# New deer units



## Ground Pounder (Jan 27, 2010)

What is everyones opinions on this new split. My family has been hunting the same spot since my grandpa was young and it sucks cause we did not get to hunt it this season due to the draw. do you think we could do a petition to change this back to the way it was or will it always be this way do you think?


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Its not going to change. Infact, I think it will get worse. I think that there will be less and less tags in the next years coming. If SFW has its way, it will be a rich mans sport. Landowners sell tags, and thats about it.


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

I agree this will never change. This was just one of many steps to get rid of the general public hunter and privatize hunting in the state of Utah. IMO There is way to much money with these special interest groups and they want trophy hunts, not general hunters, money talks. There is way to much corruption on the hill and SFW to reverse this decision. If you don't believe me ask why we are paying $5 more for a big game tag this year. It's not because the DWR wanted it, it was because Mr Peay day and SFW wanted it for predator control. Like I said money talks. Enjoy it while you can it won't be to long before it becomes the sport of Kings.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If we are only going to have 150,000 deer in Utah. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield? 

If we are going to manage predation rates at the same levels as birth rates. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?

If we are to believe that 75,000 deer per yr are road killed. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?

If we are to believe the Wasatch front is really 400 miles long and 200 miles wide. And most of the winter range in Utah is now subdivisions. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?

If we are to believe there is no more selenium in the ground because shed hunting and this kills deer. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?

If all wildlife gets the same consideration and we are not part of wildlife. And we manage wildlife in such a manner to make the act of harvesting not a valid biological function. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?

We used to be able to say as hunters we keep the herds in check. Making the argument that hunting and harvesting game is necessary, is getting harder every day. Hunters have been replaced with predators. We have been outsourced!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Geeze IB, sometimes you just plain take the fun out of things! ;-)


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't like it because it isn't deer management based on science and fact, but rather emotionally charged hunter management. Maybe the DWR ought to look at the conditions of the late 70's and early 80's that contributed to what is often referred to as the "Glory days of deer hunting" and what has changed that took away that glory...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> If we are only going to have 150,000 deer in Utah. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> If we are going to manage predation rates at the same levels as birth rates. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> ...


Wait a minute! Didn't Don Peay promise that we'd have 400,000 deer if we only paid our $5 permit increase to kill all those coyotes (predators)? Then with the lose of all that habitat due to subdivisions, we'd have to kill more deer to keep the herds in check. Wahoo! Can't wait! Then all we have to do is stop shed hunting.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> If we are only going to have 150,000 deer in Utah. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> If we are going to manage predation rates at the same levels as birth rates. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> ...


IB,

I just hate it when someone points out the obvious! Prime example of obamanomics in everyday applications (1 + 1 = 4.)

Big


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I personally think that we need to bring back 1080, and unlimited cougar and bear tags like it was back in the 60's and early 70's. I remember buying cat and bear tags for $1.00 apeace and the hunt lasted all year. 

I also forgot we need to bring back 20 cents a gallon gas.


:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The units are here to stay. Unfortunately, our fawns are not...... (no matter what buck hunter management strategy they try)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> ...... (no matter what buck hunter management strategy they try)


This is the key....we have all these hunters whining about too many tags and the reality is that fawn numbers and recruitment are not linked to buck hunting at all. So, why reduce tags when hunters aren't factoring in to overall deer numbers? I wish one person could answer that question....but, I already know that ain't a-gonna happen!


----------



## Squigie (Aug 4, 2012)

So, you guys are telling me that you prefer to have units that are designed to manage deer in an area covering up to 1/4 of the state; but during the season, 95% of the hunters in that unit can be found in a 20 square-mile area? :roll: 

I know you may think the smaller units are just another way for politicians to "tighten the noose", but MANY other states have proven that wildlife management is much more effective when the units are smaller. One of the biggest reasons, is the due to the first point I made: When you open massive units to general hunts, the majority of hunters concentrate in areas with easy access. The animals in those areas get absolutely annihilated, with up to 50% being lost to waste/poaching/poor shots. Conversely, hunters avoid areas with access restrictions, don't take any animals there, and the state has to pay for population/depredation control measures.


It isn't going to change, and I support the smaller units.
If you don't like it, hunt somewhere else. 
The majority of Utah's hunters have been screaming for this change for nearly 2 decades. Most of us were so fed up with the mismanagement, that we've been hunting in other states for popular seasons like Bull Elk and Buck Deer. Utah FINALLY pulled its head out of its anus. 
We aren't going to go back to the ridiculous way things used to be, without a fight.

And... failing to draw a tag has nothing to do with the smaller units. That change was approved nearly 4 years ago and was going to be implemented anyway. Too many hunters; not enough animals. In order for things to be fair, not everyone can hunt every year.

This has been a very bad year for the animals, and next year will be worse. The DWR had to consider that when setting quotas for tags. Give it a few years for the animals to recover, and every hunter in the state will be wondering why it took so damned long to make the change; rather than complaining about it, and wanting the to return to broken methods that were clearly not working and actually making things worse.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Squigie said:


> It isn't going to change, and I support the smaller units.
> 
> The majority of Utah's hunters have been screaming for this change for nearly 2 decades


Huh? I gotta doubt that.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Spot on Squigie!

I agree 100% ..


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

My time down on the Boulders Archery Hunt( o fo 6 on the Tags) Really sucked.It was a typical Archery Hunt.guys running around on Four Wheelers up until Tuesday. Then Hunters just vanished.. Got the crap outa their systems.. Found out it"s not as easy as they thought.
Either that or run outa Brew..( remember had no tag.) Stayed with a friend 12 Days while he hunted. ended up putting his tag on a 3x3. Point , for 49 years I've been Archery hunting. Spend at least 2 weeks on the mountain 21 days last YEAR... the guys who hauled butt after 2 or 3 days. I would have given my left nert for their tags..So Hell Ya lets go back to the way it was.State Wide Archery!! NO WAY should the screw balls in power now, should get away the CRAP.. and rules that were made for the Archers..


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Squigie said:


> One of the biggest reasons, is the due to the first point I made: When you open massive units to general hunts, the majority of hunters concentrate in areas with easy access. The animals in those areas get absolutely annihilated, with up to 50% being lost to waste/poaching/poor shots. Conversely, hunters avoid areas with access restrictions, don't take any animals there, and the state has to pay for population/depredation control measures.


Hunters will always concentrate on the areas easiest to access...that ain't changing with this switch--the hunters in each unit will still gravitate to these areas. Also, when you say "animals" you are referring to buck "animals" which really aren't affecting the overall population...these animals are excess. Even after the hunts, are units are still well above the safe level to get does bred.

I am not sure where you are pulling the "50% being lost to waste/poaching/poor shots" stat (probably you arse), but I can tell you that if it were actually true that switching to unit-based management isn't going to change the ethics of hunters.


Squigie said:


> This has been a very bad year for the animals, and next year will be worse. The DWR had to consider that when setting quotas for tags. Give it a few years for the animals to recover, and every hunter in the state will be wondering why it took so damned long to make the change; rather than complaining about it, and wanting the to return to broken methods that were clearly not working and actually making things worse.


Hmmm...this has been a very GOOD year for animals in the south--mild winter, wet summer. I am not sure what crystal ball you are looking into, but how do you know next year will be worse? Only have some areas been bad.

Also, just out of curiosity, why will managing buck hunters all of a sudden help our deer herds recover? I have been waiting for that answer for quite a long time....years now!

I do have to agree with one thing...switching to hunting units instead of regions is a switch that probably won't change (and shouldn't for at least 5 years), but don't think that it is the holy grail of deer management. Just ask Colorado and Nevada how effective it has been!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> My time down on the Boulders Archery Hunt( o fo 6 on the Tags) Really sucked.It was a typical Archery Hunt.guys running around on Four Wheelers up until Tuesday. Then Hunters just vanished.. Got the crap outa their systems.. Found out it"s not as easy as they thought.


Just out of curiosity, what are of the mountain are you hunting (PM me if you would like)? I have hunted down there virtually every year I can remember and have only had problems with ATVers twice--once on my LE elk hunt where some grouse hunters were cruising through the oak/brush in a roadless area, and once on the deer hunt where some ATVers were cruising through the trees cross-country to recover a deer that they had shot.

Don't you usually stick to the Fish Lake unit?


----------



## Squigie (Aug 4, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> I do have to agree with one thing...switching to hunting units instead of regions is a switch that probably won't change (and shouldn't for at least 5 years), but don't think that it is the holy grail of deer management. Just ask Colorado and Nevada how effective it has been!


No, it's not the 'holy grail'. The 'holy grail' is getting people to keep their genitals contained properly. There are far too many humans trying to hunt a small number of animals. But... that's not going to happen. So, we must use other methods. Unfortunately, that means quite a few people will always be angry with the decisions that are made.

As for effectiveness... even smaller units can be mis-managed.
Colorado and Nevada may have some problems; but New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, and Idaho seem to be doing much better. ...not to mention, there are some East-Coast states like Florida, whose unit management could fairly easily be compared to states like Utah. 
(Biggest difference there being that you have to draw for access to certain public lands to take Deer there, but daily bag limits and possession limits for Deer are simply part of the yearly hunting license. ...in certain parts of the state, it's possible to take up to 196 Deer per hunter, during the season.)


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Squigs,

I don't see your logic. On one hand you say that you are tired of mismanagement by the DWR in Utah, and then you say


> As for effectiveness... even smaller units can be mis-managed.


 So, if DWR is so inept, why would switching to smaller units change anything?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

You want to see what Utah will be like in the future just glance over to our neighbor Nevada. They went to micro units and their herd has continued to crash. ~17,000 deer tags this year state wide? Give Utah a few years and we'll all be waiting 10 years to draw a general season tag.

FAWN management... not hunter management, not buck management is the key. Everything else is irrelevant. Grow fawns, keep'em alive to adulthood, done.


-DallanC


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> I personally think that we need to bring back 1080, and unlimited cougar and bear tags like it was back in the 60's and early 70's. I remember buying cat and bear tags for $1.00 apeace and the hunt lasted all year.
> 
> I also forgot we need to bring back 20 cents a gallon gas.
> 
> :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Wyoming still offers an unlimited number of cougar and bear tags and we have poor cougar and black bear numbers. I wish we would go to limited quota (LE) hunts and increase the numbers of lions and bears. I just love a good mountain lion roast now and then.

Uh...I would like to go back to 20 cent gas........................................................
1968: gas is 23 cents a gallon. Young goob has a hot red 1965 Chevy Impala and all the girls.
2012: gas is $3.70 a gallon. Old goob has a hot red 1965 Chevy Impala and once in awhile an old blue-haired woman waves at me.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Unit buck management is here to stay, sure. (A good thing if we get our priorities straight.) But there are changes coming. As a WB member recently said to me, the pendulum always swings back. Statewide archery is gone, but regional archery is a definite possibility. And if we're going to get serious about unit management, we'll have to seriously look at DAU (Data Analysis Units) that will likely combine some of the existing units and change tag allotments, season dates, etc.

Give things a couple years to pan out and there will be some modifications. Has to be, because the current situation is just plain stupid. I've got faith in the WB. Like, where else can I put it?


----------



## M Gayler (Oct 3, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> If we are only going to have 150,000 deer in Utah. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> If we are going to manage predation rates at the same levels as birth rates. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> ...


Best post I've seen!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Here we go again. :roll: I thought this crap was supposed to be reserved for Dec. - March. 
One really nice thing about these new units is that we have longer seasons on the struggling units. Those three day rifle hunts were getting old and the archery hunt is now two weeks longer.


----------



## jasonwayne191 (Jun 11, 2012)

Hunters as a whole will NEVER be satisfied with how things are run. Someone will always be butthurt over something done or not done by the agency. Oh well, no need to worry, after the HSUS is finished with Kalif hunters, they'll be here in the west and NOBODY will be able to hunt as they did. Only a matter of time since they will have no opposition from the "ME, I, UNFAIR" crowds of hunters who simply don't care about anything other than themselves.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

M Gayler said:


> [quote="Iron Bear":g14yhf1g]If we are only going to have 150,000 deer in Utah. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> If we are going to manage predation rates at the same levels as birth rates. Then why have 100,000 hunters afield?
> 
> ...


Best post I've seen![/quote:g14yhf1g]

One of the funniest ones I've seen! Great sense of humor, Iron Bear!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Squib,

#1 The multiple unit management system is not conclusively working better. All western mule deer states are seeing declines. Going to 5 units in Utah and cutting tags by 2/3's has not helped. 

#2 The "MINORITY" of Utah sportsmen have been screaming for 2 decades for the change, not the "majority."

#3 We will not hunt somewhere else. We will continue to scream like you have for two decades until it gets changed. 

#4 At what point do you guys realize you've been wrong about a lot of stuff? At what point do you realize your wildlife management sense is lacking? You've cut dates, you've taken tags from 250,000 to less than 100,000, you've taken the regions from 1 to 5 to 30. The fawns and does are still disappearing!!!

Don Peay gets it, so should you. I find it interesting, as soon as the units were passed, Don Peay started blaming coyotes. He is feeling very uneasy that additional units will not bring back the fawns and does. He knows his credibility is now seriously questioned. He knows everyone has bowed to his wishes for 15+ years with no improvement. He knows this is the last straw. It amazes my your ego persists, even when Don Peay's ego is starting to stumble.


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

It is probably a wast of time, but we need to fight back! Everything we can do to get our hunts back is time well spent!

I have personally spoken to the Governer (who didn't give a rats [email protected]!) and have sent several letters to all of the Wildlife Board Members. Keep up the pressure since not doing anything will certainly not result in changes!

The reason these groups are able to bully us "regular" hunters is that we are not organized. We need to organize and put our time and money where our mouths are and stand up to SFW and the Wildlife Board!

We must stop the SFW's funding by changing the laws to prohibit their receipt of so many trophy tags! These tags should never be given to any special interest group! If the State wants to have an auction, then it should host the auction. 

Two years ago, the WB tested the SFW's theories about archery hunter concentrations and found them to be false! They then changed back to Statewide archery. After proving that regions are not necessary for archery hunters, the State changes to 30 units because the SFW and some rifle hunters cried it was "unfair" that archery hunters get to choose their hunt area. This is not management, it is bad politics!!!

Wildlife management decision making authority needs to be given back to the Biologists at the DWR. It makes no sense that we let the most important decisions be made by a Board made up of politically selected elitists!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bloodtrail said:


> This is not management, it is bad politics!!!
> 
> It makes no sense that we let the most important decisions be made by a Board made up of politically selected elitists!


Just a question: who did you vote for in the last Utah Governor election?

If you are not happy with the current WB members, you should attempt to use your political voting powers to elect officials that are willing to listen to their constituents!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> You want to see what Utah will be like in the future just glance over to our neighbor Nevada. They went to micro units and their herd has continued to crash. ~17,000 deer tags this year state wide? Give Utah a few years and we'll all be waiting 10 years to draw a general season tag.
> 
> FAWN management... not hunter management, not buck management is the key. Everything else is irrelevant. Grow fawns, keep'em alive to adulthood, done.
> 
> -DallanC


Excellent post!


----------



## Squigie (Aug 4, 2012)

Provider - 
I had some more posts in this thread (2 or 3), that provided additional details and a few citations. However, they were deleted by a moderator last week, when about 1.5 pages worth of posts got trimmed from this thread due to some members throwing out insults.

Whether or not my posts were deleted intentionally, I do not know. But, I'm not going to bother trying to participate in this thread, if my posts will just be randomly deleted or arbitrarily censored. It really ruins the whole "discussion" concept, when replies to members' comments/questions just get deleted... leaving those members thinking there was no reply at all.

I doubt the moderator that deleted the posts did it with the intention of skewing the direction of the thread, but it's quite frustrating, nonetheless.


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

PBH said:


> bloodtrail said:
> 
> 
> > This is not management, it is bad politics!!!
> ...


I don't want politicians from either party managing wildlife! I would like to have the management of wildlife left to the Biologists at the DWR who at least have a chance of getting it right.


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

These changes have left me hunting in the South Slope Yellowstone Region, My sons hunting in the Wasatch West Region, My friend hunting in the Currant Creek Region, and my brother with no tag at all! I could not put in with my kids since I joined the Dedicated Hunter program for the PURPOSE OF HUNTING WITH MY KIDS! They did not draw my Dedicated Hunter area and I cannot change my area.

The number of deer in each area can and should be managed without ruining the hunting experience for families! If an area gets below the 15 bucks per 100 does, then the dates can be shortened or even closed for a season or longer. End of strory! This is simple and allows people to hunt together! 

We do not need more than 15 bucks per 100 does! This only decreases the total population over time since since the bucks use up some of the carrying capacity of an area and to my knowledge, males still cannot have babies. 15 bucks per 100 does is more than enough to maintain a healty population and still provide great hunting access! 

Managing doe production and survival is the only way to ensure a large deer population.


----------



## highcountrymuley (Sep 14, 2012)

I would personally wouldn't mind if they shut the deer units down completely for two years to let them rebound. Slamming the coyotes will only do so much. I think if we all be patient we would have bigger and more muleys in the future.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Shutting the hunts down for a couple years won't do anything but increase buck numbers...it won't help the herd overall. So, if you shut down the hunts for a couple years, you might have a really good hunt the year following the closure, a good hunt the next year, a pretty good hunt the next year, and a gradually worse hunt until the unit returns to what it was prior to the closure. What you are asking for is a band-aid approach...it doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that our fawns are not surviving...we solve that problem, increase the number of fawns reaching adulthood, and our herd increases and the number of bucks increase and the number of big bucks increase...

I have said it a million times...hunting is not the limiting factor in our deer herds!


----------



## jasonwayne191 (Jun 11, 2012)

So shut the state down to deer hunting once every 5 or 6 years-everyone is happy, Lions, bears, yotes, hunters-win for everyone! ;-)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jasonwayne191 said:


> everyone is happy ;-)


Except those of us who want to hunt every year!


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

habitat restoration.....help these deer out all year, especially during winter... During a better fire year, lets do more controlled burns and lots of hunters donating time to help with replanting of the deers tradition browse/food. If these deer have better habitat and mother nature ain't too harsh, than the deer numbers will increase. You see it in every other group of animal. upland, waterfowl etc. Habitat trumps predation and hunter harvest as it is right now.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bloodtrail said:


> I don't want politicians from either party managing wildlife! I would like to have the management of wildlife left to the Biologists at the DWR who at least have a chance of getting it right.


sometimes you have to sleep in the bed that you make. The reason we have the system we currently have (WB, RAC) is due to politics. Utah's voting public. Your votes. You.

We may not like the way it is now, but it's our own fault. As much as I hate to say it, our "red" state could use some "blue". (and I'm not talking football!!)

habitat. Utahgolf is right. Habitat. Don Peay knows this -- and in a couple more years, when some of the habitat work done over the course of the last 10 years starts to show increases in the deer herd, he's going to pipe up and say "See!!! My coyote agenda from 2012 worked! I knew it would!". Habitat kids. Habitat.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

No pbh he will say see my coyote project worked and my projects funded by sfw did it.

You guys are just circle jerkin each other. You all know you need fawns so that is important. You all also know you can only kill so many bucks or the heard suffers. So you all know there is a also a social aspect as well. As long as all of those things are addressed then all is well. 

This means you can only have so many hunters per population of game. If deer numbers are low tags will be cut. If they increase tags go up. It really is that simple. The regions help control mass hot spotting which helps with the social part. Nothing worse then a three day rifle hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> This means you can only have so many hunters per population of game. If deer numbers are low tags will be cut. If they increase tags go up. It really is that simple. The regions help control mass hot spotting which helps with the social part. Nothing worse then a three day rifle hunt.


I completely disagree! The number of hunters vs the game population does not have to be directly proportional. Many factors must...or at least should, be considered.

As for this nonsensical myth called hot spotting....WTF do people think 7 people sitting in an air-conditioned room in SLC are better able to 'properly' spread hunters throughout the state than individuals? This belies ALL logic, IMHO! Inane at best!!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I completely disagree! The number of hunters vs the game population does not have to be directly proportional. Many factors must...or at least should, be considered.


 Dont you start circle jerking me :lol: I know there are other factors that play into it. This is why you cant blanket the whole state into one hunt. Each area has its own problems or benefits to holding and keeping more mature bucks or simply growing more dinks so people can shoot the dinks.



proutdoors said:


> As for this nonsensical myth called hot spotting....WTF do people think 7 people sitting in an air-conditioned room in SLC are better able to 'properly' spread hunters throughout the state than individuals? This belies ALL logic, IMHO! Inane at best!!!


Dont swear at me with your WTF's :lol: No the guys in slc wont be spreading those hunters out. The management plan for the units will dictate the tags. The "Individuals" will study the odds on the units and will spread themselves out. They can try and hot spot but wont be able to over load a unit with tags like they could before. Its kind of like when they opened the bookcliffs up. The 'individuals" over loaded it and killed everything in sight "hot spotting occurred." Same with the miss management the dwr did a few years ago when I believe they could hunt the stansburry unit and then the next weekend go slam the nebo unit. It might have been the other way around but Hot spotting occurred and in both circumstances the deer suffered and hunts were closed down or seasons were shortened because of hot spotting. The smaller units in theory are supposed to smooth the bumps out of the deer cycle. It seems to be working on the limited entry units imho maybe it can do the same for the general season units but with a lower age class of deer.

It all sucks if you ask me id rather toss out some 1080 and go back to the way it was when you could shoot grandmas, moms, and ant Beatrice bucks before you hunted your own. No one cared back then because there was freaking deer everywhere but we have all been told that thinking is inane and illogical as you put it.


----------



## doublebrowtine48 (Sep 15, 2012)

Unfortunately I agree with Robiland. It is getting to be a rich mans sport especially with Obama implimenting such large taxes on guns and ammo. I just bought a box of 20 bullets for my 7 mm and they were $46.99. This is ridiculous. Just 3 years ago I bought a box for a cow elk hunt on deseret and they were only $25.99. As far as the new deer units, the state of Utah seems to be micro-managing the state alot like the state of Colorado does. Yes I agree that there are several people who hate this, but I think it is a positive step in trying to preserve mule deer in Utah. I really wish they would offer multiple hunts for each weapon throughout late summer into early winter. I would love to hunt muley's in the snow during the rut with a bow. I know the new deer units are rubbing alot of people the wrong way but 10-15 years from now, I believe it may save our deer herds especially in northern Utah.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

doublebrowtine48 said:


> Unfortunately I agree with Robiland. It is getting to be a rich mans sport especially with Obama implimenting such large taxes on guns and ammo. I just bought a box of 20 bullets for my 7 mm and they were $46.99. This is ridiculous. Just 3 years ago I bought a box for a cow elk hunt on deseret and they were only $25.99. As far as the new deer units, the state of Utah seems to be micro-managing the state alot like the state of Colorado does. Yes I agree that there are several people who hate this, but I think it is a positive step in trying to preserve mule deer in Utah. I really wish they would offer multiple hunts for each weapon throughout late summer into early winter. I would love to hunt muley's in the snow during the rut with a bow. I know the new deer units are rubbing alot of people the wrong way but 10-15 years from now, I believe it may save our deer herds especially in northern Utah.


Welcome to the forum. It's great to have your input!

I don't know how long you've been reading about this issue, (new units as you call them) but I have a few questions? How is this a positive step in trying to preserve mule deer in Utah? And why especially in Northern Utah? When you say Colorado is micro-managing the state, are you referring to managing hunter numbers or deer numbers? And are you saying Colorado has a better system that works to preserve or grow the mule deer numbers? Do you have anything to show why you believe the things you've said? This thing has been hashed over ever since it was proposed, but if you can shed any new light, we'd love to hear it.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

stillhunterman said:


> Geeze IB, sometimes you just plain take the fun out of things! ;-)


+1 I have what looks like a nut filled candy bar floating in my Wheaties now. Thanks alot!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

doublebrowtine48 said:


> It is getting to be a rich mans sport especially with Obama implimenting such large taxes on guns and ammo. I just bought a box of 20 bullets for my 7 mm and they were $46.99. This is ridiculous. Just 3 years ago I bought a box for a cow elk hunt on deseret and they were only $25.99.


Welcome to the forum double! I dislike the current administration as much as anyone, but please enlighten me on this new tax on guns and ammo, please tell me all about it! I like rhetoric as much as the next guy, but lets keep at least a tiny bit of factual info involved.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

doublebrowtine48 said:


> Unfortunately I agree with Robiland. It is getting to be a rich mans sport especially with Obama implimenting such large taxes on guns and ammo........................................................................


Holy Cow!!

New Legislation? I've not heard of this.

What was the name or number of the bill?

When did this happen?

I should watch Fox News I guess.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't think that you'll find any of the information that he is talking about on Fox, CNN, or even MSNBC.

Just so that doublebrowtine48 knows, the price of ammo has gone up because of the price of metals. It takes brass and copper to make a round of ammo and both of those prices have gone through the roof the last dozen years.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

The perception that the current administration may impose stricter gun regs has caused a supply and demand issue as well and the manufactures are taking advantage with price gouging. Do we recall shortly after the last election the mad scramble for ARs, ammo, and high capacity mags? You could barely find a box of 9mm at Walmart and there were guys sitting at Sportsman's for hours waiting for their weekly ammo shipment to come in...


----------

