# Over-Crowding and Deer Hunting



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

There has been a strong rhetoric about over-crowding and deer hunting the last few years. I'm sure it goes back longer than that, but these forums and social media I guess have simply given more of us a platform to speak from. 

Anyway, to the over-crowding issue--- How do we reconcile the fact that a few decades ago we had twice as many deer hunters than we do now with the over-crowding arguments/complaints? This is something that just has never made sense to me. I'm interested to hear the rationale.


----------



## manysteps (Sep 28, 2009)

TS30 said:


> There has been a strong rhetoric about over-crowding and deer hunting the last few years. I'm sure it goes back longer than that, but these forums and social media I guess have simply given more of us a platform to speak from.
> 
> Anyway, to the over-crowding issue--- How do we reconcile the fact that a few decades ago we had twice as many deer hunters than we do now with the over-crowding arguments/complaints? This is something that just has never made sense to me. I'm interested to hear the rationale.


We also had a ton more land to hunt on a few decades ago... we can thank idiots who don't respect the land for that part.


----------



## bow_dude (Aug 20, 2009)

Not sure I am understanding your question. You are correct in that the hunter number are considerably less for the general season deer hunt, (rifle) but many times more for the specialty hunts (muzzy and archery) I remember prior to the Pick-Your-Weapon/Hunt days, we had close to 200,000 people carrying guns chasing deer and less than 3,000 archers chasing elk and about 5,000 archers chasing deer. As a youth, during the rifle season, you didn't dare go into the mtns without wearing hunter orange. I remember hunters being shot and killed by other hunters. We have come a long way in that respect. You can now hunt a canyon and often have it to your self. The last hunter shot by another hunter that I can remember was a friend of mine who was killed in October of 73 or 74. To me, things have improved from what they used to be like. The last time I rifle hunted (about 10 years ago) we were up in the Mill Hollow area and didn't see another hunter in the draw we were working. Hunter numbers have decreased even more since then. Now on the other hand, I am an avid archer and though I don't see many archers in the field, sometimes finding a camping spot can be difficult. Seem we all want to hunt the same general areas. I remember years ago when you didn't see another archer or camp.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Sorry if I made my question a little convoluted. 

There are those that argue tags should be cut due to over-crowding and we need to return to the 'good old days' of deer hunting. But the reality is we have significantly less hunters today than we did back then. So I'm looking for rationale on how to reconcile these two contrary things.

Most of the over-crowding complaints to RACs seem to come from down south, for some reason.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Those hilljacks from down south wouldn't know overcrowding it hit them in the head.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

having hunted in both... the over crowding in the old days was opening day. the rest of the time, hunting was really good and it wasnt tuff to come up with a nice buck if you got out mid week. i personally think its harder to come up with a nice buck in todays conditions even with 1/3 of the hunters we used to put in the field.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I remember the 5 day southern hunts. 

Those were bad.

Now if they gave more than a week (Idaho & Montana) or split the seasons into multiple seasons (Colorado) it would help with the pressure.

Also, if they closed down ATV trails and access roads there would not be as much pressure too.

Utah isn't as bad as Eastern States as far as people, but it is probably the worst western state as far as the rifle hunt goes as far as pressure.

The smaller units have helped, but a longer season or multiple seasons would make it a lot better. 

I hunted Idaho last year and it was fun sneaking on a deer, that wasn't running for it's life. 

If you don't like the heat switch to archery, but don't switch to muzzleloaders because there are too many of those already.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Don't forget that we've built a bunch of garbage, ramshackle houses in the fall-winter transitional range of a lot of mule deer. The reason you hit deer on the way to work is that we recently built houses where they used to go during the winter and fall.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

I'll bite and give it a try. A few decades ago we had twice the hunters, twice the deer, and almost twice the area to hunt. Since then the deer herd has declined and a lot of prime hunting land is being developed or leased leaving us with less deer to hunt on less land. I don't think it's that difficult to see why people feel "overcrowded".
A few decades ago a simple phone call or visit would get most anyone who asked permission to hunt private land for free or a small fee which helped spread hunter out. Good luck with that now!

I assume you started this thread after reading my comments on another thread so I'll use the same unit as an example. Prior to Option 2 the Zion unit had an average of 190 muzzy hunters per season, now there are 600 muzzleloader tags on the unit. You tell me, if you hunted the unit prior to Option 2 and then after would you feel it was "overcrowded" with an increase in hunters of over 300%? EVERY public land hunter I know that hunted it before and after Option 2 feels "overcrowded" now!
The southern RAC voted to not increase general season tags on the Zion unit this year. I agree with them because I personally feel that we currently have a decent balance between hunter opportunity, a healthy deer herd, and hunter access. I don't think everyone that "complains about overcrowding" wants tags to be cut, some like me just don't think we need to increase permits everytime we have a mild winter or count some extra deer during the winter.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

A few things here. I hunted the last year of unlimited rifle tags- 1992. It was FREAKING CRAZY back then. You really had to go deep to get 300 yards from another hunter. Opening morning was a veritable war zone once the deer started moving and shots started. That season especially - winter came really early after 4-5 years of bumper crops of fawns, and deer were everywhere, and so were hunters. That winter that came so early, following such a fruitful hunt, was the direct reason that tags got limited to under 100,000. But back in those days, must hunts were AT LEAST 7 day hunts - which meant that it spanned two weekends. 

Today, we have a fraction of the tags, but some of the rifle hunts were reduced to 5, or even 3 days. Which means that everyone will be hunting on those days - so hunters are concentrated by time, which means they will be concentrated by space as a result. 

The biggest thing I see isn't that things are as bad as they were prior to '93. Rather with people that don't have that same baseline comparison are finding things more crowded on their particular unit, as in huntinfanatic's example, than prior to the Option 2 approach. 

I've gone back to the area I used to hunt in the 90s, the place I shared with hundreds of my not-closest friends - and had the place totally to myself. 

The biggest thing is that significant changes in management, such as switching to total draw system after the '92 season, or shifting to Option 2, will result in a major shift in experience, especially related to crowding issues. That is to be expected. 

I don't buy in to the concept about a huge reduction in lands. Outside the habitat encroachment of the urban expansion in northern Utah, there hasn't been habitat lost. And really, most of that urban expansion was into private lands that most people couldn't hunt anyway. 

As for the safety, there have been a number of hunting deaths in recent years, certainly been a couple of dozen in the last 20 years. For some reason, they always continue, no matter what happens. And the reasons is because people hunt together with others. Most seem to be people walking trails with loaded weapons and then trip and fall or drop their gun, or something like that, and end up shooting a hunting partner.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I'm just going to go out on a limb and share the following experiences. When I've been hunting the general season with a rifle, a little boot leather goes a LONG way towards fixing the over crowding issue. And by that I don't mean kicking the other guy in the butt with my boot. 

If I get out and walk more than a half mile from the road, somehow, magically the number of people I see drops dramatically. Yes, I will see the occasional orange pumpkin on the opposing ridge, but they really aren't interfering in my ability to hunt, and sometimes it actually works to my advantage where they bump something to me that they never saw. 

If I really want an experience where I don't see other hunters, I go archery. The only times I've had any real competition or issues is when I've stayed close to the roads with a youth hunter. 

But as pointed out, I grew up in the generation where there were 297,000 hunters in the field on opening morning. The level of overcrowding that I see in the units I hunt is minimal unless I stay near the roads.

At this point I would say that cutting additional tags is just eliminating opportunity. Having a back up plan and a second spot in case your obvious choice happens to be everyone else's is a better fix than losing your ability to go though cut tags.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

Here's my perspective, I grew up hunting deer in Utah in the 80's and early 90's with my dad. We used to hunt in family groups each year in Northern Uth and even hunted the Cottonwood canyons with rifles. In fact I shot my first deer with my dad's 270 in mill creek canyon. I distinctly recall going to scout one year before the deer hunt, at a place my dad had hunted for several years, and running into a no trespassing sign. The area had been SITLA lands and had been sold to private interests. I recall unlimited over the counter tags and hunter numbers reaching several times more hunters out than we now have. Most of my experiences here was in Northern Utah. 

As a teen and young adult I hunted in the 90's with my uncle on bow hunts in Southern Utah. I was amazed at how few hunters there were and how there were bucks everywhere. There was clearly a difference between Northern and Southern Utah. I still chuckle at the southern utahn's complaining about all the bow hunting pressure they experienced. Even now hunter density is less in Southern Utah than it is currently in the North, and a fraction of what Northern Utah experienced in the 80's and 90's. Then in 94 they capped the number of hunters and required people to pick from Five Regions. It made it tougher to get family and friends altogether for a deer hunt. That's when we sort of stopped hunting together as a family. I really miss those days/hunts. Since then I have been hunting alone or with only a friend/family member or two. Option 2 has made that even tougher. I think CWMU's have contributed to the "less area to hunt" conditions because hunter access is now a commodity from which to make money. That IMO has as much to do with it as irresponsibility of some, although that is a factor. Anyway, in a lot of ways for me it was never about getting a buck (or a big buck), but was all about the family hunt. That's why I opposed option 2, disliked changes in 94 and oppose cutting of tags now. I value the opportunity to hunt every year more than I do having higher quality deer. We were mostly killing 2 points back then anyway and not every year. Only once every 5 years or so would someone in camp get a 4 point. Numbers of hunters now are rather anemic compared to back then, especially in Southern Utah. I kind of like that change, but I realize we can't have it both ways.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

If the southern boys want to see a crowds have them try the wasatch west on the rifle opener.


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

martymcfly73 said:


> If the southern boys want to see a crowsw have them try the wasatch west on the rifle opener.


 Try Monte Cristo!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The problem now is half the state where 200,000 could hunt before is locked up in LE units or CWMU's.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

TS We agree for once, it's BS. As a man there is no way I would tell Scott to keep
his daughter home from the bow hunt because I personally demand a "Higher Quality"
experience. What makes me any more important than anybody else?? Or any of us for that matter??

Unfortunately the UT DWR and Wildlife Board has bought in to this crap. Heck they've even tried it with waterfowl hunting.

It's being sold to gullible people by snake oil salesmen....


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

FWIW, if a youth doesn't get a general season archery tag on any unit they want in Utah (except maybe Thousand Lakes) it is because their parent or guardian have no clue what they are doing when it comes to how youth hunts work in Utah.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Why should a youth be stuck only bow hunting. I'd like to see them to hunt all three seasons every year.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Wileywapiti, I would wager we actually agree on the vast majority of things. 

Some interesting perspective has been posted here. I know when I was very young (5 years old) my dad would take me along on deer hunts. He had almost exclusive use of a fairly large chunk of private property up Chalk Creek. By the time I got old enough to hunt the family had convinced the owner of the ability to make money and leased it to United Sportsman for hunting. I'm not certain, but I think it's one of the CWMUs now. Not to get too far off track, because that comes back to my request for reconciliation. There certainly are areas that have been closed off to the public that were either public and sold or were private before and is now just posted and restricted as opposed to open in the past. 

It definitely is a different world than 30 years ago in that realm. I still don't think that compensates for 150,000 hunters no longer in the field, but I can appreciate how it has had some impact.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I think easier access and better roads, has something to do with feeling like you have more people in the field as well. I can think of more than one use-to-be nasty dirt roads that are now oiled highways. A few other extremely rocky, better bring a spare, dirt roads are now minivan drivable dirt roads. 
Every year we see new roads where we hunt. Most are made by one or two people not wanting to hike. Once a road is established, its there to stay. Many great hunting spots of ours have been ruined buy these types of roads. 
My two boys are 6 and 4, this will be the first year I decided to take them out on the rifle hunt. I have to admit, I am nervous. I will be picking areas that have the fewest people, regardless if they hold many deer.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

A couple thoughts...

Those complaining of over crowding today have no historical perspective as to what deer hunting was like 30 or 40 years ago when 300,000 hunters took the field. There were times when you had to bring your own rock to sit on.

Hunters today seem more concentrated around roads today than they were back then. Horse hunters and foot soldiers used to push deep into the steep, remote areas that rarely see a hunter today because there is no easy access. Places that used to be awash in orange from those hiking up from the bottom to get away from the crowds are barren today by comparison.

On a mitigating note, even though there were 300,000 tags issued, not all of them were packing rifles. Party hunting was more common back then and every grandma, wife, and poor ward member purchased a deer tag. An able bodied hunter often had a half dozen tags to fill at the beginning of every season.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Kevin D said:


> A couple thoughts...
> 
> Those complaining of over crowding today have no historical perspective as to what deer hunting was like 30 or 40 years ago when 300,000 hunters took the field. There were times when you had to bring your own rock to sit on.
> 
> ...


I grew up in Meadow Utah,and everybody had a deer tag!Only half of them ever packed a gun.My dear old pa filled about 5 or 6 tags every year,and believe me everybody in town had their winter venison.My last season of hunting was just before they had the draw,we were around diamond fork,and had 3 different times that we were shot at.I figured that if I looked that much like a buck,then no amount of orange would help.But I do miss the 1960s back in Meadow.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is what I've seen over the years,

pre 2002, there were deer everywere,
That hard winter took deer out of areas that just now are starting to recover....
Recent years have had more hunters concentrating on areas with more deer in them.

AND YES, pre 83 sold a lot of deer tags , 1/3+ were to hunters that never left camp.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

There is a whole lot less party hunting than used to go on.
Used to be a bunch of very long shots (from town).
Most of them never even left town, let alone camp.
That is until it was time to go get their deer. ;-)

At least that's what I hear...........


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

From what I am seeing there are fewer roads off of the main roads, most of the side roads have been closed down than what there was back in the 60's-80's. I still see a lot of party hunting going on but the camps are usually empty of would be hunters. I remember when Fairview Canyon and Hunting Canyons were connected by dirt single lane roads and there was no Electric Lake, it use to be some great elk hunting up there but now all the private above Electric Lake is posted where before the owners didn't care if you hunted it. The Book Cliffs were taboo to hunt just due to no access. Yes, I said no access or very little. The oil and gas boom put that place on the map for hunting. The Henry Mountains had a few hunters but not like you would expect. Why drive 5 or 6 hours from the Wasatch Front to hunt a deer when you could do it from your back yard. Elk Ridge was the same way and you saw more out of state hunters down there than resident hunters. The ranchers or farmers would come around and ask the hunters to shoot all the deer that they could and let them lie. 

Spanish Fork Canyon on the Friday night before the opening saw more traffic that SLC ever thought about at the time, same for Daniels. Then on Sunday night it was the same, just going west instead of east. That big parking area just past the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon at the base of Billies Mountain was mostly for a deer checking station. When they first opened it they had 4-6 lanes of traffic going through the cones to check deer and hunters, and a single lane for through traffic. 

Now once you got up into the canyon that you wanted to hunt by if you didn't have a camping spot by noon on Friday you didn't get a parking spot. Then came Saturday morning, it sounded like a war had erupted and there was a red dot (before you had to wear orange) on every ridge. Those who couldn't hike were the vehicle drivers. They would take you to the top of the hill and let you hike down where they would pick you up that evening, and then tag the buck or doe that you had shot for them and then back to camp. 

Then there was the poaching. I personally believe that it was more prevalent back then than it is now. There were no questions asked when someone shot a big buck a couple days before or after the hunt. People would go into the Zions and Bryce Canyons areas along with Capital Reef National Monument (before it was a park) to hunt with very little worries about getting caught. 

Then came the big buck contest ran by every sporting goods dealers in the state. I know of one hunter that won a jeep for 3 years running without ever firing a shot at the buck that he had that won the contest. 

Boy were those the good old days.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> Then there was the poaching. I personally believe that it was more prevalent back then than it is now. There were no questions asked when someone shot a big buck a couple days before or after the hunt. People would go into the Zions and Bryce Canyons areas along with Capital Reef National Monument (before it was a park) to hunt with very little worries about getting caught.
> 
> Then came the big buck contest ran by every sporting goods dealers in the state. I know of one hunter that won a jeep for 3 years running without ever firing a shot at the buck that he had that won the contest.
> 
> Boy were those the good old days.


I would like to hear more details about this.
How did the guy not fire a shot on those contest winning bucks?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I am against cutting tags for the sake of over crowding at this point. 
I hope they don't cut any more tags as long as the agreed B/D ratios stays above the quota or "red".


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I would like to hear more details about this.
> How did the guy not fire a shot on those contest winning bucks?


Other people that are not in a contest shoot them. A hunter that I knew that is no longer with us shot 7-10 contest winning bucks off of the Henry Mountains in the late 70's-early 80's and he never did enter a contest but let the ones that were entered have the heads for the contest.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

As we learned a few years ago, over-crowding is merely a perception and no amount of data offered made any difference. Personally, I don't think the issue has as much to do with an area as it has to do with the trophy animals in the area. Those who want an isolated canyon are really after an isolated hunt for a specific animal that frequents the canyon and they don't like the competition. Those of us who aren't concerned about the size of the antlers or horns generally aren't concerned about the number of people we see in the neighborhood. Unfortunately (for us) the rules and regulations are headed in a direction that favors the trophy hunters at our expense.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

since I grew up hunting in the mid 60s I can attest to the fact that a lot of the things mentioned were indeed fact one thing is that unless you had a jeep or something of the kind most of the honey holes were indeed walk in are horse back areas, today a lot of the same spots are all but abandoned are hit only very lightly and the majority of the hunters are concentrating on areas they can ride there wheelers into. I was watching the annual opener last year and glassing the hard to get to areas and there was very very few folks in there in fact the one spot we had a annual foot race to get into was totally devoid of any hunters at all till about 9:00 in the morning and after Monday you would have thought the season was over not even much road traffic. to be honest im all but retired from the high country and spend most of my hunting time hunting the fringes of hayfields but hey im not after antlers anymore just winter venison and still pretty good at finding it. a lot of the practices in the 60s were just flat group hunting and im glad to see that trend has all but vanished but there was a lot of very good hunts and memories from back in those days also and for the most part all the true hunters in the general just waited out the first couple of days and than got serious about the hunts and the family atmosphere from the big family units hunting together is all but sadly gone by the wayside


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> As we learned a few years ago, over-crowding is merely a perception and no amount of data offered made any difference. Personally, I don't think the issue has as much to do with an area as it has to do with the trophy animals in the area. Those who want an isolated canyon are really after an isolated hunt for a specific animal that frequents the canyon and they don't like the competition. Those of us who aren't concerned about the size of the antlers or horns generally aren't concerned about the number of people we see in the neighborhood. Unfortunately (for us) the rules and regulations are headed in a direction that favors the trophy hunters at our expense.


Your so full of crap!
But thanks for keeping up your efforts with trying to divide us hunters against each other.

I grew up hunting the Oquirrh's (West Canyon and Camp Williams property). Where there were thousands of hunters on these lands. Now it is off limits to the public.
Where you could pull off and camp in any given meadow in the mountains. Now you can't do that and can only camp in a few specific areas.
This is where I can see some of the overcrowding, especially for big groups.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I've noticed at the southern RAC, anytime a unit has numbers that could justify an increase in tags, someone will resort to the crowding issue. Even with CWMU,s and development, crowding is less now.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Your so full of crap!
> But thanks for keeping up your efforts with trying to divide us hunters against each other.
> 
> I grew up hunting the Oquirrh's (West Canyon and Camp Williams property). Where there were thousands of hunters on these lands. Now it is off limits to the public.
> ...


 I beg your pardon, but the division between hunters existed long before I came on the social media scene or even before there was a social media scene. But in the past we were able to deal with it with no problem on either side because we could just choose to go somewhere else in the state (or region) if we thought our canyon was overcrowded. Now our options are quite limited because of regulations promoted by those who want a limited number of hunters in any one area.

Also, the births of the B&C, P&Y & SCI Clubs divided hunters much more than I or anyone else could ever have done. And they're also still doing it.

Then, as we've just read, there were the big buck contests that resulted in intense competition for shooting the "biggest" buck and some questionable shenanigans in the attempts to "win" a Jeep.

In fact, the founders of SFW saw some division over 20 years ago and rallied on the steps of the capitol to promote their views of how big game management should be done. I'll have to admit I don't know for sure what their ideas of wildlife management were back then, but I do know what their ideas of proper wildlife management are now and many aspects are not the same as mine nor the majority of Utah's deer hunters.

Maybe you think it foolish or mean of me to point it out in the manner I did, and maybe you have a point. I don't always come across as I intend to, but all hunters need to see what's happening in order for us to have a chance of reconciling the differences in the big game management plans that all hunters have to abide by.

Please don't make the mistake by thinking that I'm trying to shut down or get rid of B&C, P&Y, SCI, SFW, MDF, RMEF or any other hunting group. There's a place for them in the hunting scene and I hope they stick around "cause I happen to have belonged to several of them (and still do to a couple). But I don't want them pushing regulations that push or ease others out of the hunting scene who don't happen to agree with their management views, especially for deer. And that's what I see happening with increased buck to doe ratios, smaller units with a limited number of hunters, unsubstantiated claims of overcrowding, loss of statewide archery under some "fairness" claim and increased LE units. Not to mention the ongoing efforts to shorten seasons, add even more LE units and regulate the harvesting of bucks according to the number of antler points they carry.

Of course, I could just keep my nose, mouth and keyboard out of this issue and let it play out the way it's going or simply let all the hunters get together and solve it to the satisfaction of everybody. Yeah, that's the ticket! It's worked out so well so far!

And, of course, the DWR, RACs and Wildlife Board will continue to look out for the 240,000 or so big game hunters who don't have hunting high enough on their priority lists to currently belong to a wildlife group or show up to the meetings. They know those hunters are vital to the program, even though they never mention them when they brag about how vital the money from the Conservation and Expo Permit Programs is to the DWR's success.

In any case have some great hunts while and when you can, whatever your viewpoint.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I beg your pardon, but the division between hunters existed long before I came on the social media scene or even before there was a social media scene. But in the past we were able to deal with it with no problem on either side because we could just choose to go somewhere else in the state (or region) if we thought our canyon was overcrowded. Now our options are quite limited because of regulations promoted by those who want a limited number of hunters in any one area.
> 
> Also, the births of the B&C, P&Y & SCI Clubs divided hunters much more than I or anyone else could ever have done. And they're also still doing it.
> 
> ...


Good post!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't believe the birth of those clubs you listed are the problem but those who continue to do the finger pointing and yes, I have seen a lot of finger pointing from all sides.
I don't believe the smaller 30 units are the problem for over crowding either. Although they are smaller than the 5 regions, they are still really big and almost each unit contains hundreds upon hundreds of huntable canyons to pick from.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Kevin D said:


> A couple thoughts...
> 
> Those complaining of over crowding today have no historical perspective as to what deer hunting was like 30 or 40 years ago when 300,000 hunters took the field. There were times when you had to bring your own rock to sit on.
> 
> ...


Absolutely. My uncle, (name undisclosed of course) filled 23 tags plus his own one year in the early eighties. Way of life back then in the Basin. Nothing went to waste.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

ridgetop said:


> I don't believe the birth of those clubs you listed are the problem but those who continue to do the finger pointing and yes, I have seen a lot of finger pointing from all sides.
> I don't believe the smaller 30 units are the problem for over crowding either. Although they are smaller than the 5 regions, they are still really big and almost each unit contains hundreds upon hundreds of huntable canyons to pick from.


Some units have more private land than others. The Chalk Creek / Morgan Unit is one that comes to mind. There are a ton of CMWU and private land in the unit, which would concentrate the hunters in public areas. 6,800 permits for those limited areas.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/public/details_boundary.php?boundary_id=610

http://www.cwmuutahwildlife.org/northernregion.htm

In the week long war zone, the deer will move onto the private. It is just the nature of the beast.

To me a more feasible solution to over-crowding is splitting seasons like Colorado or longer seasons like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana.

The second week of a deer season on a Tuesday, would be the ticket.

Some people said before they like people pushing the deer for them, but I do not. There is nothing better than a mile long stalk of a deer that has no idea you are even there.

I think that limiting the amount of roads that you can drive in areas would also be beneficial. You can drive to a few ridges, but not drive to every ridge.

I think of the Panguitch unit when it comes to road closures. You can drive almost everywhere in that unit and I have seen people drive almost everywhere.

As far as the wildlife groups, I do believe that they have their place in hunting. They do a lot of good.

There are a few things that could help with the issue of overcrowding. It is not as bad as it once was, but it is not as good as it could be.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

muscle,

The chalk creek unit is way over objective. I agree that no additional tags are needed there. I hunt the public land in that unit when I don't draw anything in the south. More tags will not help the ratios there as 1) its possible they would not even sell (2) There are only about 20 square miles of public land and pumping more tags onto a relatively small area will not change the b/d ratios. 

Zion is a completely different gig. There is crowding on the sands, but there is still a lot of BLM on Lower Kolob, Smiths and other areas that have a fair amount of deer but don't get near the pressure. I accompanied a relative on a large ranch on East Zion two years ago. Tons of families hunt there. East Zion is 50/50 public private. I kept thinking we need to get off of the private to escape the crowd. The real mystery is why the deer don't migrate to the park. 107 more tags on the Zion unit would not overcrowd or move the needle one way or the other. Just kill a cougar and all losses would be negated from another 100 tags. Those who hate crowds have plenty of other public land options on Zion. 

Another mystery is why the deer migrated so early this year as hot as it was. People were filling tags on the sands opening day which isn't always the case.


----------



## High Desert (Sep 25, 2007)

I wouldn't call the lack of crowds a victory. Forcing hunters out of the system through increasing limitations is a recipe for slowly bleeding the hunting community to death. Where I hunted in the 70's, there were hunters on every hillside, there was nowhere to camp, the buck/doe ratio was probably lower than the current mandated levels but we were all excited to go hunting. We had fun. We wanted to go again next year. I guess we have all succumbed to the expectations of the pampered, entitled few who can't stomach the notion of someone else sharing the mountain, getting to "their spot" first, upsetting the preordained path of the deer they have patterned for two months and, heaven forbid, shooting "their deer" (or, worse yet, some commoner shooting a forkhorn that five years from now would have been their dream buck). The last few years in the same place I went in the 70's there has been almost no pressure. We see more hikers than hunters. We have good hunting but all I think is that we are the last men standing. We always worried that the anti-hunting crowd would force the end of hunting. Wrong. More hunters have been forced out of continuing our heritage by the limitations we place on ourselves than all the anti-hunting initiatives and propaganda combined. In the words of Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us."


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

provider said:


> muscle,
> 
> The chalk creek unit is way over objective. I agree that no additional tags are needed there. I hunt the public land in that unit when I don't draw anything in the south. More tags will not help the ratios there as 1) its possible they would not even sell (2) There are only about 20 square miles of public land and pumping more tags onto a relatively small area will not change the b/d ratios.


Agreed


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Agreed


Funny, when they were cutting tags the first time there was no such thing as CWMU's only land owners that charged tresspass fees. I distinctly remember in the northern region meeting all the big land owners pushing for more tags as they were afraid their paying customers would not get tags and they would lose money. Now they can just charge more for less hunters and don't have nearly the hassel dealing with a bunch of people.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

High Desert said:


> I wouldn't call the lack of crowds a victory. Forcing hunters out of the system through increasing limitations is a recipe for slowly bleeding the hunting community to death. Where I hunted in the 70's, there were hunters on every hillside, there was nowhere to camp, the buck/doe ratio was probably lower than the current mandated levels but we were all excited to go hunting. We had fun. We wanted to go again next year. I guess we have all succumbed to the expectations of the pampered, entitled few who can't stomach the notion of someone else sharing the mountain, getting to "their spot" first, upsetting the preordained path of the deer they have patterned for two months and, heaven forbid, shooting "their deer" (or, worse yet, some commoner shooting a forkhorn that five years from now would have been their dream buck). The last few years in the same place I went in the 70's there has been almost no pressure. We see more hikers than hunters. We have good hunting but all I think is that we are the last men standing. We always worried that the anti-hunting crowd would force the end of hunting. Wrong. More hunters have been forced out of continuing our heritage by the limitations we place on ourselves than all the anti-hunting initiatives and propaganda combined. In the words of Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us."


Excellent post High Desert! Those that complain about overcrowding here in the west likely haVe not had the pleasure (most, but not all) of hunting back east. What hunters back there would do for the millions of acres that are open to public hunting here in UT and elsewhere! Whenever I hear "overcrowding" arguments here, I think of two things 1) there is an agenda the individual is pushing or 2) they only hunt on opening weekends and likely from a road.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

MWScott,

Nice of you to give them an out, but I have yet to see one yell "overcrowded" who only hunts weekends and close to the road. Virtually all of them have an agenda. Instead of simply saying - "I prefer more mature bucks, higher b/d, ratios, and less hunting competition" they say "its not safe." I've got to hand it to them though, their message will resonate loud and clear with moms. The classic "you'll shoot your eye out" mother bb gun block isn't going to work on this hunter!!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I don't believe the birth of those clubs you listed are the problem but those who continue to do the finger pointing and yes, I have seen a lot of finger pointing from all sides.
> I don't believe the smaller 30 units are the problem for over crowding either. Although they are smaller than the 5 regions, they are still really big and almost each unit contains hundreds upon hundreds of huntable canyons to pick from.


I also don't believe the birth of those clubs is the problem. Nor even the division of hunters per se! It's, as I indicted, the insatiable desire to force all hunters to give in to the "needs" of the trophy mentality, or haven't you noticed who it is that is trying to make all these social changes?

We used to deal with overcrowding amongst ourselves in the field under more friendly circumstances. But now the issue is the subject of heated debates and proposals at the RACs and Wildlife Board meetings and the reason given for cutting buck tags and keeping hunters out of the sport and dismissing sound science. And that can only happen so long before others will begin to resist. Some of us are now resisting!

FWIW, I also hunted the Oquirrhs, but further north and at a different time (I think). I grew up in Garfield (when there was a Garfield) and Magna and I had an uncle who lived in Lake Point on the road that parallels the mountain and another uncle who lived in Granger (when there was a Granger). If we didn't fill all deer tags on our family camp near Scipio or Indianola or Richfield or ? on opening weekend, we would hunt either ****'s Canyon on the Magna side or Big Canyon of the Lake Point side. Sometimes we would encounter hunters in ****'s Canyon, but never in Big Canyon because it is really steep and the road only goes up part way. There were big bucks on top and it was isolated, but those were never reasons we hunted there. We preferred Big Canyon because we would have an early big small-farm breakfast at Uncle Dick's house, jump in his 2 wheel drive truck, go to the mouth of the canyon as far up as the truck would take us and then hoof it the rest of the way with one group on one canyon slope and another group on the other canyon slope where we could see any deer that moved. The goal was to shoot our bucks and get back to Uncle Dick's in time for lunch, so the size of the antlers were immaterial. Sometimes we never even made it to the top before filling our tags. In fact, the first kill had as much bragging rights as the biggest deer, just like our family fishing trips. We eventually quit doing that when the hike wasn't fun anymore for the dads and we then begin to hunt South Willow were the road goes quite a ways in and there's a trail. Of course there were more hunters there but the hunts were just as fun. The word "overcrowded" never came up!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

It seems like a few people out there are bringing up this "overcrowding" issue because they can. The process we now have allows people to express their thoughts or just complain about what ever is the hot topic of the day(like these forums).
Some people will never be satisfied.
I for one would have to admit that those hunts of the 70s and 80s were very crowded but we knew no different.
Now people are realizing that if they complain about a certain hunting condition, it just might change but not always for the better.
Since the mid 90s. I have enjoyed the hunting condition better during the last 3 years than I have the previous 15 but that's just me.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

ridgetop said:


> It seems like a few people out there are bringing up this "overcrowding" issue because they can. The process we now have allows people to express their thoughts or just complain about what ever is the hot topic of the day(like these forums).
> Some people will never be satisfied.
> I for one would have to admit that those hunts of the 70s and 80s were very crowded but we knew no different.
> Now people are realizing that if they complain about a certain hunting condition, it just might change but not always for the better.
> Since the mid 90s. I have enjoyed the hunting condition better during the last 3 years than I have the previous 15 but that's just me.


+1. I personally like a little overcrowding. Its good to see my fellow hunters on the mountain and discuss what I or they have been experiencing. I dont know of any other activity where you can come across a complete stranger and all the sudden have a buddy it seems like you have known for years. In my 30 years of hunting i have yet to have one of these conversations end without wishing each other good luck. I also have had a better overall hunting experience the last few years even though i havent always filled my tag and i usually take the first forky I see. What has been making me more and more nervous is the potential of not drawing a tag and staying home for the deer hunt one of these years.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

You know, I would have to say that my perspective on "overcrowding" and what is important in deer hunting has changed over the last 30 years. Back in the 80's when I started deer hunting, there were a whole lot more hunters...and yet not a lot of people complained about the number of hunters in the field opening weekend. It was crowded friday night getting a camp spot. Saturday was full on crowded but you saw a lot of deer movement because of the pressure. The private land below was open for a minimal trespass fee, but the hunt was the same dates so it didn't become a mass safe haven for a migration of deer. 
But the thing was, we didn't complain. We were happy to be there. It was just a fun experience, surrounded by family and friends, and there were always a few of us who got a deer opening morning. Traditions and skills were passed on to the next generation and dang, it was a fun time. if you managed to get a deer that was just kind of a bonus.

Now, here we are 2015. No where near as crowded. For the most part, the family deer camp is gone. Once in a while you get lucky and draw with the 3 other people in your group application. We're a LOT more serious about getting a deer, because hey, without the friends, family and other benefits, what else have you got. And you know, I admit, the results for just harvesting a deer have gotten good. I haven't had a deer hunt in the last ten years where I didn't at least have the opportunity to harvest a buck, and usually at least one chance at a 3 point or better.

But there is one thing I have noticed that seems to have increased dramatically since then. The amount of bitching and complaining. Back then we were just happy to be out there and enjoying a tradition. Now when I run into other hunters in the field, I hear about how BAD it's gotten, and how poorly managed the range is for animals. And I'll be the first to admit, I've shared my occasional gripe as well, including this one. but if you're complaining about over crowding, honestly you have no idea what you're even talking about. Walk a little farther, the crowd will lessen. Pick a steeper hill. The crowd will lessen. Really want a deer? break out a topo map and ask yourself, where on here is the crappiest place to pack a deer out of? Bam, there's your sign. 

But, I'll be the first one to tell you, I'd trade all the crowding back in a heartbeat for the way it used to be, the experience of "Deer Camp" proper, and the sharing with friends and family. It was a lot happier experience, a lot less complaining, and a hell of a lot more fun memories.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

"We're a LOT more serious about getting a deer, because hey, without the friends, family and other benefits, what else have you got?"

Now that is a very true statement that could use some reflecting on. Great post WasatchOutdoors!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

3arabians said:


> +I dont know of any other activity where you can come across a complete stranger and all the sudden have a buddy it seems like you have known for years.


I ran into a guy this past season I've never seen before and we got to talking... found out he is a UWN member. When I mentioned my name he just said "you post alot". :mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

MWScott72 said:


> "We're a LOT more serious about getting a deer, because hey, without the friends, family and other benefits, what else have you got?"
> 
> Now that is a very true statement that could use some reflecting on. Great post WasatchOutdoors!


Very true. 2010 and 2011 I did not fill my deer tag after getting one 6/7 years. I thought perhaps im getting old, lost my touch, or didnt hunt hard enough, poor scouting etc. In retrospect I had/have become way or too serious about getting a deer and have found that its mostly just me and my twin brother on the deer hunt anymore because we are both obsessed. Unfortunately, the deer hunt doesnt allow for the family deer camp anymore. Me and my bro started to have the same outlook towards elk hunting but had a come to jesus moment last year and decided we are taking both of our family's on the spike hunt for elk and make a family event out of it. Im looking forward to it big time!!!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If I see more hunters then buck it's overcrowded. I recall seeing hundreds of hunters a day back when. But I also recall seeing hundreds of buck a day also and never thought a thing about overcrowding. 

Kinda like a bear at a good salmon hole. I can tolerate crowds so long as there's plenty to share. Its a competition issue to me.


----------

