# What would you change?



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

It appears that more change is likely on the way with the formation of a technology committee. I'm curious what everyone thinks. What if any technologies should be restricted or banned?


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

It’s always amazing to me, so see guys volunteer so fast to cut their own throats and give up rights and freedom. Technology has so little to do with limiting population numbers and growth. Until bucks and bulls start giving birth to fawns and calves, it won’t have any positive impact to throw away our tools and abilities. If you volunteer to throw away freedoms and they get taken. You won’t get those back when/if it’s realized it didn’t fix anything. Deer numbers will still be a disgrace, state wide, and you’ll be hunting with spears and slingshots. Don’t be so fast to ask for a list of restrictions all in the name of selfish greed. Of course we all want a big deer. But our general hunts aren’t managed for age class. They are managed for opportunity. If you want to restrict technology on LE units, im all for it. But restrictions on general units with hopes of growing bigger deer is stupid and selfish. It’s nothing more than that.

we need to put this energy towards things that will grow populations. Focus on the real limiting factors, solve some of those issues and I bet you see numbers increase. Honestly our most limiting factor right now is the drought. If we can get out of that cycle, you’ll see numbers increase without any action on our part.

and before anyone throws out the development on winter range argument. It’s only valid in 15% of the state. From ogden to santaquin, you have somewhat of a valid concern. The the rest of the 85% of utah has no winter range development, and the numbers are still trash. According to your logic, they should be thriving everywhere else.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm fine with some restrictions, as long as we don't over-correct to the point we increase wounded game and loss. 

For example, for Muzzleloaders I'd be fine with a 2x limit on power but no more. If we end up with the 1x restriction so be it, I killed an awful lot of deer with 1x. I think a Open Site restriction might be detrimental, as I don't think the average modern hunter is going to spend the time being proficient with it. Also, my aging eyes make open sights difficult.

But, I think there will always be people who take that "hail mary" unethical shot with whatever weapon / restriction: too far, under the wrong conditions, beyond the shooters ability etc etc and wound game. I'd rather that person have more technology and kill / retrieve 1 animal, than wound a couple with a less proficient weapon.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Bux n Dux said:


> Technology has so little to do with limiting population numbers and growth.


This is a great comment that I think people need to keep in mind.

_IF_ technology and high harvest from hunters is the primary reason for herd decline... then why aren't deer herds exploding in our national parks and other places where hunting is not allowed? Its not due to traffic accidents & road kill, most national parks have speed limits well under what the rest of the state has.

What the parks do have in common with the rest of the state is weather patterns and predators. IMO, those are the two biggest factors affecting herd populations.

-DallanC


----------



## Ecpk91 (Jun 13, 2018)

This is why I was against trail camera regulations, baiting, where does it end? When you hurt what one chooses they seek a pound of flesh to show you what it feels like. Now look rifle hunters and muzzle hunters are next with "technology restrictions", where does it end? Instead of compromise we get bowhunters vs muzzle loaders vs rifle hunters..... spear and sling shot win, I better start practicing.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

We need a "Why" before we start making rules. It obviously has nothing to do with harvest rates or tags. If they say "If we remove the scope law and restrict ML to 1x or open, we can increase tags by 15-20% long term" then that would be different. They can't though. 

I have bounced around so much on the issue, but I come back to the more accurate and more lethal weapon (pun?), the better it is for the animal. The same people will always shoot outside their comfort zone. I don't see the benefit in hold over guessing on a burris 3-9x vs using a range marked turret on a leupold 4-16x. The animal has a better chance of a clean kill if you are accurate. Same with bows - dropping poundage or requiring trad bows likely just means we have a bunch of porcupines running around. 

Others have shown antique weapons that have performed at very long ranges. 

If I were to go off *emotion alone*, I would look at:


Restricting bows to 70-75lbs - though most can't draw 80lb plus anyways so it self restricts
Moving away from the Rem Ultra/Gunwerks type ML
Grain restrictions at 150g or less?
The primer-ignition system is BS. Something requiring the powder/pellet have direct contact with the barrel only. I don't know exactly but these are basically a single shot rifle with a disassembled cartridge. 
A gunwerks employee flew in on a Saturday (after the ML hunt started on a Wed) and met up with Mossback to shoot a 200+ on the Henry's at 500+ yards and was back on a plane the same day. Not only was he not even here for the opener, but less than 24 hours and 2.5-5x the distance any average joe is shooting. This impacts only a small percent of us though because it's a $10k ML, but it definitely isn't hunting.

Any Weapon
It's literally called "any weapon". I wouldn't change anything


If you want to have "Primitive hunts" then have those and make different restrictions. That's not what these other hunts are.


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

Agree with a lot of what has been said here - we are trying to address a biological issue with supposed social and emotional solutions. If the DWR, using sound data, determines we can kill 100 deer in a given unit, why does it matter how they are killed or what tools are used to kill them if done legally? We should focus instead on how to keep our herds healthy so that 100 tags could be increased to 200 if the landscape allows, while also looking to maximize the # of people that want an experience trying to harvest those 200 deer.

I believe we should put a lot more focus & energy on the following rather than on technologies, and methods of hunting:

WHEN people hunt not necessarily HOW they hunt
Let's address season dates to maximize hunter opportunity while being mindful of success rates (e.g., move the most successful weapon out of the rut for elk). People can still hunt with their gadgets and tech if they want, but they will have a much harder time drawing a tag with higher success rates. More primitive weapons have a higher # of tags and opportunity. This is how every state BUT Utah does it for the most part. Time for us to get with the program!

HOW DWR Biologists manage herds
Move to bull to cow ratio rather than age objective for elk
Aggressive effort to get more reliable data - MANDATORY harvest reporting for ALL tags (General season included with LE/OIL)
Allow biologists to set tag #'s based on actual data and not social/economic pressures

HOW animals survive
Build more fences on roadways to cut down collisions
Focused habitat restoration
Guzzler's and access to water or other creative solutions to minimize drought impact
Serious predator control with incentives (bounty, shoot a cougar w/ deer tag, etc.)
Continued and focused collar studies on fawns, does, and bucks to understand mortality and improve survival (primarily for fawns/does)


If we start putting energy behind these items and hope mother nature is kind at the same time, we should start moving the needle on our herds in my mind and then every one is happy!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Folks have used the 'we will wound more animals' argument when they argued against archery seasons 70 years ago. It was a lazy emotional argument then and it is now. 

If increasing deer numbers was easy and we had the answers then we would be doing it now. It costs a lot of money and most important we can't magically undue the drought.

*Weapon restrictions are not about increasing deer numbers, they are about increasing the amount of tags issued to hunters while killing the same number of deer*. That's it. It's not the only way to increase tags while killing the same # of deer--season changes/limitations are another one. Technology limitations are cheap for the state. All the other 'save the deer' ideas are expensive and most uncontrollable--see drought.

Folks argue this is a freedom issue, it's better framed as a choice issue: you can have all the tech in the world and have the freedom to hunt once every 5 years or limit your tech, drop the harvest rate and hunt every year. Freedom has a cost and lot's of hunters love to sit on the sidelines, but at least we have our toys. Merica'! 

If the weapon restriction isn't cutting the harvest rate then restrict it more until it does. If open sight muzzy harvest is the same as scoped then the restriction doesn't matter. Weapon restrictions only make sense when we can issue more tags--otherwise you're spinning your wheels.

Let's stop with the slippery slope fallacies though--again those are lazy arguments

That's my 2 cents, blaze away


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

RandomElk16 said:


> We need a "Why" before we start making rules. It obviously has nothing to do with harvest rates or tags. If they say "If we remove the scope law and restrict ML to 1x or open, we can increase tags by 15-20% long term" then that would be different. They can't though.
> 
> I have bounced around so much on the issue, but I come back to the more accurate and more lethal weapon (pun?), the better it is for the animal. The same people will always shoot outside their comfort zone. I don't see the benefit in hold over guessing on a burris 3-9x vs using a range marked turret on a leupold 4-16x. The animal has a better chance of a clean kill if you are accurate. Same with bows - dropping poundage or requiring trad bows likely just means we have a bunch of porcupines running around.
> 
> ...


I gave you the ‘why’ reason in my post. It’s selfish greed. You hop on Instagram or Facebook, and you see people holding giants. People get jealous and think “why can’t I shoot giants? That’s not fair!” And immediately go after technology as the reason for them not shooting a 180 buck opening morning, off the road, from their SxS. It’s never occurred to them that the person holding the giant has spent 4 months scouting every weekend since the draw results, or their entire life hunting the same spot and with that knowledge, has earned a deer of that size. The people wanting restrictions the most are of the ‘hand me my trophy’ mentality. No one wants to earn it or put in the work. They just see 10 does opening morning and get mad they didn’t see a buck of B&C standards, then get even more upset when they see someone else kill one and they didn’t.

selfish greed. It’s nothing more. Some smart guys will try to spin it as a fair chase issue and we need restrictions because of that (bait, cams, etc). But if we really want it fair Chase, we’d have to walk from
Where the pavement ends, only using self made bows, wearing a leather but flap, getting water from mountain streams and eating berries we found a long the way. There is not a method of hunting these days that is ‘fair chase’. Just using our trucks to get there, nice boots, camo and using binos to spot them with isn’t fair for the animals. Then we open a whole other can of worms when discussing the use of any kind of weapon manufactured after 1898 to kill them with.

it’s not fair and hasn’t been fair for about 100 years. Scope or no scope, it doesn’t matter to the animals being hunted. It only matters to the mature deer or bucks that normally wouldn’t make it to a mature age, defined by his rack in inches.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

If they take our magnified scopes from muzzleloaders, they better do the same with high powered rifles. So what if some guys can shoot 500 yards with a muzzleloader, there are guys shooting 1000 yards with rifles. No difference to me. It’s stupid, there is no data to support banning magnified scopes on muzzleloaders.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

If you really think this is about increasing tag numbers and killing less deer I would propose the following.
Use the current weapon definitions for the HAMS hunts on ALL hunts. Limiting the current any weapon seasons to handguns and shotguns without scopes would by far reduce the success of those hunts.

My guess is this would last about as long as the 5 year deer and elk plans.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Fowlmouth said:


> If they take our magnified scopes from muzzleloaders, they better do the same with high powered rifles. So what if some guys can shoot 500 yards with a muzzleloader, there are guys shooting 1000 yards with rifles. No difference to me. It’s stupid, there is no data to support banning magnified scopes on muzzleloaders.


Banning scopes on muzzleloaders does nothing except set things up for a better rifle deer hunt 3 weeks later. That’s it.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

middlefork said:


> If you really think this is about increasing tag numbers and killing less deer I would propose the following.
> Use the current weapon definitions for the HAMS hunts on ALL hunts. Limiting the current any weapon seasons to handguns and shotguns without scopes would by far reduce the success of those hunts.
> 
> My guess is this would last about as long as the 5 year deer and elk plans.


Eh, shotguns are still pretty dang effective. Throw an extender tube on a 20 automatic… you can track down a running deer in 15 shots pretty easily.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

MooseMeat said:


> Eh, shotguns are still pretty dang effective. Throw an extender tube on a 20 automatic… you can track down a running deer in 15 shots pretty easily.


Maybe so. They would still be range limited.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

MooseMeat said:


> Eh, shotguns are still pretty dang effective. Throw an extender tube on a 20 automatic… you can track down a running deer in 15 shots pretty easily.


Ha! That’s probably why the tags issued is really low while they figure that out. I’d be pissed burning 10 points and armed with my bow or muzzy while looking at a big buck and all the sudden some guy comes along.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Maybe so. They would still be range limited.


You wouldnt believe how far 00Buckshot will knock down a deer.

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I'm probably completely alone in my thinking, but that's fine, nothing new with that.
As tech goes, I look at the overall picture.
Regardless of season/weapon. Some level of skill should be involved.
My personal view is that the more advanced the weapon, the easier it is to connect a projectile. (Bullet, miniball, arrow)

To me, a scoped rifle, is the most advanced weapon, technologically speaking. However, it should involve some skill in using it. These new computerized scopes that allow someone with little to no trigger time or training to land 1000 yard shots because it does everything for you except pull the trigger? Yeah, maybe not on that. Removes all the skill.

The further down you go, the more difficult I think it is, to connect. Basically:
Rifle -> Muzzy -> Archery
Rifle being the easiest to connect, archery being the hardest. Muzzy, the in between. My thing is this, the more primitive you get, the less people you should be seeing in the field. I view having more of the mountain to yourself, as a reward for taking the harder hunt. By harder, i mean, difficulty in connecting with the projectile. Or in other words, how close you have to get to what your hunting. Generally speaking, getting closer, is harder. At least for most people. Be honest, for the most part, stalking to within 300 yards to make your shot, is easier then stalking into 40 or 20 yards.

A muzzy that shoots as far as a center fire rifle defeats the entire paradigm.

And come on, lets be honest, whats your average rifle zero? Probably 200 to 300 yards. What's your average muzzy zero? Probably 100 to 150 yards. Half the distance of rifle. What's your longest pin typically set at for a bow for most hunters? Probably 50-60 yards. Again, half the distance.

2 cents from an idiot tossing 150 dollars at DWR every elk season ever since they came out with the multiseason tag.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> You wouldnt believe how far 00Buckshot will knock down a deer.
> 
> -DallanC


Ok. I probably don't. Please educate me. How many 200+ yard shots.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Lone_Hunter said:


> I'm probably completely alone in my thinking, but that's fine, nothing new with that.
> As tech goes, I look at the overall picture.
> Regardless of season/weapon. Some level of skill should be involved.
> My personal view is that the more advanced the weapon, the easier it is to connect a projectile. (Bullet, miniball, arrow)
> ...


I kind of agree with you.

But according to Airborn it is all about having more company in the field.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

middlefork said:


> But according to Airborn it is all about having more company in the field.


"It's all about getting more tags and hunting more"

There--I fixed it for ya 

I swear to buddha that some hunters don't actually enjoy hunting! I'm trying to get get you guys in the field with more tags and you're fightin me

I did a quick and dirty average harvest % for last season (roughly averaged all the unit together-not perfect but quick and easy):

Archery success: 18%
Rifle success: 40%

Think of all the tags we could issue if we restricted the rifle hunt tech to where the success rate was at 20-25%. You wouldn't be sitting on your a$$ for 3-5 years waiting for that deer tag would ya--nope you would be out hunting deer.

Utah is growing like a freakin weed gentlemen--either get on board the limited weapons train or sit on your a$$--it's your choice. Bunch of frickin a$$ sitters--it's only offensive if it's true!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Lone_Hunter said:


> I'm probably completely alone in my thinking, but that's fine, nothing new with that.
> As tech goes, I look at the overall picture.
> Regardless of season/weapon. Some level of skill should be involved.
> My personal view is that the more advanced the weapon, the easier it is to connect a projectile. (Bullet, miniball, arrow)
> ...


How much experience do you have with 1000 yard shots using a “long range” rifle?

how much experience do you have using a “long range” muzzleloader?

the way you talk about how easy it is, I’m going to say: not much, if any.

it’s not that easy with a rifle. And it gets harder when you start shooting muzzleloaders that have the ballistics that compare to someone throwing a rock. The amount of guys possessing the guns and skills who are accurately using these weapons effectively while hunting is probably not even 10%. It’s not near the problem most want to fantasize about. It’s a non-issue in the whole “limiting factor” of herd numbers.

you expect to have less company on a “primitive hunt”… so please explain to us how that equates to more opportunities for everyone else. By that argument right there, you’ll have much less support for restrictions from the public than you have right now.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> "It's all about getting more tags and hunting more"
> 
> There--I fixed it for ya
> 
> ...


I still don’t understand why utah issues 50% of their tag numbers to rifle hunters. It needs to be 35%, 35%, 30%. Archery, muzzleloader, rifle. You could do 60%, 25%, 15% and issue way more tags. But utah hunters want their cake and to eat it too. They are fine with restrictions and tag cuts, as long as they get their tag every year. Imagine how many more LE tags we could issue every year if we cut the rifle permits. And change season dates. That’ll never happen though. Muzzleloader scopes, cams and bait are sure to fix the problem and we will be back to the glory days of deer hunting in just a couple years, I’m sure 😉


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

I’d hate my chances if the only way I could hunt every year was flinging sticks. 

But, if it was open sights only for rifle hunters, I wouldn’t mind it at all. I’d actually welcome it after I went to the optometrist and got my prescription. Getting old sucks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Slockem (Nov 29, 2016)

This technology abolishment is the Animal Right Activist and the Humane Society playing their long game, take a way trail cameras...take a way way long range technology...take a way hunting! Members on this forum have a hobby, hunting and fishing...the people in these organizations have a hobby, stop people from hunting animals. Trail cameras and scoped muzzle loaders are good enough encroachments on our rights for them right now, but they will come for more. The people in these organizations are not just from Utah or California, this is a world wide effort. They have people, money, and methods, and have been doing this in other states and countries, now they have started their work in Utah. Check the more liberal states hunting changes, where there are more of these anti hunters, Washington, Colorado, California, this anti-hunting movement is growing! Bottom line, why is government telling us what we can or can not do in our sport, don't let them gain traction here, this smaller victories will help them establish organizations and gain influence over our political leaders, tell them to butt out, don't vote for the next technology ban.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I don't care what they do. If I draw a tag this year, it's 99.9% likely I wont participate in the DWR's Elephant hunts in Utah anymore. They haven't shown me anything great they have done in my 40+ years of hunting. Except diminish the deer population, throw more LE Elk tags out to try and push people through a point system that's so bottlenecked at this point...... Well, that's all I have to say about the "changes". LMAO!!!!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Airborne said:


> "It's all about getting more tags and hunting more"
> 
> There--I fixed it for ya
> 
> ...


No offence taken.
Did I not say limit any weapon to pistol/shotgun only? Maybe you missed that?

I've quietly gone about my business hunting big game in Utah since 1966 every year. I've watched deer hunters go from 200,000 + to next years 73,000. That decline has little to nothing to do with tech. I admit I'm a piss poor killer, been a long time since I killed a deer. I love to hunt. I like the ability to decide how and what to shoot. Maybe I'm too particular. I don't really care what others think.

Until the decline of survival of fawns and yearlings can be corrected everything else is a band aid on a arterial bleed.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

elkhunterUT said:


> I believe we should put a lot more focus & energy on the following rather than on technologies, and methods of hunting:
> 
> WHEN people hunt not necessarily HOW they hunt
> Let's address season dates to maximize hunter opportunity while being mindful of success rates (e.g., move the most successful weapon out of the rut for elk). People can still hunt with their gadgets and tech if they want, but they will have a much harder time drawing a tag with higher success rates. More primitive weapons have a higher # of tags and opportunity. This is how every state BUT Utah does it for the most part. Time for us to get with the program!


I'm not sold on this one. I feel like I hear it mostly from archery hunters who are seeking to get themselves hunt dates during the rut. However, if Utah did shuffle season dates around and give the rut to the archers, archery success rates would go up, which would only lead to the following:

1. More people taking up archery so they can have a chance at prime season dates
2. Fewer tags issued to compensate for the higher success rates

Both of which equate to a much harder draw, fewer permits overall, and more point creep. Utah can give as many archery tags as it does because it's not an easy hunt. I think it would be unwise to change that. Moving the rifle seasons out of the rut might decrease success rates some, but I'm not 100% convinced that's the case either. There are many units where success is comparable on the early and late rifle hunts and some where success on the late hunt is actually better.

The great part about the early rifle hunts is that they draw a large number of applicants, which leaves fewer people left to compete for other seasons and weapon types. That works out well for my draw odds because I don't apply for those tags. 

I might also be willing to entertain the idea of moving hunts from ALL weapon types out of the rut and giving the elk a break during the time they're most vulnerable to hunting. Any other approach just comes down to catering to one group of hunters vs. another.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Clarq said:


> I might also be willing to entertain the idea of moving hunts from ALL weapon types out of the rut and giving the elk a break during the time they're most vulnerable to hunting. Any other approach just comes down to catering to one group of hunters vs. another.


How come the early (rut) LE elk hunt harvest success rates are nearly the same as the late season harvest success rates? It's true--look it up for yourself. Move the rifle rut hunt out of the rut and about the same number of bulls are killed. It doesn't improve your draw odds in any measurable way. It's the red herring of Utah hunting myths.

Data matters folks and your gut feel on a lot of these ideas don't solve sh!t


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Airborne said:


> How come the early (rut) LE elk hunt harvest success rates are nearly the same as the late season harvest success rates? It's true--look it up for yourself. Move the rifle rut hunt out of the rut and about the same number of bulls are killed. It doesn't improve your draw odds in any measurable way. It's the red herring of Utah hunting myths.


I essentially said the same thing in the preceding paragraphs of that same post. 😉 

The main advantage of stopping all hunting during the rut would be to eliminate the infighting between the archery hunters, rifle hunters, and whatever other special interests that push for rut hunts and maybe make us all work a little harder for our success.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Airborne said:


> How come the early (rut) LE elk hunt harvest success rates are nearly the same as the late season harvest success rates? It's true--look it up for yourself. Move the rifle rut hunt out of the rut and about the same number of bulls are killed. It doesn't improve your draw odds in any measurable way. It's the red herring of Utah hunting myths.
> 
> Data matters folks and your gut feel on a lot of these ideas don't solve sh!t


It’s the weapon type that dictates the success, not the season. Make the late LE hunt archery and you’ll see success fall through the floor. But imagine how many you’d push through the points system. Lots of guys just get caught up in having a tag. I wish they’d get rid of the late hunts for rifle and make them a primitive muzzleloader or archery hunt. I think bulls are more vulnerable in November with a rifle than they are in September with a rifle.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Airborne said:


> Folks have used the 'we will wound more animals' argument when they argued against archery seasons 70 years ago. It was a lazy emotional argument then and it is now.
> 
> Let's stop with the slippery slope fallacies though--again those are lazy arguments


Lol.. Someone hasn't spent much time on the extended. Give these bozo's a trad bow and I don't see it improving. If your stance is that accuracy doesn't improve harvest, then all this other stuff is moot. Technology isn't just increase shot attempts alone - it's the accuracy on those. Hardly a lazy argument. 

On the flip of that, lots of compound guys still take horrible shots despite having a more accurate, or I should say more easily accurate, weapon.



Airborne said:


> Think of all the tags we could issue if we restricted the rifle hunt tech to where the success rate was at 20-25%. You wouldn't be sitting on your a$$ for 3-5 years waiting for that deer tag would ya--nope you would be out hunting deer.


LMAO in what world could you restrict rifles enough that they have lower success rates than the muzzleloaders did BEFORE any power scope was allowed? Open site and 1x ML success rates were greater than 20%. That would just mean **** herd health. You could allow open site single shots or levers only and it would still surpass that.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

MooseMeat said:


> I think bulls are more vulnerable in November with a rifle than they are in September with a rifle.


I do too. Only down sides is bulls tend to be broken up and they don't holler out "hey dummy look over here"!

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I would not be in favor of restricting weapons at this point. Yes, there are advances in technology that have allowed some people to successfully kill game from a greater distance with a bow, muzzy, and rifle. But at this point, I just don’t think that needs to be restricted.

I am totally fine with the bait ban. We don’t need to be bating big game. Period. I was torn on trail cams. I don’t mind people using regular cameras at all, but the data transmission cell cams seem utterly ridiculous to me. I wish they’d ban those entirely. But I don’t think we need to restrict regular cams at this point. Yes, people take it too far and some units have become a bit stupid for them. That’s how it goes, I guess.

As for restricting technology further on the weapons? I’m not for it. I don’t think it will help much, if at all. I don’t like a regulation just for the sake of regulating.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Any deer ‘shooter’ can kill a buck at 400+ yrds.
Only a real deer ‘hunter’ can kill one at less than 40 yards.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

The change I would like is not technology related.
I want to get to the root of our problem, helping more little deer become big deer.
I know draught is rough on deer, I know habitat fragmentation is rough on deer.
That is why ‘they’ need our help more than ever.
I want to see more predators take a dirt nap.
The Coyote program is a step in the right direction but not enough of a big step.
We need to do something more with Bears and Cougars and the toll they take on fawns.
Let a deer hunter harvest a Bear or Cougar, during the deer season, instead of a deer if he/she chooses to do so.
But, he/she must notch their deer tag on said predator.
These predators are so dang sneaky it is unbelievable how many are out there, and each one is capable of killing who knows how many deer a year.
We are worried about a human trying to kill one deer a year, that is a drop in the bucket versus what these other three predators kill.
I wish I could find it but we had a trail cam pic of a Coyote carrying a screaming fawn in it’s mouth that passed in front of the lens.
Build the deer herd back enough that the predators can kill what they want and still let us have our tags.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Limiting technology has little to do with harvest ratios or herd health. It is 100% a social issue. Most fair take rules have nothing to do with herd health either, it's about taking an animal in an ethical manner that provides the animal with a reasonable advantage. It also has something to do the with the perception hunting and it's value to the non-hunting public. Most non hunters are not bleeding heart PETA supporters. They have no issue with hunters and allow us to do what we do, even thought their right to the animals we hunt is equal to our own. If the perception of what we do shifts dramatically then we have real fight on our hands. 

Why is it that it is now nearly impossible to find harvest pictures with a guy sitting on the animal he just killed? That was common place when I started hunting in the late 80's. Why don't we see trucks driving down Main street with their recent harvest tied to the front bumper or hood for everyone to see? My dad tells me stories about that happening when he started hunting. Because those practices are now considered distasteful and we don't feel it reflects positively on the hunter nor does it show respect to the animal that was harvested. That is the point behind considering our actions in the process of pursuing game. Does our method of take show respect for the animal we pursue?

Here are some examples of why trail cameras are being restricted or banned in several states...







































I'm not a fan of restrictions just for the heck of it. I do believe it is important to consider what is currently in use and what may possible be coming down the line. 

How about a range finder that connects via bluetooth to your rifle scope and automatically sets your reticle for you?
KILO3000BDX 10x42 mm

Or maybe a step beyond that, a scope enabled with a range finder that does the same?
Laser Rangefinder: Eliminator LaserScope

Or laser guided bulllets? Not available for non military use yet, but most this stuff works it's way into the private sector eventually. 
Laser-Guided Bullets Will Change The Future Of Warfare

Bow mounted rangefinders?
Vendetta 2

These are issues worth discussion and shouldn't just be dismissed because it's infringing on how I personally like to hunt or what I consider my right.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Bux n Dux said:


> I gave you the ‘why’ reason in my post. It’s selfish greed. You hop on Instagram or Facebook, and you see people holding giants. People get jealous and think “why can’t I shoot giants? That’s not fair!” And immediately go after technology as the reason for them not shooting a 180 buck opening morning, off the road, from their SxS. It’s never occurred to them that the person holding the giant has spent 4 months scouting every weekend since the draw results, or their entire life hunting the same spot and with that knowledge, has earned a deer of that size. The people wanting restrictions the most are of the ‘hand me my trophy’ mentality. No one wants to earn it or put in the work. They just see 10 does opening morning and get mad they didn’t see a buck of B&C standards, then get even more upset when they see someone else kill one and they didn’t.
> 
> selfish greed. It’s nothing more. Some smart guys will try to spin it as a fair chase issue and we need restrictions because of that (bait, cams, etc). But if we really want it fair Chase, we’d have to walk from
> Where the pavement ends, only using self made bows, wearing a leather but flap, getting water from mountain streams and eating berries we found a long the way. There is not a method of hunting these days that is ‘fair chase’. Just using our trucks to get there, nice boots, camo and using binos to spot them with isn’t fair for the animals. Then we open a whole other can of worms when discussing the use of any kind of weapon manufactured after 1898 to kill them with.
> ...


I'm not sure that I'm on one side of the fence or the other at this point, but the idea that all the guys who advocate for technology limitations are lazy a$$es with a "hand me my trophy" mentality is a very interesting take. Almost seems kinda backwards.

I also believe it's a bit of a stretch to assume that a person who advocates for tech limitations is motivated purely by jealousy of pics of big animals on insta. It almost sounds like something someone with an Eric Cheeser shrine in their room would say. I'm seeing valid arguments for both sides of the debate here, but these two points of yours fall kinda flat in my opinion.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

MrShane said:


> Any deer ‘shooter’ can kill a buck at 400+ yrds.
> Only a real deer ‘hunter’ can kill one at less than 40 yards.


Outside of maybe chastizing road hunting, unless maybe the dude just can't physically hike, in which case he gets a free pass in my book - ive come to dislike the general comment of "Real hunters...... blah blah etc etc". We've got this flatbill on my wifes side of the family who made the comment, "Real hunters hunt from tree stands" at sunday family dinner. This guy hadn't had to work for anything as far as finding the spot, or putting up the stands. It was done for him. He was given their spot and stands by his deceased father, and as far as I know, only hunted the one area. Ya, 2019, they didn't kill anything, and I arrowed my first cow , on the ground, in her bed, on the way back to camp, shooting with a finger tab, no range finder, no rear peep sight, with a bow made in the early 90's. It was approximately a 30 yard shot. 

Yeah.. but real hunters hunt from tree stands. Eff that guy.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Outside of maybe chastizing road hunting, unless maybe the dude just can't physically hike, in which case he gets a free pass in my book - ive come to dislike the general comment of "Real hunters...... blah blah etc etc". We've got this flatbill on my wifes side of the family who made the comment, "Real hunters hunt from tree stands" at sunday family dinner. This guy hadn't had to work for anything as far as finding the spot, or putting up the stands. It was done for him. He was given their spot and stands by his deceased father, and as far as I know, only hunted the one area. Ya, 2019, they didn't kill anything, and I arrowed my first cow , on the ground, in her bed, on the way back to camp, shooting with a finger tab, no range finder, no rear peep sight, with a bow made in the early 90's. It was approximately a 30 yard shot.
> 
> Yeah.. but real hunters hunt from tree stands. Eff that guy.


Lol and then I have heard hunters say that tree stands are cheating and real hunters spot and stalk or whatever. I agree, all this talk about what a "real" hunter is is silly.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Outside of maybe chastizing road hunting, unless maybe the dude just can't physically hike, in which case he gets a free pass in my book - ive come to dislike the general comment of "Real hunters...... blah blah etc etc". We've got this flatbill on my wifes side of the family who made the comment, "Real hunters hunt from tree stands" at sunday family dinner. This guy hadn't had to work for anything as far as finding the spot, or putting up the stands. It was done for him. He was given their spot and stands by his deceased father, and as far as I know, only hunted the one area. Ya, 2019, they didn't kill anything, and I arrowed my first cow , on the ground, in her bed, on the way back to camp, shooting with a finger tab, no range finder, no rear peep sight, with a bow made in the early 90's. It was approximately a 30 yard shot.
> 
> Yeah.. but real hunters hunt from tree stands. Eff that guy.


All I’m reading here is your way is the only appropriate way to hunt. Everyone else’s methods are sub par.

still curious to hear about your “long range” experiences. Or are we just talking in general and assume it’s just that ‘easy’…?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Dahlmer said:


> Limiting technology has little to do with harvest ratios or herd health. It is 100% a social issue. Most fair take rules have nothing to do with herd health either, it's about taking an animal in an ethical manner that provides the animal with a reasonable advantage. It also has something to do the with the perception hunting and it's value to the non-hunting public. Most non hunters are not bleeding heart PETA supporters. They have no issue with hunters and allow us to do what we do, even thought their right to the animals we hunt is equal to our own. If the perception of what we do shifts dramatically then we have real fight on our hands.
> 
> Why is it that it is now nearly impossible to find harvest pictures with a guy sitting on the animal he just killed? That was common place when I started hunting in the late 80's. Why don't we see trucks driving down Main street with their recent harvest tied to the front bumper or hood for everyone to see? My dad tells me stories about that happening when he started hunting. Because those practices are now considered distasteful and we don't feel it reflects positively on the hunter nor does it show respect to the animal that was harvested. That is the point behind considering our actions in the process of pursuing game. Does our method of take show respect for the animal we pursue?
> 
> ...


So how many of your average hunters are using any of the things you mentioned here. 5% maybe? So not enough to have an impact on anything. Quit fantasizing about problems that don’t exist.

the camera thing, along with bait, is an issue created by outfitters and guides. If they would just ban the use of all guides on public land, these problems would have sorted themselves out without any more legal restrictions from the states. We love to pick the low hanging fruit in this state. We never go after the root cause this all stems from. We just cut the surface, but the real issue is still alive and well under the ground, waiting to find another loophole that will be another issue in a couple more years.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

If the wildlife population has fallen, management issues, and so on....I would get ride of the sitting Board Members, and start a fresh management team. 
Absolutely *NO members with any affiliation to special interest groups. *Like $FW, RMEF, NWTF, MDF, and so on. If they are found to be affiliated, they are removed from the board, $50,000 fine, loose hunting privilege's for 10 years. 
ALL LE tags stay within the draw process. No more "200" tags going to a EXPO of any kind.
ALL outfitters and guides can *only* operate on PRIVATE LANDS! And if they are found operating on public land, they loose their guide license FOR LIFE, $100,000 fine and the person guiding looses his or hers hunting privilege's in Utah and contingent states for 10 years. 
Makes you think twice about wanting to join the board. The individuals that would be on the board, would have the wildlife in their interests and not what the board can do for them. 
The members would have to be elected by voters. To vote, you would have to have a current hunting/fishing license. That is your "voter registration" card.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You want a board full of non-hunters? I get the idea of removing special interests, but that becomes harder than you think. 

I’m not a current member of any of these right now I don’t think, but I’ve been a member of a long list of different organizations over the years. DU, Delta Waterfowl, UWA, TUWA, UWC, RMEF, TU….im sure there are others that roped me into an annual membership at one point.

I’m guessing the list of hunters that have never been a member of an organization in their lives are not the people you want setting policy. They certainly are not the ones I want setting policy! I think we’d all just settle for having the board not be SFW honks for 2 more decades like the last 2 decades.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> You want a board full of non-hunters? I get the idea of removing special interests, but that becomes harder than you think.
> 
> I’m not a current member of any of these right now I don’t think, but I’ve been a member of a long list of different organizations over the years. DU, Delta Waterfowl, UWA, TUWA, UWC, RMEF, TU….im sure there are others that roped me into an annual membership at one point.
> 
> I’m guessing the list of hunters that have never been a member of an organization in their lives are not the people you want setting policy. They certainly are not the ones I want setting policy! I think we’d all just settle for having the board not be SFW honks for 2 more decades like the last 2 decades.


If *WE, *the hunters/fisherman that have a valid license are the ones to vote in the board, then when all hell brakes loose (worse than it is now) then *WE *are the ones to blame for electing these folks to the board. Then, if you have a gripe and want to complain, then the finger is pointing directly *"WE".* That should shut some mouths, at lest I'd hope.

I'm so fed up with the BS over the years that I'm going to leave the big game to those that want to waste their time finding something to shoot at. Oh ya....Don't forget the hordes of folks wanting to jump in and try their hand at it. Thousands are flooding into this state faster than housing can be built for them. Those are the ones the DWR is hoping to reap the rewards from on an application. A price increase for what? They sure the hell haven't spent the money thus far wisely to save and rebuild the deer and elk herds. What an embarrassment. They should have their heads hung low and not ask for more money to do the same thing over and over again.


----------



## DreadedBowHunter (Sep 22, 2021)

They need fences along Deer Creek Rez because I can drive up the canyon from Provo and see at least a doe hit by vehicles one every mile once past the **** dam 🤔 
I called DWR to get a salvage tag for a doe that just got a hit and run and they told me no 🥴 I shouldn’t have even called and just loaded her up and went on my way. They would rather have it rot off the side of the road rather than let me pick it up to put in the freezer and also to not feed yotes 🤦🏼‍♂️ Sometimes I think DWR means Dim witted retards 🤷🏼‍♂️ You guys aren’t going to like the Agenda 2030 goal that the government is planning. 🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

DreadedBowHunter said:


> They need fences along Deer Creek Rez because I can drive up the canyon from Provo and see at least a doe hit by vehicles one every mile once past the **** dam 🤔
> I called DWR to get a salvage tag for a doe that just got a hit and run and they told me no 🥴 I shouldn’t have even called and just loaded her up and went on my way. They would rather have it rot off the side of the road rather than let me pick it up to put in the freezer and also to not feed yotes 🤦🏼‍♂️ Sometimes I think DWR means Dim witted retards 🤷🏼‍♂️ You guys aren’t going to like the Agenda 2030 goal that the government is planning. 🤦🏼‍♂️


They can push for electric cars all they want. The fact is, with as much as they cost, it’s not going to happen. Your average household income can’t afford them. Let alone 2 or more of them. There’s about to be an uprising here before too long. And it’s at least 1 year over due. Let’s re evaluate where we are after that.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

The only things I'm really opposed to right now is transmitting trail cams and thermo imaging devices.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

One more thing. I'd like to see less conservation tags given out for the LE draw units. It seems like 20 percent or more of the bucks killed on the oak creek are non public draw tags.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Conservation or Convention tags?

-DallanC


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Conservation or Convention tags?
> 
> -DallanC


Both actually.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

When it comes to policy change for the "technology" side of things, how far are you willing to take it as a hunter? 
Some thoughts that got me thinking. (that's trouble, me thinking) 

If you want to get back to the roots of hunting big game in Utah, all over the country for that matter, and "loose technology", Would you give up your 4X4 diesel truck pulling the nice camp trailer, ATV/UTV, scoped rifle, scoped MZ, compound bow, fiber arrows, broadheads that screw into the arrow? 

Now, trade all that for either hiking in to hunt or on horseback, lever or bolt rifle without scopes, recurve/longbow with cedar arrows and a glue on tip, sidelock ML either flintlock or percussion only, buckhorn or peep sight. If you want to campout, its a wall tent. Cook food on the fire, just bedroll, no down -20 degree sleeping bags, Axe for cutting firewood. I could go on more, but I think I get my point across. 

This is how my Dad and his group did it back in black and white TV time. As a family back in the early 80's prior to units being established, we would go to deer camp and have a reunion of sorts. We had truck campers, trailers, old busses built into motorhomes. I had the wall tent set up with all the goodies. My Dad asked if he could bunk with me in the wall tent, he said that BS of a trailer is for the birds and this is what we did in the day. That had to be one of the greatest trips, and the last, that Dad participated in.

So, how far you willing to go with dumping technology?


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> When it comes to policy change for the "technology" side of things, how far are you willing to take it as a hunter?


Only as far as to keep the paradigm i posted earlier. Anything beyond that is as slippery as a wet clay dirt road.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Very very few people can afford the ground it takes to have a horse. The ATV is the modern horse of our time.

-DallanC


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Only as far as to keep the paradigm i posted earlier. Anything beyond that is as slippery as a wet clay dirt road.


Still waiting for you to tell us how much experience you have with long range weapons.

im starting to suspect the dodging of my question is the reason that you actually have none and just assume it’s as easy as dialing your rifle and shooting the animal. Well guess what. It’s not.

I’m also starting to suspect your archery knowledge isn’t what you imply too. You can’t just move to utah from California and in a few years starting throwing out opinions on stuff you have no experience with. If you haven’t used it or tried it, don’t talk chit on it. You seem to be another one of “those” guys. Talk chit, no experience.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Very very few people can afford the ground it takes to have a horse. The ATV is the modern horse of our time.
> 
> -DallanC


That's the truth for sure. I 've been on the backs of horses every day since I can remember. No use for one now, other than hunting, and I don't see taking care of one for only a few weeks of use. I'd hate to see the cost of keeping one now with Alfalfa being at $14 for a three stringer.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> So how many of your average hunters are using any of the things you mentioned here. 5% maybe? So not enough to have an impact on anything. Quit fantasizing about problems that don’t exist.
> 
> the camera thing, along with bait, is an issue created by outfitters and guides. If they would just ban the use of all guides on public land, these problems would have sorted themselves out without any more legal restrictions from the states. We love to pick the low hanging fruit in this state. We never go after the root cause this all stems from. We just cut the surface, but the real issue is still alive and well under the ground, waiting to find another loophole that will be another issue in a couple more years.


That's the point of the discussion. It's not so much about looking at what is in use today, but addressing what's coming. Technology is evolving rapidly and to date most wildlife agencies haven't even bee reactive to it. They've just stuck their head in the sand and ignored like you're trying to do.

And it's not just guides, although they are the primary culprit on a lot of this. It's a competitive industry and you have to produce to stay at the top of the field. I would love to see the state regulate guiding more than they do. Wyoming and Alaska have made geographical allotments. Guides hunt and in some ways manage their own concessions. Something like this may provide more opportunity for more guides and help reduce the drive to succeed at any cost by eliminating competition for the same animals.

And what is this nefarious underlying issue that is hiding under the surface that if resolved would be a panacea to wildlife management?


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

DreadedBowHunter said:


> They need fences along Deer Creek Rez because I can drive up the canyon from Provo and see at least a doe hit by vehicles one every mile once past the **** dam 🤔
> I called DWR to get a salvage tag for a doe that just got a hit and run and they told me no 🥴 I shouldn’t have even called and just loaded her up and went on my way. They would rather have it rot off the side of the road rather than let me pick it up to put in the freezer and also to not feed yotes 🤦🏼‍♂️ Sometimes I think DWR means Dim witted retards 🤷🏼‍♂️ You guys aren’t going to like the Agenda 2030 goal that the government is planning. 🤦🏼‍♂️


Provo Canyon is already fenced from the Wasatch County border to Rainbow Bay. When they expand the final few miles of 2 lane highway to 4 lanes the rest will be fenced.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Awesome. Is that fencing part of the 2030 agenda?


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

I've heard it was scheduled for 2023 or 2024, but I don't know what the date for it is. The sooner the better.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

The fence will be great for keeping the deer off the highway and preventing vehicle/animal collisions, but, it's the worse thing to do for the deer IMO. It limits the migration they once used. I sometimes wonder if the DWR is catering to the public or the animal wellbeing. Aren't they Biologist and NOT traffic engineers?


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

My understanding is that UDOT and UDWR are working together to determine migration corridors and crossings to avoid further fragmenting habitat. Before a fence is built, those areas are identified and underpasses are planned. For instance in Provo Canyon there is an underpass just north of the Wallsburg turn and another smaller one back to the south near the state boat ramp. It appears to me that it has not disrupted the migration of the deer in that area as they still winter in the same areas they have on both sides of the road. Highway 40 has been fenced from the mouth of Daniels Canyon out to Fruitland. Underpasses were planned an built in the areas of highest use by animals to cross.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

That's where in every highway fence budget there should also have either underpasses or overpasses in the budget depending on the terrain of where the fences are going.

But they will never budget that extra money

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> The fence will be great for keeping the deer off the highway and preventing vehicle/animal collisions, but, it's the worse thing to do for the deer IMO. It limits the migration they once used. I sometimes wonder if the DWR is catering to the public or the animal wellbeing. Aren't they Biologist and NOT traffic engineers?


The migration patterns were impacted long ago in these areas. Highway mortality is a HUGE deal biologically. It’s not just the broken car they are trying to prevent here.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> That's where in every highway fence budget there should also have either underpasses or overpasses in the budget depending on the terrain of where the fences are going.
> 
> But they will never budget that extra money
> 
> Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


You are commenting on this like they just won’t throw a few extra dollars on top for the wildlife bridge or the underpass. That one bridge will cost more than the entire fencing project combined. You going to pony up to pay for it?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> You are commenting on this like they just won’t throw a few extra dollars on top for the wildlife bridge or the underpass. That one bridge will cost more than the entire fencing project combined. You going to pony up to pay for it?


That is true, however instead of a bridge they could look at underpasses with the fencing funneling the animals into those areas. It works down between Monticello and Blanding on US 191. There are at least 3 underpasses that I know of in that streatch of the highway. They use both natural and fencing to funnel the animals into them and they work quite well..


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> You are commenting on this like they just won’t throw a few extra dollars on top for the wildlife bridge or the underpass. That one bridge will cost more than the entire fencing project combined. You going to pony up to pay for it?


I would hope they have come far enough in the planning process to incorporate both over/under passes where needed. It really doesn't make sense to just sell it as preventing vehicle damage and human death.
I managed to drive from Ogden to Park City and back 60 plus days a year for 40 years mostly in the dark during the winter without hitting a critter. The best thing that happened is the fencing. I believe they took into account the existing over/under passes that already were there when the project was done. They definitely were aware that it was a migration corridor.


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

3 days forum morphs from technology to road kill.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

OriginalOscar said:


> 3 days forum morphs from technology to road kill.


Isn't migration corridors for the wildlife part of "technology"? There's always a better mousetrap to be designed. 

I see the fences, underpass's, overpass's as trying to combine humane/vehicle safety along with helping to save the wildlife mortality from other than natural predation, be it man or beast. Also, it's a gesture of trying to have mediation for both party's interests.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Didn't Biden pass an infrastructure bill that would provide $$$ for wildlife highway crossings? Oh, wait....Utah is a red state, so we probably rejected that money...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> Didn't Biden pass an infrastructure bill that would provide $$$ for wildlife highway crossings? Oh, wait....Utah is a red state, so we probably rejected that money...


Technically congress passed an infrastructure bill that included money for wildlife crossings. I know US Government class was a long time ago, but legislative bodies legislate, executive bodies don't. (I realize in today's world of executive order the lines have become very blurry there, but I digress...) 

And while Utah is a red state, the money for wildlife crossings was not rejected by Utah. There were no projects selected for Utah in that spending, if I recall correctly.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

come on Vanilla -- why you have to be so "politically correct"?

It is unfortunate that Utah was not slated more money for an issue that is such a problem in Utah. We know that these wildlife crossings work -- there are too many good examples right in Utah where they are working to help both the wildlife as well as automobile owners. I sure wish we could do something on the entirety of Highway 89.

The famous crossings in Banff are now 25 years old. We are behind.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> come on Vanilla -- why you have to be so "politically correct"?


I am a man of truth. Facts are important. The real kind, not the made up kind.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I am a man of truth. Facts are important. The real kind, not the made up kind.


This is why we don't fish together. At the end of the day when we tally things up, and I say "6, or 7...", you'd be ready to correct me with: "try 3". 🤷‍♂️



(I've had to get after my daughters for yelling across the water to the other boat: "we haven't caught any yet! How 'bout you guys?"  )


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I typed up a big old post about different things we "could" limit. But the more I think about it, the more I think the board is on the right track. What's really changed over the past 20 years is the constant monitoring of game via all the cams. Remove that, and the "chase" part of fair chase is restored. 

Guides are still going to be out on ridge tops with $4000 glass noting down every animal they see. But the effort is being made, and I'm ok with that. I've used a guide for help in the past, plan to in the future (no way in hell I'm packing out a swamp donkey myself).

As hunters, we want quick ethical kills. Limiting tech too much can interfere with that.

I don't know if limiting things like range finding ballistic rifle scopes really matter that much. The trash hunters wounding game and whatnot who really ARE a major problem, really cant afford that expensive tech, and they are still going to take questionable shots. Also, who knows if the rich guy really understands it and can use it effectively. Some of those rich guys cant hit the side of a barn, but are proud to brag about their $16k rifle. 

The guys who really, and I mean really understand the ballistics of long shots, don't even need a ballistic scope. "Dope charts" have been used by riflemen since the 1960s. 

As shown by examining harvest rate data, as tech has increased on our weapons, we really aren't seeing noticeable uptick trends that point to tech as the cause. All weapons types kind of trend up and down together, indicating normal herd population expansion and contraction.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> This is why we don't fish together. At the end of the day when we tally things up, and I say "6, or 7...", you'd be ready to correct me with: "try 3". 🤷‍♂️
> 
> 
> 
> (I've had to get after my daughters for yelling across the water to the other boat: "we haven't caught any yet! How 'bout you guys?"  )


I make exceptions for fishing. Well, at least for my own fishing...


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I typed up a big old post about different things we "could" limit. But the more I think about it, the more I think the board is on the right track. What's really changed over the past 20 years is the constant monitoring of game via all the cams. Remove that, and the "chase" part of fair chase is restored.
> 
> Guides are still going to be out on ridge tops with $4000 glass noting down every animal they see. But the effort is being made, and I'm ok with that. I've used a guide for help in the past, plan to in the future (no way in hell I'm packing out a swamp donkey myself).
> 
> ...


Agreed, I feel that trail cams are the biggest current issue. Regulating scopes, range finders, bow technology etc would be difficult and overly complicated. No amount of regulation will keep a guy from taking a questionable shot.


----------



## justismi28 (Aug 19, 2014)

After reading this through, there are a lot of people that have opinions on things they seemingly have no experience with. I'm full of faults myself, but here is my thoughts after reading all the posts.

What is the saying? 10% of elk hunters kill 90% of the elk. If we're being honest, advancements in weaponry help people be more effective. But the truth is killers are killers. We have some serious killers on this forum, like ridgetops that use some technology (trail cameras) but he's also said he only shoots his rifle 2 times a year. Once to verify zero is still on, the next time to kill his buck. It sure seems that many of those wanting to limit killing were either never killers, or for their own reasons don't want to be killers anymore. Don't try to limit those that are now because they do it differently than you did. 

On this forum in the past, I've read from some posters "I don't use trail cameras..." then they are in this thread talking about the major difference they make. I've used a fair number of trail cameras and even killed a bull I had one. I didn't even look at the video of him when I saw him in the summer, because I (and many others) was hunting a different bull that was killed by Strawberry Bay (the book is in the marina if your interested, bull was big). But I ended up killed my bull a few miles away from that camera. Could you say that camera helped me?

Then we have people that have never shot a rifle further than 500 yds saying that a 1000yd shot is easy because you can just dial. All I do is type in the velocity from my green box of core lokts into my phone app and I'm guaranteed a hit right? It's so easy to do on steel, that when that 200" buck steps out it'll be a chip shot right? Never mind adrenaline when I get ready to kill. I can simulate that with some pushups and sprints before I shoot right?
It takes hundreds of rounds down range and quality ammunition to make that shot 8 out of 10 times on a target that is the size of a deer's vitals at 1k in varying conditions. To do it 10 out of 10 in varying conditions, I'd say you need thousands of rounds down range and meticulous reloads.

And for those that think a 100+ yd shot with a bow is easy because is easy because you can print a custom tape and just dial and go shoot. Meet me at the range and prove it. Add in any wind and all the sudden it's a lot harder. At 100 yds, the kill zone is small. But those 80lb limbs and expandable broadheads make that shot easy from what I've read here. Did we already talk about adrenaline when getting ready to kill big buck or bull?

Every single thing I've seen proposed to limit doesn't automatically make you good at killing. That takes a willingness, experience and time. Sure the tools make it easier, but let's not mistake easier for easy. You still have to be proficient with your tool.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Some times I wonder if the dog is wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog.

It's not hard to look back and see these types of discussions every year for a long time. How do we save the herd? How do we create more opportunity? How can we grow more "trophy" deer or elk? How can I do what I want how I want to do it?

At the moment those who want change seem to have the ear of the WB. If any changes are well thought out and can be documented to improve the situations we find our selves in at the moment I'll give a good listen. But change for the sake of change or because of assumptions or feelings demand a pretty hard look.

A couple of more days and we will be able to get a feel for the direction we are headed.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

The only animal the DWR has proven to help out, with the numbers growing and healthy, is the Black Bears. It to, is becoming a OIL opportunity if you begin applying for LE tags at the age of 45+. I was fortunate to draw this year  Only took 14 years. It will be my second bear hunt in Utah (1999 was the last tag) and I'm more excited about this hunt than I am with a deer or elk hunt. I wish I would have drawn last year before the ban on trail cams. I would have liked to see if a big ol boy was coming to bait. Now, I hope a big sow doesn't show up with her cubs five minutes behind her coming to the bait.

Just have to wait and see what develops, and I'll decide after the battle at the board, and the final rule is made, if I continue to chase big game, or, hang up the tradition and go fish....If there's any water left.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I don't know if limiting things like range finding ballistic rifle scopes really matter that much. The trash hunters wounding game and whatnot who really ARE a major problem, really cant afford that expensive tech, and they are still going to take questionable shots. Also, who knows if the rich guy really understands it and can use it effectively. Some of those rich guys cant hit the side of a barn, but are proud to brag about their $16k rifle.
> 
> The guys who really, and I mean really understand the ballistics of long shots, don't even need a ballistic scope. "Dope charts" have been used by riflemen since the 1960s.


My issue with long range "hunting" isn't so much about the wounding of wild game because of unethical shots; it is about fair chase to the animal. I struggle with the idea that a buck, for example, may be aware of a hunter 1000 yards away, but is not alarmed by that hunter's presence because he is so far. At what point should "fair chase" include a deer or an elk or a bear perceiving a hunter as a threat be part of the equation? At what point does "getting close enough" also include being "close enough" for the animal to register you the hunter as a threat?

It is also why I struggle with the increased technology in bow hunting that makes some bow hunters feel like 100 yard shots are ok. To me, bow hunting is all about how close I can get to the animal and get off a good shot...not how far away can I shoot an animal.

I'm glad rules are being put in place to restrict trail cam use. I am glad the WB is considering and talking about technology and how it relates to fair chase and hunting. I am glad that social issues are being discussed as they relate to hunting...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> The only animal the DWR has proven to help out, with the numbers growing and healthy, is the Black Bears.


You really believe that?

Go back and look at elk numbers 50 years ago, turkey numbers, mountain goat numbers...bighorn sheep were about gone in the 60s...

...and, if it was as easy as snapping fingers, I am sure every western state in the US would be doing it to bring back deer numbers.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I don't see the difference in a deer not knowing you are there at 300 yards or 1000. What matters is the deer at 300 yards offers a much cleaner kill than one at 1000.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The excuse of "I can't get any closer" with any weapon looses credibility based on the hunter. Not so much on the hunted. I dare say a deer killed with a bow at 15 yards from a tree stand or ground blind is pretty much clueless to the fact they are about to die.

There used to be a guy on here who preached "woodsmanship". When learning that becomes too onerous people will naturally take the easiest way forward. But no matter the restrictions imposed people will always find a way to do it.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

DallanC said:


> As hunters, we want quick ethical kills. Limiting tech too much can interfere with that.
> 
> -DallanC


Ya seem like a nice guy Dallan but I believe your second sentence to be Bull****. I've killed 8 elk with a recurve bow and they all died quick deaths. Every weapon and hunter has their max effective range be that long range custom rifle shooter or the self bow wood arrow loin cloth hunter. A bullet is a bullet and an arrow is an arrow. Folks that push their limits wound animals, it's not the 'tech', it's the person and I wish folks would stop using this an an argument.

Limited Tech does lower harvest rates (archery vs rifle), that's a verifiable fact anyone can look up in the harvest rates. but to say less tech causes more wounded animals is BS. If you are gonna claim it back it up with some data--I want to see verified data showing archers wound more animals than rifle hunters because that is what you are basically saying. I have not seen any in depth studies to map this out, if they existed then rifle hunters would be using it to limit archery hunters.

I am open to being wrong on this but you make the claim then back it up


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I dare say that hunters 200 years ago were far more proficient at killing game that hunters nowadays. Advancement in technology has given modern-day hunters a false reality. Like the old adage goes, “it’s the indian, not the arrow.”


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

CPAjeff said:


> I dare say that hunters 200 years ago were far more proficient at killing game that hunters nowadays. Advancement in technology has given modern-day hunters a false reality. Like the old adage goes, “it’s the indian, not the arrow.”


However you have to remember that 200 years ago the Native Americans were still driving bison off of cliffs by the thousands instead of trying to shoot them with bows and arrows.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Critter said:


> However you have to remember that 200 years ago the Native Americans were still driving bison off of cliffs by the thousands instead of trying to shoot them with bows and arrows.


Seems pretty effective!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I believe that there is a cliff in the Dakota's somewhere that they would drive the bison off of. If I remember right there are still a good pile of bones at that site.


----------



## 1Bigbull (Sep 28, 2009)

I have never seen a scientific study that shows anything where technology makes any significant impact on herd numbers. All of the arguments I hear and see are based on emotional response and very limited data. The harsh reality is that most hunters who have turrets on their scope think they're cool, but have no idea how to use them. Most hunters who use trail cams have never harvested an animal they have seen on their trial cam. Most hunters who use range finders make more ethical shots because they actually know where to aim rather than having to guess. Most hunters who have a high powered scope are going to take the same shot with a low powered scope that they would take with their high powered scope. Seriously, everyone who has a dad or grandpa that hunted can recall the story of when dad or grandpa made that once in a lifetime shot at an animal that was so far away they had to aim 5 feet over his back to make the shot and all of his buddies were amazed that he could do it. 

Show me statistical data that any of the tech makes a meaningful impact on harvest rates and I'll listen. Then, consider this additional point. If hunting animals with tech is the cause of declining herds, where are the does and cows. In an area with a low herd count, we should NEVER have a cow or doe hunt. Killing bucks and bulls does not limit the size of the herd, one buck or bull will breed all the females on the mountain. 

This is a revenue grab by the state to justify selling more tags, while harvesting, "the same number of animals." Ya right! We will kill more animals by selling more tags and then what will they do??


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

1Bigbull said:


> Show me statistical data that any of the tech makes a meaningful impact on harvest rates and I'll listen.


This is too easy! Here ya go: Harvest data

Archery harvest is less than rifle hunts. For general deer last year I believe the per unit avg harvest for archery was 18% and rifle was 40%

This isn't even a debate, it's well established fact

Tech isn't causing a decline in the herds, that issue is complicated, multifaceted, and variable. Some weapons systems have higher harvest rates than others. You want to hunt more then push for more tags being allocated to lower harvest % weapon systems. You want to sit on the couch then maintain the status quo


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

1Bigbull said:


> This is a revenue grab by the state to justify selling more tags, while harvesting, "the same number of animals." Ya right! We will kill more animals by selling more tags and then what will they do??


No, this is an attempt to find a way to allow more opportunity for people to hunt. We live in a time when it is getting more and more difficult to get hunting tags...looking for ways to lower success rates allows the state to provide more hunting opportunity. I love it.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Airborne said:


> Ya seem like a nice guy Dallan but I believe your second sentence to be Bull****. I've killed 8 elk with a recurve bow and they all died quick deaths.


I meant in general, not all people. Lighten up a tad.



> I am open to being wrong on this but you make the claim then back it up


If a 9x scope isn't easier to hit a target, then why do we have 9x scopes? Or 20x's? 44x's? Why do we have modern bottleneck cartridges when we already had straight-wall rifle cartridges? Why compound bows when people like you so easily kill critters with a recurve?

The answer is it makes average people more successful at harvesting.

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> I meant in general, not all people. Lighten up a tad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With your questions and answer, you've made several claims. Back them up, please!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> No, this is an attempt to find a way to allow more opportunity for people to hunt. We live in a time when it is getting more and more difficult to get hunting tags...looking for ways to lower success rates allows the state to provide more hunting opportunity. I love it.


Have we really become this selfish and unsportsmanlike? Maybe the next time someone post a picture of their buck, you should comment " nice buck but I really wished you would have missed the shot, well maybe next time". or something like " why did you have to go and shoot that thing? Maybe next time think about eating your tag" instead of more venison steaks".


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> Have we really become this selfish and unsportsmanlike? Maybe the next time someone post a picture of their buck, you should comment " nice buck but I really wished you would have missed the shot, well maybe next time". or something like " why did you have to go and shoot that thing? Maybe next time think about eating your tag" instead of more venison steaks".


How is increasing opportunity for tags and hunting selfish and unsportsmanlike? The rest of your strawman argument doesn't make any sense either, I don't understand where you are going here--do you want all tags to be drone fired rockets so everyone is successful? I don't know what you are going for here.

If a tag is filled legally and ethically I applaud the hunter and I'm betting wyomingtoutah does as well from what I have seen of his posts.

I don't think anyone is picking on rifle hunters here--heck, I am one! I love shooting stuff with a high powered rifle! It's bada$$! I just recognize that in this growing state that if we want to regularly hunt we may need to look at alternatives so we can issue more tags and kill the same number or critters. It's not a hard concept and shouldn't be met with hyperbole


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Airborne said:


> How is increasing opportunity for tags and hunting selfish and unsportsmanlike? The rest of your strawman argument doesn't make any sense either, I don't understand where you are going here--do you want all tags to be drone fired rockets so everyone is successful? I don't know what you are going for here.
> 
> If a tag is filled legally and ethically I applaud the hunter and I'm betting wyomingtoutah does as well from what I have seen of his posts.
> 
> I don't think anyone is picking on rifle hunters here--heck, I am one! I love shooting stuff with a high powered rifle! It's bada$$! I just recognize that in this growing state that if we want to regularly hunt we may need to look at alternatives so we can issue more tags and kill the same number or critters. It's not a hard concept and shouldn't be met with hyperbole


I think he quoted the wrong post. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

3arabians said:


> I think he quoted the wrong post.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If that is the case then my bad ridgetop! It seemed out of character for him


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> The answer is it makes average people more successful at harvesting.
> 
> -DallanC


What's wrong with being more successful? Are we really to the point of wishing our fellow sportsman to miss what they're shooting at, in hopes they come home we empty handed?​


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> What's wrong with being more successful? Are we really to the point of wishing our fellow sportsman to miss what they're shooting at, in hopes they come home we empty handed?


I didn't say there's anything wrong with being more successful. I'm worried about potential increase in wound loss. From the 3rd post in this thread I clearly said:



> I'd rather that person have more technology and kill / retrieve 1 animal, than wound a couple with a less proficient weapon.


I really don't understand this thread, people misreading my posts and then complaining about things I didn't say. 

-DallanC


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I better jump back in here so I can be post #100😊. Even though I quoted you Dallan and w2u. It was more of a random thing, nothing personal. It does bother me that so many people are pushing for hunters to be more unsuccessful when hunting. I personally hope everyone on this forum tags out this year, even if it means me sitting out a year or two.


----------



## DreadedBowHunter (Sep 22, 2021)

I usually am a bow Hunter so I can sneak up within 30-50 yards (back yards... JK)so when rifle hunting it’s not hard to get that close instead of shooting Hail Mary shots(if you can stamp one that far then good job). 1 of 2 topics I’ll comment on without quoting.
Here in Utah the Natives would make juniper sagebrush corrals to funnel animals into to shoot, they used sage to smoke the meat. I’ve never heard of any stories documenting them herding animals off cliffs here in Utah that I’m aware of. They would wear deer skins and a deer head on their head which would be an excellent choice of “camo” for short range kill shots. Also most people didn’t have to be scouring up and down mountains like we do because animals would wander onto their camps for easy shots and stalks. Duck hunting easily surrounded salt lake from Magna all the way up to box elder county.
Skull Valley Reservation was created because the natives were killing the Mormons cattle due to them deforesting and ruining the hunting grounds of that tribe so they “traded” for the east cow kills and got kicked out of Tooele valley for that. There used to be a huge Cedar grove west of Tooele and all the Oquirrh mountains had forests and black bears before the mines clear cut most of the mountains. Settlement Canyon in Tooele valley and all the mill-creeks in salt lake valley deforested all the habitat that we will never know of what it used to be.
Ehh🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m a history buff so sorry for boring you guys with a preface to a pseudo e-book 😆


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Look, I get it...every time I go hunting, I have the intention of harvesting an animal and that is what I hope to do. And, I am sure most hunters feel the same way. However, if hunting were just about tagging out, I would never go. Are we forgetting the overall experience of actually getting out and chasing our quarry?

Yeah, I am glad that the WB is looking into ways to keep success rates lower and to give out more opportunity. For me, it is about the thrill of the hunt and not necessarily the thrill of the kill. It is also why I like the spike elk hunt--high opportunity, low success.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I commented on another post, but it's funny that this debate is similar. There are two sides:


Decrease success rates so supply seems artificially inflated OR
Actually increase the supply
Not enough of these meetings are talking about ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE - which ironically has nothing to do with the hunters at all. 


"Lower success, limit draw opportunities, decrease success" vs "Increase/improve habitat, manage based on biology not money, address other killers (cars/predators)".

It's just like the rest of the government who always address things other than it's own inefficiency. "Raise Taxes" not "Address how we spend". This is no different. Blame the hunters, not the management.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The meetings that are talking about "ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE" are being done with the elk committee. The workshop was informational only. The committee will make their recommendations to the board. And from that we will have a new elk management plan going forward. What that may look like is speculation at best for now.

Currently they have managed to the prior plan. Here.



https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/elk_plan.pdf


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> I commented on another post, but it's funny that this debate is similar. There are two sides:
> 
> 
> Decrease success rates so supply seems artificially inflated OR
> ...


The WB really has no control over the biological side of management. Their job is to discuss hunting regulations including tag quotas. From a biological perspective, every single deer unit management plan addresses the issues you mentioned above. In fact, those unit management plans address the limiting factors for the specific herds and specifically addresses those factors.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Wouldn't it be nice if the division could wave their magic want and suddenly fix what has been eroding mule deer, moose and sheep populations across all western landscapes. Utah isn't the only state struggling to find answers. Fortunately, a lot of new data is being gathered and analyzed, hopefully they can find solutions that will help sustain healthy populations.

Elk are doing great. Most of the state is at or near objective. There isn't a lot of room to expand herds, so we have to consider if hunting is being managed in a way that best balances healthy herds and hunters desires. As W2U stated, that is the primary function of the WB. They are a legislative body and are tasked with creating rules to manage hunters. That encompasses making decisions about technology, hunting seasons, license distribution, unit boundaries, tag numbers, fee increases and so on.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> The WB really has no control over the biological side of management. Their job is to discuss hunting regulations including tag quotas. From a biological perspective, every single deer unit management plan addresses the issues you mentioned above. In fact, those unit management plans address the limiting factors for the specific herds and specifically addresses those factors.


Are you asserting that they don't have any say in the management of wildlife? 

They manage more than just the hunter and social impact. They approve and could even discuss active wildlife plans that are not working. If recent events are impacting the plan, it's up to them to address that. I won't say that they are not suppose to manage hunters - but it seems to be a much larger and more talked about topic than managing the wildlife (which is 100% part of their job).



If you care to know where I got to the conclusion about their job:

*Wildlife Board*
"The Division of Wildlife Resources may determine the facts relevant to the wildlife resources of this state. Upon determination of these facts, the Wildlife Board shall establish the policies best designed to accomplish the purposes and fulfill the intent of all laws pertaining to _*wildlife and the preservation, protection, conservation, perpetuation, introduction, and management of wildlife.*_

In establishing policy the Wildlife Board shall:


*recognize that wildlife and its habitat are an essential part of a healthy,productive environment;*
recognize the impact of wildlife on man, his economic activities, private property rights, and local economies;
*seek to balance the habitat requirements of wildlife *with the social and economic activities of man;
recognize the social and economic values of wildlife, including fishing, hunting,and other uses;
*seek to maintain wildlife on a sustainable basis;*
consider the recommendations of the regional advisory councils;
If a regional advisory council recommends a position or action to the Wildlife Board, and the Wildlife Board rejects the recommendation, the Wildlife Board shall provide a written explanation to the regional advisory council."
From their announcement opening: 

"*The group that makes the final decisions about hunting, fishing and how wildlife is managed in Utah* has two positions to fill, and members of the public who have an interest in wildlife are encouraged to apply. The group that makes the final decisions about hunting, fishing and how wildlife is managed in Utah has two positions to fill, and members of the public who have an interest in wildlife are encouraged to apply."

Position Requirements:

The Wildlife Board consists of seven members. The members shall have expertise or experience in at least one of the following areas:

*Wildlife management or biology;*
*Habitat management, including range or aquatic;*
Business, including knowledge of private land issues; (and)
Economics, including knowledge of recreational wildlife uses.
*Each of the above areas of expertise shall be represented by at least one member of the Wildlife Board.** 


RAC*
The councils shall:

*hear Utah Division of Wildlife Resources input, including recommendations, biological data, and information regarding the effects of wildlife;*
gather information from staff, the public and government agencies; (and)
make recommendations to the Wildlife Board in an advisory capacity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Yeah, they have as much responsibility in managing the wildlife as I do teaching kids math--as a school administrator, I might oversee that it is being done, but the real role lies in the teacher in the classroom. The WB oversees, but delegates that responsibility out.

You make it sound like it is an easy fix...increase the supply. How are you proposing that should be done? The reality is that every single deer unit plan in the state has been evaluated to the point where specific limiting factors are being analyzed and hopefully overcome. The overcoming part, though, is a lot harder than the identifying the problem part.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Yeah, they have as much responsibility in managing the wildlife as I do teaching kids math--as a school administrator, I might oversee that it is being done, but the real role lies in the teacher in the classroom. The WB oversees, but delegates that responsibility out.
> 
> You make it sound like it is an easy fix...increase the supply. How are you proposing that should be done? The reality is that every single deer unit plan in the state has been evaluated to the point where specific limiting factors are being analyzed and hopefully overcome. The overcoming part, though, is a lot harder than the identifying the problem part.


I am not saying it's easy. Raising prices and trying to reduce success rates isn't necessarily smart or easy either. 

Every plan has been over it yet we still have units with 50:100 buck to doe and 80:100 bull to cow? You really believe that the management plans are sound? Do you believe that SFW is properly investing the money into habitat projects or could that money be rerouted to better uses? If they do raise tag costs - where is it going? (They can't say because they aren't even having those convos). 

"Is a lot harder" - so we should just, not try?


If you truly believe that nothing more can be done for habitat and management, ok then. I don't believe that - and those decisions, delegated or not, fall on the wildlife board.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> I am not saying it's easy. Raising prices and trying to reduce success rates isn't necessarily smart or easy either.


'Smart' is subjective but 'Easy', well yeah--changing a rule is easy. WB votes to put more tags in lower harvest weapon systems, issue more tags--that's a vote and done--easy. Raising prices, vote and done...easy

I didn't say 'smart' but honestly it is pretty 'Easy'

You know what is impossible--making it rain and snow more in the state--and that's what it's gonna take to have a major turn around but you are correct that every little bit we do helps--it just helps a little bit.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Airborne said:


> 'Smart' is subjective but 'Easy', well yeah--changing a rule is easy. WB votes to put more tags in lower harvest weapon systems, issue more tags--that's a vote and done--easy. Raising prices, vote and done...easy
> 
> I didn't say 'smart' but honestly it is pretty 'Easy'
> 
> You know what is impossible--making it rain and snow more in the state--and that's what it's gonna take to have a major turn around but you are correct that every little bit we do helps--it just helps a little bit.


Could changing the management of a unit not be as simple as a vote? Even with management plans, they have the power to vote a change like the Bull:Cow ratio.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

No.


RandomElk16 said:


> Could changing the management of a unit not be as simple as a vote? Even with management plans, they have the power to vote a change like the Bull:Cow ratio.


NO. The reason is simple: The elk plan was approved by the Wildlife Board on December 2, 2015 and will be in effect until December of 2022. Any revisions to that plan would have to go through the public process including the RACs. Part of the reason this stuff is being discussed now is because the new plan will be formulated by the new elk committee and then approved in the upcoming year....


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> No.
> 
> NO. The reason is simple: The elk plan was approved by the Wildlife Board on December 2, 2015 and will be in effect until December of 2022. Any revisions to that plan would have to go through the public process including the RACs. Part of the reason this stuff is being discussed now is because the new plan will be formulated by the new elk committee and then approved in the upcoming year....


These changes they are making - including the trail camera's - went through the RAC.

It's literally the same thing. Both things can be addressed by the wildlife board. 

That 7 year plan could have changes made to it at any point in the 7 years. We review hunter management multiple times a year, but plans are supposed to stay the same over 7 years and not be reviewed? They started a tech committee to address tech - they also could have explicitly had conversations that they want these committees to address management, specifically these excessive B B:C units that aren't managed for biological factos (Not my area of expertise, but it seems that 80:100 is universally agreed isn't optimum). 

Again, we can disagree but the fact is the WB still has power to discuss management of the resource, not just the people. As do the RACs. This can be done at any time. That's my point.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> These changes they are making - including the trail camera's - went through the RAC.
> 
> It's literally the same thing. Both things can be addressed by the wildlife board.
> 
> ...


They can, but they won't. They opened up changes on the Wasatch a couple years ago and maybe on another issue. It was a nightmare for the division and for the WB. They stated very strongly in the work meeting that they would not propose changes in the middle of an existing plan again.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes, they can discuss changes and even implement changes to a plan...but they can't just start a new plan either. Also, any revisions still have to go through the public process. Tomorrow, for example, the WB couldn't just hold a vote and change the elk plan to be based on bull/cow ratios. Such a change would have to be first presented to all the RACs and then voted on by the WB.

Also, when discussing trail cams, that is a whole different beast because it was legislated by law for the WB to change. And, it was legislated what 2 years ago. So, hardly a snap of the fingers. Remember, too, that the DWR is the fact finding entity...the WB must listen to the "facts" as presented by the DWR and decisions must made based on those "facts."


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm all for change!!! I change under ware every day.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Remember, too, that the DWR is the fact finding entity...the WB must listen to the "facts" as presented by the DWR and decisions must made based on those "facts."


Anyone else remember when they had the public input on implementing "Option 2", and at the end of the public input, they read from a prepared statement then passed the change? The public input part was pure fluff, they had their minds decided well before hand.

-DallanC


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

MooseMeat said:


> I still don’t understand why utah issues 50% of their tag numbers to rifle hunters. It needs to be 35%, 35%, 30%. Archery, muzzleloader, rifle. You could do 60%, 25%, 15% and issue way more tags. But utah hunters want their cake and to eat it too. They are fine with restrictions and tag cuts, as long as they get their tag every year. Imagine how many more LE tags we could issue every year if we cut the rifle permits. And change season dates. That’ll never happen though. Muzzleloader scopes, cams and bait are sure to fix the problem and we will be back to the glory days of deer hunting in just a couple years, I’m sure 😉


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

DallanC said:


> Very very few people can afford the ground it takes to have a horse. The ATV is the modern horse of our time.
> 
> -DallanC


I’d prefer less atvs buzzing around out there.


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> The migration patterns were impacted long ago in these areas. Highway mortality is a HUGE deal biologically. It’s not just the broken car they are trying to prevent here.


Actually mortality is not that impacted by road activity it’s less than 10%.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

runallday said:


> Actually mortality is not that impacted by road activity it’s less than 10%.


Not at all true... not even remotely:






Deer-vehicle Collisions May Rise as Temperatures Fall


The driver ahead of you slows as he winds up the canyon. In your haste, you veer left and try to pass.



www.usu.edu




.


> *About one in three deer deaths in Utah are auto-related, said USU research associate Patty Cramer.* In addition, about 30 percent of all deer-vehicle collisions result in the animal's death, and that figure was as high as 50 percent as recently as 2002, Peterson said.



-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

runallday said:


> I’d prefer less atvs buzzing around out there.


Get away from the roads then. Plenty of wilderness with zero motor vehicles. And yuppies on bikes.

-DallanC


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

1Bigbull said:


> I have never seen a scientific study that shows anything where technology makes any significant impact on herd numbers. All of the arguments I hear and see are based on emotional response and very limited data. The harsh reality is that most hunters who have turrets on their scope think they're cool, but have no idea how to use them. Most hunters who use trail cams have never harvested an animal they have seen on their trial cam. Most hunters who use range finders make more ethical shots because they actually know where to aim rather than having to guess. Most hunters who have a high powered scope are going to take the same shot with a low powered scope that they would take with their high powered scope. Seriously, everyone who has a dad or grandpa that hunted can recall the story of when dad or grandpa made that once in a lifetime shot at an animal that was so far away they had to aim 5 feet over his back to make the shot and all of his buddies were amazed that he could do it.
> 
> Show me statistical data that any of the tech makes a meaningful impact on harvest rates and I'll listen. Then, consider this additional point. If hunting animals with tech is the cause of declining herds, where are the does and cows. In an area with a low herd count, we should NEVER have a cow or doe hunt. Killing bucks and bulls does not limit the size of the herd, one buck or bull will breed all the females on the mountain.
> 
> This is a revenue grab by the state to justify selling more tags, while harvesting, "the same number of animals." Ya right! We will kill more animals by selling more tags and then what will they do??


Every deer I hit with a bow for a few years was found and patterned using a cam. Started to feel like cheating and became less rewarding so I stopped using them for that purpose. It was just too easy. 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

DallanC said:


> Not at all true... not even remotely:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting. I thought at the last Central RAC presentation it showed a different #?


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

DallanC said:


> Get away from the roads then. Plenty of wilderness with zero motor vehicles. And yuppies on bikes.
> 
> -DallanC


That’s exactly what I do. I’m glad people are getting out and having fun.


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

DreadedBowHunter said:


> I usually am a bow Hunter so I can sneak up within 30-50 yards (back yards... JK)so when rifle hunting it’s not hard to get that close instead of shooting Hail Mary shots(if you can stamp one that far then good job). 1 of 2 topics I’ll comment on without quoting.
> Here in Utah the Natives would make juniper sagebrush corrals to funnel animals into to shoot, they used sage to smoke the meat. I’ve never heard of any stories documenting them herding animals off cliffs here in Utah that I’m aware of. They would wear deer skins and a deer head on their head which would be an excellent choice of “camo” for short range kill shots. Also most people didn’t have to be scouring up and down mountains like we do because animals would wander onto their camps for easy shots and stalks. Duck hunting easily surrounded salt lake from Magna all the way up to box elder county.
> Skull Valley Reservation was created because the natives were killing the Mormons cattle due to them deforesting and ruining the hunting grounds of that tribe so they “traded” for the east cow kills and got kicked out of Tooele valley for that. There used to be a huge Cedar grove west of Tooele and all the Oquirrh mountains had forests and black bears before the mines clear cut most of the mountains. Settlement Canyon in Tooele valley and all the mill-creeks in salt lake valley deforested all the habitat that we will never know of what it used to be.
> Ehh🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m a history buff so sorry for boring you guys with a preface to a pseudo e-book 😆


----------

