, their birthing rate and fawn recruitment.

Sound like the UWC has a lot of planning to do and a lot of speeking up to do. When is the next meeting?


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> Sound like the UWC has a lot of planning to do and a lot of speeking up to do. When is the next meeting?


Exactly, maybe this time I can make it to the meeting.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I'll be there as well. I am not going to lie to you though... It doesn't really make a huge difference how many people are there unless it is literally packed with people. In past meetings the majority is somehow still overlooked.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

oh yeah. The next meeting is expected to be in November.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Hajan, Have you confirmed my #s. To me its far to important of a issue to just discount statistics. 

I have learned much debating here on the internet. No phony statistics from me I've done my homework. :O_D: 

I can tell you the Utah state department of Insurance can give you some pretty good stats and it lies nowhere near 10,000s.

I challenge anyone to disprove that is is more than 3000.

How many deer will 2500-4000 cats eat per yr?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Hajan, Have you confirmed my #s. To me its far to important of a issue to just discount statistics.
> 
> I have learned much debating here on the internet. No phony statistics from me I've done my homework. :O_D:
> 
> ...


While I am trying to find my numbers, can you tell me how the heck you came up with 2500-4000 cats? BTW, I am not calling you a liar, I just have heard differently is all.


----------



## Vern21 (Jul 8, 2010)

Dr. John Bissonette, Utah State University: "This is something people should be concerned about if they drive a car."

Or a motorcycle; Utah averages three human deaths each year in deer-versus-vehicle accidents. From the deer's point of view, the numbers are truly stunning. Estimates of deer killed by Utah drivers range as high as 20,000 a year, comparable to the number shot by hunters. 

Were is your math coming from. cause it is a estimate but it is a far cry from 3000 Do you drive Utah roads if you drive into cache valley any time of the year from SLC area you will see on average 10-11 deer dead on the road it is a 20 mile stretch of road if they clean them up 1 time per month which is being liberal. that is 120 deer per year. if you times that by the other 3 roads into cache valley thats 480 deer just in CV do your math its not adding up 3000 is not even close.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sadly the DWR has chosen to keep cougar statistics to themselves. I imagine you tried to look find cougar estimates in the annual cougar reports. Suspiciously "out of order" since last yr.

But they do have some numbers listed in Cougar Management Plan. And it has a page that touches on Utah's cougar population stats. Its Really just an estimate though done in the worst way. Based on other studies then extrapolated statewide.

IMO the DWR practices disinformation on the matter.

OK the statistics are and were clearly stated in the old Annual Big Game Reports done by the DWR. Take a look for yourselves try pre 95.

Vern sighted one mans opinion just like mine. An *Estimate*" I have researched the subject a bit and have never seen any stat that suggests or mentions an *average 3 deaths per yr* due to deer in Utah. Also consider that 20000 is 54 deer per day. 365. Sounds extraordinary to me. But never the less tell me where I can find reliable data to support that figure. And I will reconsider my thoughts on how big of a factor highways are.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

highways are not the only problem iron bear I believe everyone on this site will also agree with you when they say that predators also play a huge role in our deer numbers declining. 

wolves dont kill elk like cougars dont kill deer! 

I believe it was Anise that stated the deer to car collisions were estimated at around 20,000 but there has never been an official count. I believe it is some where close to this if not more. 

every time I hit the road driving for work I see deer all over the side of the roads every time I come back they have been picked up or moved. This doesn't account for the deer that are hit and make it over the row fence. How many are hit and then drag them selves into the brush and never seen again is anyone's guess. 

estimates? 
how can anyone do a count on our game let alone predators. Here in lies the problem with the estimated counts. The division gets its info from the lion/bear hunters. So asking a lion/bear hunter if there is an overabundance of of lions/bears is asking Larry Flint if he sells enough porn.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Not true SW,,,,,The state of Utah has full time employee's working lion numbers.

They include Biologists and the McClain brothers,,,,A couple of the best Hounds men ever.
They are the ones collaring the lions for the biologists to survey.

And the lion numbers in the state seem to be hovering around 2K state wide right now,,
About halve of what they were 15 years ago..


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> Sadly the DWR has chosen to keep cougar statistics to themselves. I imagine you tried to look find cougar estimates in the annual cougar reports. Suspiciously "out of order" since last yr.
> 
> But they do have some numbers listed in Cougar Management Plan. And it has a page that touches on Utah's cougar population stats. Its Really just an estimate though done in the worst way. Based on other studies then extrapolated statewide.
> 
> ...


Just a bit more info to consider IB

" 
Roadkill threat: Utah deer herds taking a hitIt's possible that more of the animals are killed by vehicles than hunters.
By Brett Prettyman

The Salt Lake Tribune

Posted: 12/13/2009 06:00:06 PM MST

Click photo to enlargeA buck mule deer... (Patricia Cramer / Utah State University/Utah Department of Transportation)«12345» Plenty of attention is paid to deaths on Utah highways, but the lives lost are not only those of people.

With the state's deer population struggling -- officials recently reduced the 2010 general hunting season from nine days to five -- the Utah Wildlife Board wants to better understand the effect that traffic has on deer. There are estimates that 20,000 a year are killed on roadways, but no one knows for sure. It's quite possible that the number of roadway deaths exceeds the number shot by hunters, 20,755 in 2008 according to state records..."

http://www.daily-times.com/farmington-o ... i_13982844

Like said before, its mostly just a guessing game, but your numbers seem pretty low to me on the deaths by vehicles. Predator wise, think you are pretty close.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

So goofy you have stated before on this forum you don't like how Utah pulls numbers out of its back side about the buck/doe ratios or deer numbers in general and now your saying you are completely satisfied with them pulling the numbers out of their backside with the cougar debate. remind me again who is doing the radio collaring of the cougars. That's right one of the best hounds man that has ever lived or will live. lol

goofy are you a houndsman? yes 

are there enough predators for you to hunt? I refer back to my Flint statement above. :O•-: 


Goofy I like opportunity to hunt. I dont like the LE cougar plan any more then I like the proposed LE muledeer plan. 

Goofy I liked how you could purchase an over the counter cougar permit and hunt till the quota is filled. If you are a die hard cougar guy you could prolly get a cat this way "it might not be the largest but its a cat". If you are a die hard deer hunter like myself you will prolly get a deer under the way the deer system is already.

I like opportunity


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey,,SW,,,,,I don't recall saying anything about how Utah pulls buck/doe ratios
out of there azs............WTH is that about?

Hounds man,,yes.
Big game hunter,,MORE!.........I spend more time working the hoofed animals
that cats anymore...
Heck I'm switching to bears, there's a chit load of them now,,,,,Lions are gone.

And as far as the deer go, I got spoiled back in the 70s and 80s when we 
really did have a deer herd,,,,,,
Its never been the same since the winter of 92/93,,The deer herds never have
recovered totally from that..

And as far as opportunity gos,,,,,Well,
Deer are a limited RESOURCE,,can only handle so much opportunity..
There for,,,,,oppertunity has to be limited!
I'm pushing the 29 micro units hard, Because I feel its best way to manage our
deer herds,,,plain and simple..


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy you comment on the 92/93 winter kill and how good the hunting was before that. 

I dont know how the hunting was before then cause I didn't go hunt then. I can only comment on 1990 on and I can guarantee it is way better deer hunting now then it was in 1990 for me. This is the main reason for me dragging my feet into a LE state wide deer hunt. 

I know deer are a limited resource 
this is why I would never manage anything for whats good for the hunter and not whats good for the deer/elk. 

If it were in my hands I would shorten the range of the weapons.

make the tag alotment 33% archery 33% muzzy 33% rifle

I would give the deer the advantage with the longer range weapons aiming at them. September rifle hunt this way the leaves are still on the trees so it some what protects from the long range bombardment. October muzzy hunt, same archery deer hunt. 

get the rifle elk hunt out of the rut
get rid of age objective and implement reasonable bull to cow ratios

some more perspective on LE/micro managment and the point creep problems they present and why I cannot support them.

The facts if you have no elk points in Utah right now are. "and this does not include the new layer of people applying next year it also does not include that they don't give all the people in the tags to top holders. this also doesn't include the stupid tag cuts they did this year with the age objective increase or the tag cuts that will be coming when the void of the spike hunters are creating by killing spikes.

So the facts are if you are an unlucky SOB and you are the last guy in the point pool for any of these units right now it will take you this many years to draw the tag. and you can check the facts out on the MM draw odds board or the draw odds in the Utah odds page. POINT CREEP IS REAL!!

beaver unit had 882 apps in 2010 and only 21 tags 42 years
pavant unit had 1955 apps in 2010 and only 22 tags 88 years
bookcliffs unit had 1426 apps in 2010 and only 49 tags 29 years
central mtns had 2834 apps in 2010 and only 127 tags 22 years

You get the point!! Point creep is real and is a real problem with LE micro managed units. You pay dearly with years off your life. 

This is why I will fight them till I either loose and have to adapt to the changes. I totally understand why you are so passionate about hunting and our deer management problems in Utah. We just disagree with how things should be done. 

Goofy in no way am I trying to offend you. I absolutely think your a awesome guy. I love debating you on these forums. I would love to have you and your kids in my hunting camp any day and time any year. I have even invited you to come along with me. The invite still stands


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No offence taken,,,,,,,It's just the fact all the issues and ideas you bring up have been
disgusted in meetings and tossed out.........
The facts are there will not be a weapons allotment change,,,,,Hunting LE elk will stay in September,
The point creep isn't going to change......

I have more thoughts but heading out the door hunting,,,,,,,,,,,Be back around lunch....


----------



## Twitchell (Apr 14, 2010)

Just cut the tags back. You cant tell me that if you cut the tags back around 30% for 5 years, the deer herd wouldnt be alot better. IT WOULD. IT IS SIMPLE.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Twitchell said:


> Just cut the tags back. You cant tell me that if you cut the tags back around 30% for 5 years, the deer herd wouldnt be alot better. IT WOULD. IT IS SIMPLE.


Yep you are right! They cut tags by 50-60% from 200,000 to 90,000 at look what it got us.  Why not just shut down all the deer hunts for 5 years, then open it back up to say 20,000 lucky hunters? Now that would work right?
I love it. How are people supposed to get the experience and knowledge to hunt by hunting once every 5-10 years?

Tex is right. We started down the road 20 years ago. :evil:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Heck I'm switching to bears, there's a chit load of them now,,,,,Lions are gone.
> 
> And as far as the deer go, I got spoiled back in the 70s and 80s when we
> really did have a deer herd,,,,,,
> ...


Lions aren't gone :lol: :lol: :lol: I think you also got spoiled when it was easy for a houndsmen to cut several different lion tracks in one canyon. You know as well as I do that hunting lions and killing big cats was a piece of cake because there was so many lions crossing the roads. There is still a lot of lions because like Tex-o-bob said.....Lions also are smart. BTW, goofy, I was the greatest houndsmen that ever lived not that other yahoo. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Twitchell said:
> 
> 
> > Just cut the tags back. You cant tell me that if you cut the tags back around 30% for 5 years, the deer herd wouldnt be alot better. IT WOULD. IT IS SIMPLE.
> ...


Excellent response middlefork!

The deer herds in Utah are hurting for many reasons, the number of bucks per hundred does is waaaaaaaaay down the list, however. If we cut tags by 30% for 5 years, and we haven't addressed/FIXED the other reasons that have more impact on the deer populations, what have we accomplished? Answer: NOT A **** THING! But, we will have reduced hunter opportunity by 30% for 5 years, further hurting hunter recruitment/retention, and we still will have low deer numbers. The proof that cutting buck permits is NOT the cure-all being asserted is the Limited Entry deer units like the Henry/Vernon/Book Cliffs/Filmore Oak Creek units. They have been issuing extremely low buck permits, FAR LOWER THAN A 30% REDUCTION on many of them, for several years and the herds are still struggling. In fact, the premise under which these Limited Entry units were started under was to 'help' the deer populations recover, NOT to get monster bucks that garner big bucks (pun intended) from conservation permit sales (sounds eerily similar to the spin we are hearing now) . The Henry deer unit, viewed by many as the perfect model of successful mule deer management, is in reality NOT the perfect model. The population is way under objective, the buck:doe ratio is so high that it is at a huge risk to crash and be extremely slow to recover due to low doe numbers. All this despite having more funds allocated to conservation/habitat projects than any other deer unit in the western United States. Having 200" bucks is NOT evidence of a healthy deer herd, having high fawn:doe ratios and populations close to objectives is!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

That is a good, solid post Pro. 

Raise Fawn survival rates and you will see more bucks and bigger bucks in just 3 short years. That is how long it takes to impact a herd- just 3 years. Last I checked, bucks do not give birth to fawns and every unit in the state has enough bucks to breed the doe population. Someone find out why our fawns are not surviving and you will have solved the mule deer problem.....

My guess to the lack of fawn survival is-- Cats, bears, Eagles, coyotes, vehicles (kill the doe and you just killed the fawn), habitat degradation, human interference, and finally net wire fencing. I believe the last item to be a considerable contributor to fawn death. I find dead fawns in our fences every year in June, caught in the net wire between their hips and ribs.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Pro is dead on
the henry mtns is below objective and only allows 38 tags to hunt it every year. 38 TAGS!!!

the front has been at or hovering at objective the last couple of winters It recovers quickly with no winter range and no SFW money and 10,000 tag holders can hunt it four months a year!!!! They can also shoot a doe if they want. 


Both units are about equal in size or area one has 45 buck 100 doe and one has 37 buck to 100 doe. They both kick out 200"+ bucks a year.

I have been applying for 10 years for a henry mtn archery tag. It will take me probably 10 more years till im guaranteed to draw it. BS!!! 20+ years for and archery tag.

Ill take hunting the front every year for 4 months over any Henry mountain archery tag and ill keep hunting 200"+ bucks every year. 

Ill take opportunity any day over LE. This is why im such an advocate for short range weapons. Ive seen a successful Utah Plan in action. I hunt a successful plan every year. We need more successful plans and not any more BS LE units.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

HunterGeek and Wyo2Ut, 
Im not saying that the DWR hasn't prepared a plan based on the bilogical statistics that could definitely work to benefit wildlife and sportsmen, however - as you and I have personally witnessed and recent history will attest to - The final plan will be based on the wiles of a few special interest groups rather than sound wildlife management science... 

Then the mainstream sportsman (me and a majority of others on here and elsewhere in the state) will be wondering again why the implemented plan was never discussed in open forum at RAC or other meetings...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I think there is some issue with Buck doe ratio's on some units. After I witnessed a small 2 pt buck breeding 10 doe on my cousins farm in Marysvale 2 yrs ago. And having serious doubts as to Monroe having 15 bucks per doe. I think there is a lacking of mature buck in some over hunted units. I believe this leads to dry doe's and a bunch of week over humped little bucks. That don't winter well.

A 3 or 4 yr old buck has a heck of a lot more fat than a skimpy 1 or 2 yr old.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> A 3 or 4 yr old buck has a heck of a lot more fat than a skimpy 1 or 2 yr old.


The monster front bucks I have killed in November have absolutely no fat on them at all. NONE!

They have been hunted hard for 4 months and are in incredible shape! They are built like a track star!!

fat is over rated IMHO


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > A 3 or 4 yr old buck has a heck of a lot more fat than a skimpy 1 or 2 yr old.
> ...


Sorry SW, am missing your point here, help me out. It's late, I'm old and tired... Are you saying these track stars can still breed all the does, live through the harsh winters with NO fat reserves, and do it all again the next year? o-||


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

That is exactly what I'm saying! 

The bucks I have killed in November have had not fat what so ever. NONE!!!! I have killed 2 in November. I have seen a few others and they didn't have fat either. So I am going to assume there are plenty others just like the ones ive killed and they do make it through the year.

these deer are way more hardy then you would think they are. Ive even seen ones that have scared over broad heads still in them from the year before. So not all deer lost to arrows are lost.

I have a buck on one of my friends trail cameras this year that we saw get hit with an arrow last year in the face. Hes back!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

have a look at this deer









does it look starving? does it look unhealthy? do you think it would have made the winter?

It had no fat what so ever! NONE it was also over 250 lbs live! This buck was was also not the buck I was after! It was so foggy I only got a glimps of part of this bucks rack at 23 yards! I heard it die less then 20 yards away and when I walked up on it I was actually upset.

The guy on the left is 240 lbs and despite how small I look Im still 190


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

this whole argument makes me wonder what market hunters were saying at the start of the 20th century...probably sounded a lot like what is being said now. As already pointed out the culprits in the deer herd issues revolve around human encroachment. Add in to that everyone wanting to still be able to kill animals at 500yards with a rifle and you get less tags. It's pretty much a mathematical formula. So in the year 1900 you could have allowed the one guy with 12 shotguns mounted on the front of his jon boat to do his thing and cut everyone elses opportunities to hunt or you could impose a restriction that a.) made market hunting illegal, and b.) made it illegal for your firearm to be able to hold more than "x" amount of shells at one time.
I'm sure all the market hunters were pretty upset just like all the people who want to preserve their traditions now without giving up a thing are upset now as well.
swbuckmaster is correct...short-range weapons are the opportunity that will enable people to still pursue hunting in the future.
You can't have your cake and eat it too...
If you are really adamant about hunting in the future and you have the means...I would purchase as much huntable land as you possibly can. But that's a whole other discussion.
Just my $0.02...thank you for reading


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Exactly! Thank you Stablebuck.

A friend of mine who used to sit on the wildlife board said that several times long range weapons such as custom rifles, inline muzzle loaders, and high-tech compound bows came up in conversation; and that most people on the board felt like the hunts needed to be restricted because of these new weapons and their effectiveness. Hunters were killing and maiming more critters across the board. He said that it wasn't so much the killing, but that these new fangled weapons, in trained hands, gave hunters an advantage at farther and farther distances. Trouble is, a very small percentage of these hunters had the mental horsepower to get it done at those extended ranges, and more animals were being wounded and lost because of it. These clowns watch an episode of "Best of the West" on TV and then run right out and buy a super whammy high tech rife so they can kill deer at 900 yards just like those CLOWNS on TV do. :? :evil: I guess ignorance and arrogance will always go hand in hand... Add to that equation the internet, google earth, GPS, wheelers, optics, and all the other crutches we lean on to make hunting "easier" and it's easy to see why they would be thinking this way.

If we all thought and hunted like Tred Barta, we wouldn't need all these restrictions. By restricting ourselves to reasonable hunting practices we preserve our heritage, seasons, and ultimately the hunt as a whole. Trouble is, how much is too much? Where do you draw the "technological" line. It's impossible to do. I guess as a species, like most others, we have a hard time with any sort of "regression". It's always gotta be bigger, better, faster, and easier. :| 

....and then there was none


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

There is definitely merit to your position stablebuck but I am not likely to pick up a bow anytime soon. I bowhunted one year and had the opportunity to harvest a couple bucks but I had a mental hang up that would not allow me to stick an animal with an arrow. As far as retention and recruitment go restricting hunters to long bows or recurves is going to do nothing to help that effort. Given a choice of hunting with archery equipment or not hunting at all I would choose not to hunt. I think the wounding and maiming of animals is probably equal across the spectrum of all weapons as well as unethical people. The fact of the matter is the carrying capacity of available lands for the herds is not near what it was and considering we cant manufacture land as far as I am concerned it is a losing battle and hunting will be lost to everyone except those who manage to buy their own property and even then it will be marginal because the deer won't have the winter range to survive. The only answer I can see is drastically reduced opportunity that should be spread equally among all weapons and even that will only delay the inevitable.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> If we all thought and hunted like Tred Barta, we wouldn't need all these restrictions. By restricting ourselves to reasonable hunting practices we preserve our heritage, seasons, and ultimately the hunt as a whole.


The last episode I ever watched of Tred was when he jumped a mule deer doe and tried to shoot it on the run. He gut shot it, lost it... then shrugged his shoulders saying "well it happens", continued to hunt and killed another deer.

Not the best example to use IMO.

-DallanC


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> There is definitely merit to your position stablebuck but I am not likely to pick up a bow anytime soon.


well that doesn't mean you couldn't pick up a muzzleloader or a shotgun. If you hit an elk or deer with a 1oz saboted slug out of a 12gauge at 75yards...I'm not forseeing too long of a tracking job!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*"I'm sure all the market hunters were pretty upset just like all the people who want to preserve their traditions now without giving up a thing are upset now as well."*

I disagree Stablebuck.

General Season hunters of ALL weapon choices give up something for their hunting opportunity every year. They agree to pursue animals in areas with low buck and bull ratios (= lower success ratios). They agree to make a good effort to hunt along side many other hunters and still find a way to enjoy the outing with or without getting a buck.

What do many of the LE (limit others opportunity) crowd give up? NOTHING! All they can do is ask those who are willing to hunt in a way that allows the maximum number of people to enjoy the activity each year to go without.

I'm excited to someday draw a LE Boulder Elk tag but if continuing the LE program means giving up general season opportunity...screw limited entry hunting!

And if you say "well some of us don't want to shoot two points and we want a 30 inch buck and we just can't get it done on the GS"... well maybe back in the cave man days you would have been one of the skinny ones that eventually got picked off and it just wasn't meant to be.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I got some info back from the Utah State Department of Highway Safety. And they report 2342 accidents involving wildlife and domestic animals in 2008. They couldn't tell me how it breaks down. Deer, elk, moose, cow, horse, goat, dog, cat, ect. They noted that the data is compiled from police reports. So it would be safe to assume not many people call for a police report when they hit a cat or dog unless a serious accident occurred causing property damage. And that if it was reported then it was most likely a large animal to cause property damage. 

Another statistic that I did find shocking is that we do average 3 deaths per yr due to vehicle animal accidents. Again this includes domesticated animals as well. The statistician I spoke to commented that he did know one of the 3 deaths in Utah in 08 was due to a horse.

Also 2342 is not an anomaly its right in line with #s in the past few yrs.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> *"I'm sure all the market hunters were pretty upset just like all the people who want to preserve their traditions now without giving up a thing are upset now as well."*
> 
> I disagree Stablebuck.


I believe you missed the point...if we all gave up something then we could all stand to benefit.
And don't mistake my input for being archery-biased. If I was speaking out of selfish ambition I definitely would not be encouraging more people to join me in August and September, but I realize that in order to keep statewide archery then overall success rates (across the board...rifle, archery, muzzy) have to come down. The only way to bring success rates down but maintain tag numbers (hunter opportunity) is going to be to utilize less effective weapons.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> There is definitely merit to your position stablebuck but I am not likely to pick up a bow anytime soon. I bowhunted one year and had the opportunity to harvest a couple bucks but I had a mental hang up that would not allow me to stick an animal with an arrow.


I have to call BS on this one. If your a hunter and it was large enough for your liking you would have shot if you were in range. Telling me you don't get buck fever with a 200" buck standing 20 yards front of you with a bow in your hand is like saying you didn't get or wont get aroused on your honey moon. Dont know if your married or not!



luv2fsh&hnt said:


> As far as retention and recruitment go restricting hunters to long bows or recurves is going to do nothing to help that effort.


It doesn't have to go that far compounds is still the preferred method of the archers. I ran an archery booth at the Spanish fork fair one year it was sitting next to the divisions BB gun booth and my booth out numbered the BB guns 20 to one. We now have archery in the schools programs that are educating our youth about archery and it is gaining ground in every state across this country.



luv2fsh&hnt said:


> Given a choice of hunting with archery equipment or not hunting at all I would choose not to hunt.


Really you telling me if they switched the allotment of tags from 90,000 rifle tags to 10,000 and gave turned the 10,000 archery tags into 90,000 tags you would just sit sit on your thumbs. This is also in no way what I would want to happen with the tag allotments!



luv2fsh&hnt said:


> The fact of the matter is the carrying capacity of available lands for the herds is not near what it was and considering we cant manufacture land as far as I am concerned it is a losing battle and hunting will be lost to everyone except those who manage to buy their own property and even then it will be marginal because the deer won't have the winter range to survive.


The front doesn't have any winter range and look what it can do with opportunity/quality around a major metropolitan area with limp wristed liberals hiking on every trail.



luv2fsh&hnt said:


> The only answer I can see is drastically reduced opportunity that should be spread equally among all weapons and even that will only delay the inevitable.


you actually believe it is fair to have the waiting period for archers the same as it is for rifle hunters. meaning 10 year wait for archery and 10 year wait for rifle?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> The only way to bring success rates down but maintain tag numbers (hunter opportunity) is going to be to utilize less effective weapons.


No the issue at stake is they want to bring success rates up by decreasing tag numbers.

If you leave tag numbers high it will have its high and low years but overall will bring success rates down as buck doe ratios come down. Most biologists agree that an 8-10 buck doe ratio is sufficient and probably the healthiest ratio to grow a heard under.

I will be the first to sign on to a proposal to reduce tags or something of the nature if that ratio drops bellow what is healthy for the heard but frankly anything above 10/100 is gravy.

And to answer one of your questions to lov2fsh, My dad and two brothers I traditionally hunt with would hang it up if they couldn't rifle hunt. I hunt muzzy on and off and would take up bow hunting if my hunting buddies did but I know they would hang it up and thousands of others just like them. Primative weapon hunting takes you to a whole new level of hunting and only if we as a hunting community think our sport will survive politically with a fraction of our numbers I would quit beating this drum.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > There is definitely merit to your position stablebuck but I am not likely to pick up a bow anytime soon.
> ...


Shotguns are for birds you silly buck.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Limiting technology will fix one problem but create another. The issue is bigger than hunting regs. If you alienate some hunters you just lost more voters that will elect pro hunting officials. At the very least they will stop caring about what hunting opportunities will exist in the future for the rest of us and again vote accordingly.

I still haven't been convinced antler restrictions don't lower success rates and allow everyone to keep what they have now.



TEX-O-BOB said:


> If we all thought and hunted like Tred Barta, we wouldn't need all these restrictions.


Ah the land of "ifs and buts". If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas


----------



## Twitchell (Apr 14, 2010)

middlefork said:


> Twitchell said:
> 
> 
> > Just cut the tags back. You cant tell me that if you cut the tags back around 30% for 5 years, the deer herd wouldnt be alot better. IT WOULD. IT IS SIMPLE.
> ...


There are alot of things you could do, or that are part of the problem.
But cutting tags would be a quick and simple thing to do. You cant tear down all the houses on the winter ranges, can you? Have people stop driving? Kill all the bears, lions, etc? And if you cut the tags by 30% you could still hunt every 2 years.(not every 5-10 years). Yet you could still go with someone to learn and gain experience. You cant tell me that the population would not grow. And on a larger scale I dont think the biologist could say if it would be healthy or not. Common sense says that the less deer killed means more deer the next year.

They had to cut tags because simply we are ALOT better hunters with all the technology we have now days(Not to mention more days in the field hunting and scouting). So cutting tags or limiting technology is a simple thing to do.

Hear are last years General Deer draw results. 2010 Draw Results. If you cut by 30% it would leave 48,000ish tags, with 93,000 applying. 1 in 2 years you could hunt more deer with less people. I know alot of people would go for that.
Then do it for 5 years years.................Better, I think so.

By the way, why did someone have 9 preference points for General Deer?
?
2010 GENERAL SEASON DEER RESULTS

Preference Points 
17 0 0 0 0 N/A 17 0 0 0 0 N/A 
16 0 0 0 0 N/A 16 0 0 0 0 N/A 
15 0 0 0 0 N/A 15 0 0 0 0 N/A 
14 0 0 0 0 N/A 14 0 0 0 0 N/A 
13 0 0 0 0 N/A 13 0 0 0 0 N/A 
12 0 0 0 0 N/A 12 0 0 0 0 N/A 
11 0 0 0 0 N/A 11 0 0 0 0 N/A 
10 0 0 0 0 N/A 10 0 0 0 0 N/A 
9 1 0 1 1 1 in 1.0 9 0 0 0 0 N/A 
8 0 0 0 0 N/A 8 0 0 0 0 N/A 
7 0 0 0 0 N/A 7 0 0 0 0 N/A 
6 2 0 2 2 1 in 1.0 6 0 0 0 0 N/A 
5 4 0 4 4 1 in 1.0 5 8 0 8 8 1 in 1.0 
4 14 0 13 13 1 in 1.1 4 13 0 13 13 1 in 1.0 
3 63 0 63 63 1 in 1.0 3 33 0 33 33 1 in 1.0 
2 985 0 978 978 1 in 1.0 2 111 0 111 111 1 in 1.0 
1 17235 0 16259 16259 1 in 1.1 1 1633 0 1624 1624 1 in 1.0 
0 75072 0 52713 52713 1 in 1.4 0 5394 0 3336 3336 1 in 1.6 
Totals 93376 0 70033 70033 1 in 1.3 Totals 7192


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Limiting technology will fix one problem but create another. The issue is bigger than hunting regs. If you alienate some hunters you just lost more voters that will elect pro hunting officials. At the very least they will stop caring about what hunting opportunities will exist in the future for the rest of us and again vote accordingly.
> 
> I still haven't been convinced antler restrictions don't lower success rates and allow everyone to keep what they have now.


Far too much attention/focus is on the hunters and not enough is on the deer herds! Harvesting MALES in the herd has a very small effect on the herd health, yet this is where most of the focus is. WHY????



Twitchell said:


> There are alot of things you could do, or that are part of the problem.
> But cutting tags would be a quick and simple thing to do. You cant tear down all the houses on the winter ranges, can you? Have people stop driving? Kill all the bears, lions, etc? And if you cut the tags by 30% you could still hunt every 2 years.(not every 5-10 years). Yet you could still go with someone to learn and gain experience. You cant tell me that the population would not grow. And on a larger scale I dont think the biologist could say if it would be healthy or not. Common sense says that the less deer killed means more deer the next year.
> 
> They had to cut tags because simply we are ALOT better hunters with all the technology we have now days(Not to mention more days in the field hunting and scouting). So cutting tags or limiting technology is a simple thing to do.


 Cutting tags will do NOTHING to help fix the problems, it is merely addressing the symptoms instead of the cause(s). Common sense says that worrying about how many bucks are killed is inane. Fewer bucks killed in 2011 will NOT mean more deer the next year, it will just mean fewer hunters had an opportunity to hunt.

They did NOT 'need' to cut tags because of technology, they cut tags because some hunters were worried about 'quality'. The state of Utah cut tags by several thousand, and yet we have NOT seen the deer herd rebound, what more evidence do you need?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

> They had to cut tags because simply we are ALOT better hunters with all the technology we have now days(Not to mention more days in the field hunting and scouting). So cutting tags or limiting technology is a simple thing to do.


There are less days in the field hunting now than ever before. But the success rate seems to stay pretty constant.



> Hear are last years General Deer draw results. 2010 Draw Results. If you cut by 30% it would leave 48,000ish tags, with 93,000 applying. 1 in 2 years you could hunt more deer with less people. I know alot of people would go for that.
> Then do it for 5 years years.................Better, I think so.


All units are not created equal. Southern takes more time than Northern to draw. It would get worse as the numbers grow smaller. Throw in the 29 unit deal and you would be waiting a long time just for a so so tag.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Just for fun why not give out unlimited tags with incentives for not filling them? Kinda like the DH program. If you turn your tag back after the season you get put into a drawing for some special tag. If you don't return the tag it is assumed that it was filled and you cannot put in for year or two. If the harvet gets out of hand just increase the time.

Everybody that wants to hunt gets the chance. Everybody can decide what they want to harvest. Win Win for everybody right? Except the people who don't want crowded hunts. And they are the ones making the decisions now.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Limiting technology will fix one problem but create another. The issue is bigger than hunting regs. If you alienate some hunters you just lost more voters that will elect pro hunting officials. At the very least they will stop caring about what hunting opportunities will exist in the future for the rest of us and again vote accordingly.
> ...


Wait a sec...I thought we were talking about hunting regs? Since we don't really hunt the does I don't think we can include them in this conversation. (Depredation and hunts close to growing cities excluded of course) If we expanded this conversation to overall deer management then fine we could bring them into it.

I'll give you credit Pro...at least you are thinking bigger picture.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

What would happen if we focused more on habitat instead of actual deer numbers?

I can think of quite a few areas that would benefit a lot if we replanted a lot of the winter range into better mule deer habitat. This would increase the carrying capacity and survival rates.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

What would happen if we all say screw it and poach what's left? We sure as hell won't get more than a slap on the wrist.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

coyoteslayer said:


> What would happen if we focused more on habitat instead of actual deer numbers?


Agreed. I probably haven't represented my thoughts well on other threads but I feel the battle is being lost in areas largely outside of the DWR control. Habitat is a major one. The DWR can only do so much. We have to find ways to make wintering grounds imoprtant such as lobbying for bills that set lands aside for wildlife and no not sancuaries just "no build" zones. We need to lobby the forest service to close some roads in heavily roaded areas. I think we need some burns and/or tree clearing projects in strategic areas. Dedicated hunters can do some in volunteer projects but most of the habitat issues are out of DWR control. All the conversations here focus on DWR regs when a big part of the problem has nothing to do with the DWR IMHO.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> What would happen if we all say screw it and poach what's left? We sure as hell won't get more than a slap on the wrist.


I have heard from a few good sources that deer have been poached over the summer and fall by our wonderful southern latin brothers. They have caught quite a few of them but atleast 30 deer were poached up SF canyon and at least 5 bucks were harvested. One guy said he has been killing deer for years without a license.

Cinco de mayo was a good day to have a deer taco fiesta.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


That's my point: We are focused on the 'quality' of bucks instead of focusing on the health of the WHILE herd. Managing game for trophy hunters is a recipe for disaster. If we manage for herd health, the 'quality' will be there.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Pro - See my previous post.

Also antler restrictions in my mind would lower success rates while preserving hunter opportunity. The fact that it may improve "quality" is just a side effect to me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Antler restrictions are a band-aid at best, a way to take a hunters choices away from him with no benefits more likely the result. Why should you or anyone else decide that it is unacceptable for a novice hunter to kill a 2 point or a 2X3? The only long term solutions to improving 'quality' is to have extreme permanent low permits issued, and increasing quantity which will also allow for more 'quality' q/o loss of opportunity. I chose the latter over the former.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Exactly! Thank you Stablebuck.
> 
> A friend of mine who used to sit on the wildlife board said that several times long range weapons such as custom rifles, inline muzzle loaders, and high-tech compound bows came up in conversation; and that most people on the board felt like the hunts needed to be restricted because of these new weapons and their effectiveness. Hunters were killing and maiming more critters across the board. He said that it wasn't so much the killing, but that these new fangled weapons, in trained hands, gave hunters an advantage at farther and farther distances. Trouble is, a very small percentage of these hunters had the mental horsepower to get it done at those extended ranges, and more animals were being wounded and lost because of it. These clowns watch an episode of "Best of the West" on TV and then run right out and buy a super whammy high tech rife so they can kill deer at 900 yards just like those CLOWNS on TV do. :? :evil: I guess ignorance and arrogance will always go hand in hand... Add to that equation the internet, google earth, GPS, wheelers, optics, and all the other crutches we lean on to make hunting "easier" and it's easy to see why they would be thinking this way.
> 
> ...


I kinda have to disagree. There will always be hunters out there making shi##y shots on animals no matter what kind of weapon they have, whether it be a recurve bow or a heavy barreled .300 SAUM. I wouldn't look at technology as a direction to manage deer herds. If you forced everyone to use a recurve during the archery hunt, a percussion cap rifle on the muzzleloader hunt, or a .30-30 on the rifle hunt, animals would still continue to be maimed and lost. And yes, we are constantly trying to develop our technology. I don't think it is a bad thing at all.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

lehi said:


> I kinda have to disagree. There will always be hunters out there making shi##y shots on animals no matter what kind of weapon they have, whether it be a recurve bow or a heavy barreled .300 SAUM. I wouldn't look at technology as a direction to manage deer herds. If you forced everyone to use a recurve during the archery hunt, a percussion cap rifle on the muzzleloader hunt, or a .30-30 on the rifle hunt, animals would still continue to be maimed and lost. And yes, we are constantly trying to develop our technology. I don't think it is a bad thing at all.


you're wrong in that we are hunting for sport...not subsistence. How many rules have they changed in the NFL over the last 5 years??? And why? To make the game more challenging while preserving the careers of players! Why not make our sport more challenging in order to preserve big game???
No good reason...just "well, I just don't want to because I don't care about anything outside my small, little sphere of influence and I refuse to change for anything" :roll: 
...and the discussion is not over how many animals are maimed or lost...it's over how many tags are filled...because when the DWR calls average Joe from Wayne County I'm pretty sure he isn't ever gonna volunteer how many animals he's maimed during his hunt...that's a moot point...


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Limiting technology will fix one problem but create another. The issue is bigger than hunting regs. If you alienate some hunters you just lost more voters that will elect pro hunting officials. At the very least they will stop caring about what hunting opportunities will exist in the future for the rest of us and again vote accordingly.


that's weird because the state's deer hunt was shortened across the board yet the tags still sold out...hmmmm... :roll:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Limiting technology will fix one problem but create another. The issue is bigger than hunting regs. If you alienate some hunters you just lost more voters that will elect pro hunting officials. At the very least they will stop caring about what hunting opportunities will exist in the future for the rest of us and again vote accordingly.
> ...


What does shortening the hunts have to do with limiting technology? That's like comparing apples to rocks.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> Antler restrictions are a band-aid at best, a way to take a hunters choices away from him with no benefits more likely the result. Why should you or anyone else decide that it is unacceptable for a novice hunter to kill a 2 point or a 2X3? First year hunters and youth hunters could have no restrictions.The only long term solutions to improving 'quality' is to have extreme permanent low permits issued, How with antler restrictions do you lose hunter opportunity? This isn't a "quality" solution it is a "quantity" solution. Remeber the low buck:doe ratio conversation we had? Even if you only do antler restrictions in areas that are below your "max" goal. You were the one that pointed out we don't manage to "max's" with regards to buck:doe ratios. With antler restrictions everyone gets to hunt but they can only hunt 50% or less of the buck population. All you do is lower success rates because everybody and their dog isn't banging away at all the little 2 points hanging out along the roads. Explain to me how it doesn't work? You can sell just as many tags but less deer die. and increasing quantity which will also allow for more 'quality' q/o loss of opportunity. The goal would not be "quality", the goal would be to lower success rates. And oh BTW you no don't have to worry about policing technology like others have suggested.I chose the latter over the former.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

it's an unwelcome change...a similarity that limiting technology shares. But the thing is that it will do nothing to negatively impact hunter retention/recruitment. The only hunters that will leave the sport will be the old grumpy ones. To new hunters it will "just be the way it is". Do you and I "miss" being able to load more than 3 shells in our shotguns while hunting migratory birds? No...because we never have been able to do that to begin with! It's been illegal for as long as most of us have been alive.
I can read about how you used to be able to kill 30 ducks per day back in the early 1900s but does that make me less likely to go hunting with a bag limit of only 7 now??? Hardly!!!
I'm from Texas where I can kill 5 deer per year if I wanted to...does that make me feel like not hunting in Utah where the most I can kill is 2-3 per year? Fat chance!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> it's an unwelcome change...a similarity that limiting technology shares. But the thing is that it will do nothing to negatively impact hunter retention/recruitment. The only hunters that will leave the sport will be the old grumpy ones. To new hunters it will "just be the way it is". Do you and I "miss" being able to load more than 3 shells in our shotguns while hunting migratory birds? No...because we never have been able to do that to begin with! It's been illegal for as long as most of us have been alive. Well it depends I suppose on how far you take it. If you limit the number of shells one can use or limit scope power then I suppose you would be right and people would just deal with it. If you take it too far and say eliminate the rifle hunts or drastically reduce the number of rifle tags I do think you will hurt recruitment. At the very least you are going to have a decade where there will be a vacuum of hunters to fill i.e. converting rifle guys to archery and muzzleloaders.
> I can read about how you used to be able to kill 30 ducks per day back in the early 1900s but does that make me less likely to go hunting with a bag limit of only 7 now??? Hardly!!!
> I'm from Texas where I can kill 5 deer per year if I wanted to...does that make me feel like not hunting in Utah where the most I can kill is 2-3 per year? Fat chance!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I don't think it would take a decade...but yes...there are a myriad of options for reducing legal weapon effectiveness in an effort to maintain tag numbers and herd health simultaneously.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

IMO opinion you can do antler restrictions without worrying about that vacuum. 

I would be in favor of some technology restrictions. Specifically those aimed and not letting it go any further. Heck I don't have the latest and greatest with any of my weapons. I have a 12 year old bow, with standard 3 pin sights. I have a 5 year old muzzy that is an inline but you can't even keep a cap in it cause it falls out while hiking. I have to put a cap in when I'm ready to shoot. My rifle is 25 years old although I do have a pretty good scope on it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've been on here,,and everywhere else,, Lobbying for antler restrictions for years now..

I personally would have loved to have seen the return of antler restics versus were
we are heading with micro-management..


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> lehi said:
> 
> 
> > I kinda have to disagree. There will always be hunters out there making shi##y shots on animals no matter what kind of weapon they have, whether it be a recurve bow or a heavy barreled .300 SAUM. I wouldn't look at technology as a direction to manage deer herds. If you forced everyone to use a recurve during the archery hunt, a percussion cap rifle on the muzzleloader hunt, or a .30-30 on the rifle hunt, animals would still continue to be maimed and lost. And yes, we are constantly trying to develop our technology. I don't think it is a bad thing at all.
> ...


When did I ever say we are hunting purely for sport? Sure sport is a part of it, but we are out there to put meat on the table, and that's it. To compare the NFL to hunting is idiotic. To preserve big game, we need to have sheer numbers of animals, not small numbers of animals with big antlers. The Trophy hunting attitude will hurt hunting, because it gives the Anti-hunters a valid reason to bitch and moan. Reducing tag numbers would be a better way to manage the herds. Restrict technology? Give me a break. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I personally would have loved to have seen the return of antler restics versus were
> we are heading with micro-management..


I would rather have NEITHER! Both are band-aids at best and do NOTHING to fix the root causes of the deer herd struggles. Antler restrictions are a proven failure. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result. Antler restrictions, even when they 'work', are a temporary fix. They do nothing but restrict hunters choices, and more often than not lead to a decline in buck:doe ratio and fewer older class bucks in the herd. AGAIN, focusing on the bucks is focusing on a symptom, and ignoring the cause. This is like worrying about a running nose when you have a tumor in your chest.


----------



## wixxman (Jul 23, 2008)

Pro, I'm part of the group from California you see up on the Dutton. I have been reading all the post on the pending / proposed changes for 2011. If they do adopt smaller units for archery. It really is going to impact us. As most of you know as of last year we have to buy a Utah hunitng license before we can apply of a deer tag. It was a way for Utah DWR to increase their revenue. Don't have aproblem with this, as we have drawn a tag for the last 6 years. But with these changes they are talking about, it is going to really cut down on some of the out of state hunters, they are not going to pay $75.00 to have the chance or more likely of not drawing a tag, we do realize with the current draw we still have a change of not drawing (has not happened) I would guess the number of non-resident tags for each unit would go down? I would hope they would do somehting like. Put in for the draw, if you are sucessfull. They would have it set up so they bill your credit card for the tag & the hunting license. Hopefully they look at the impact it is going to have on the local ecconomies of some of the areas, with less hunters. I would hope they would do as they do nere in California and have a first and second choice?


----------



## wixxman (Jul 23, 2008)

Just to clear up what I just posted. On the local eccomny I'm talking about the money the out of state hunter spends in Utah. I have no idea how many out of state hunters hunt during the archery season, would be nice to know. As much as you bash the DWR. Lets carry it one step farther, are they really going to cut down on the number of out of state hunters as a whole. Think about it. It cost me $338 for my tag. Just 1000 out of state hunters is $338,000 thats a lot of money and that is just of 1000 hunters. I'm sure it heck of lot more, I would think the number is closer to 8-10,000, now you're talking major bucks. Will be interesting to watch your post as these meeting come up and how the address the out of state hunter in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

How come you think its ok in Utah to have a once in a life time elk hunt on a LE unit and the rest of the tards get to hunt elk spikes.

That’s ok

But it’s not ok to have a twice in a life time deer hunt and then on the general units you can still hunt spike deer or even better get off your butt and find something better. 

It’s the same stupid mentality cant you see that? But you think one is dandy and the other is crap. 

What is so different about a spike deer and a spike elk? You throw the horns away on both. Both take away any chance to kill something better. 

If you want to hunt a big buck put in for a LE tag and wait your turn!!!! That is what you guys always say to me when I complain about the elk. 

At least with the deer herd you can still actually go out and kill a big buck on a general unit. You just have to work for it.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

lehi said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > lehi said:
> ...


if you're hunting JUST to put meat on the table then you are wasting your time and money...unless you are an Alaskan Inuit...you aren't hunting JUST to put meat on the table...
really? are you living in the 19th century?
have you ever thought why they call them "game" animals...it's for recreation...I'm not really sure how you missed that one...


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> How come you think its ok in Utah to have a once in a life time elk hunt on a LE unit and the rest of the tards get to hunt elk spikes.
> 
> That's ok
> 
> ...


+1!!!!!!


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> lehi said:
> 
> 
> > stablebuck said:
> ...


Read my post again, dude. I did say sport was a part of it. We don't shoot big game animals and leave them to rot, do we? (well, some D-bags do). My point is we need to focus on the health of the herds, and not worry so much about antler scores. Restricting the technology of the weapon is still stupid. There are better ways of doing things.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

lehi said:


> When did I ever say we are hunting purely for sport? Sure sport is a part of it, *but we are out there to put meat on the table, and that's it.*


[/quote][/quote]

if you're hunting JUST to put meat on the table then you are wasting your time and money...unless you are an Alaskan Inuit...you aren't hunting JUST to put meat on the table...
really? are you living in the 19th century?
have you ever thought why they call them "game" animals...it's for recreation...I'm not really sure how you missed that one... [/quote]

*Read my post again, dude. I did say sport was a part of it.* We don't shoot big game animals and leave them to rot, do we? (well, some D-bags do). My point is we need to focus on the health of the herds, and not worry so much about antler scores. Restricting the technology of the weapon is still stupid. There are better ways of doing things.[/quote]

I don't care about antler scores either...I would like to see more numbers as well, but it's gonna come at a price. And neither you or I have a couple million in our hip pockets to pay for habitat restoration.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2010)

the minute you start turning the general deer hunt into a LE, a person might run the risk OF NEVER DRAWING A TAG AGAIN (look at the elk hunting in utah, some people have 15+ points and could never draw a tag). i think antler size of a deer of atleast 3 points on one side should be a requirement in order to harvest it if you are over the age of 18. with the types of binoculars and scopes made today, its not asking too much of a hunter to know what he is shooting at before he kills it (they should already know what the are shooting at before they pull the trigger, but its utah and people tend to "shoot first, ask questions later"). adults should not be allowed to shoot spikes and 2 points, atleast 3 points on one antler. maybe on the archery hunt any buck should be legal, but not with a rifle or muzzleloader. youth should be allowed to kill any legal buck... that way everyone still gets to hunt who wants to, not every buck in utah gets shot every year on the rifle hunt, the opportunity of harvesting a more mature buck grows over time along with the over all utah deer herd. 

i dont want the utah general deer hunt to turn into a LE draw. its hard enough to draw a cow elk or doe Pronghorn tag, and if they do the same thing for deer, its gonna be just as hard or harder to get a tag for them. i would rather have the opportunity to hunt every year and NOT harvest a deer, then not be allowed to hunt deer every year at all.


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

Re: Kill_'em_all - If I recall correctly the 3 point or better is something Colorado did a few years back and while it was painful for a while it did increase the herds and the sizes of the bucks. Like you I'd much rather hunt every year even if it means not taking a buck (cause of the 3 point or better rule) than have to put in for a drawing only to explain to my sons that we can't go on the annual deer hunt cause some office lackey (read: not a biologist but an appointed joker by the state) in Salt Lake thinks (read: influenced by special interest groups) premium hunting for 200+ bucks is the only deer hunting that should be allowed.

They(Colorado) also micro-manage the small units, which is something I'm not opposed to here in Utah, but I think I'm in the minority there.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2010)

i know utah did the antler restriction along time ago, and it failed. people were shooting small bucks hoping they were big enough, when they realized they werent, they just left them there to go to waste. now a days, with as many people out there who are all for and willing to catch a poacher, people will be a little more cautious before they shoot. theres too many people in the hills these days to "know for sure" you're gonna get away with something like that. i dont think this time around this idea will fail. 

every one wants to shoot a big deer. its fun to have something big to brag about, but when it all comes down to it a deer is a deer. i would take shooting a 3 point every year over killing a monster 180+ buck every 5-7 years. thats what LE draw deer units are for!! utah deer hunting is not what it use to be, but that doesnt mean the whole system of things need to be changed just because people arent killing the size of deer they want to. they need to start small and change the SIZE of deer people can kill before they change the NUMBER of deer they can kill. in the end not near as many deer will be harvested as what are today, but everyone still gets to hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ktowncamo said:


> Re: Kill_'em_all - If I recall correctly the 3 point or better is something Colorado did a few years back and while it was painful for a while it did increase the herds and the sizes of the bucks. Simply NOT true, on BOTH counts!
> 
> They(Colorado) also micro-manage the small units, which is something I'm not opposed to here in Utah, but I think I'm in the minority there. Since Colorado went to 'micro-management', their deer herd has grown at a *SLOWER* pace than Utah's has during the same time. :shock:


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

I want to know what sparked this complete change in management objective? The previous changes sounded pretty good!

Last year they proved that region choice was a bad idea for archery. Next year they want to take it to the next level and beyond! Archery should stay state wide!

I have seen plenty of good bucks this year and don't want my chances to hunt further diminished in the future! Both of these proposals are bad for the average hunter! The second proposal is horrible for archery hunters who take very few bucks compared to other weapons.

15 bucks to doe ratio is plenty. We don't need our entire state becoming limited entry!!!


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

kill_'em_all said:


> the minute you start turning the general deer hunt into a LE, a person might run the risk OF NEVER DRAWING A TAG AGAIN (look at the elk hunting in utah, some people have 15+ points and could never draw a tag). i think antler size of a deer of atleast 3 points on one side should be a requirement in order to harvest it if you are over the age of 18. with the types of binoculars and scopes made today,*ABSURD! I KNOW I CANNOT AFFORD SOME OF THOSE THAT ARE ON THE MARKET. YOU JUST MAKE THE CASE FOR HUNTING TURNING INTO A RICH MANS SPORT. :roll: * its not asking too much of a hunter to know what he is shooting at before he kills it (they should already know what the are shooting at before they pull the trigger, but its utah and people tend to "shoot first, ask questions later"). adults should not be allowed to shoot spikes and 2 points, atleast 3 points on one antler. maybe on the archery hunt any buck should be legal, but not with a rifle or muzzleloader. youth should be allowed to kill any legal buck... that way everyone still gets to hunt who wants to, not every buck in utah gets shot every year on the rifle hunt, the opportunity of harvesting a more mature buck grows over time along with the over all utah deer herd.
> 
> i dont want the utah general deer hunt to turn into a LE draw. its hard enough to draw a cow elk or doe Pronghorn tag, and if they do the same thing for deer, its gonna be just as hard or harder to get a tag for them. i would rather have the opportunity to hunt every year and NOT harvest a deer, then not be allowed to hunt deer every year at all.


When will people relize it is about hunting, not the size of the animal. I could care less as to how big the head gear is. I am much more concerned with how big the animal is and the memories of the hunt. everyone on here recalls the "good ole days" and they are no more. They are no more because of the people who are supporting these changes. They just need something to complain about if they dont kill the biggest deer everyyear. I dont get it, maybe its a display of manhood.


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

Thanks Pro for correcting my post. Wasn't sure about my statements or the correctness of the Colorado methods. I've got a number of customers from Colorado who I chat with from time to time about the hunts over there and the management style so I extrapolate a few things here and there. The grass always looks greener across the border I supposed


----------

