# New Mule Deer Management Plan



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

As you all know Utahs current mule deer management plan expires this November.

The intent of this post is to start civil, healthy discussion about what hunters would like to see done with mule deer management for the next five years and to encourage those to atend RAC meetings that will be addressing this.

There are "members" of some conservation groups (cough sfw) that feel most hunters would like to see more of Utahs annual general season deer hunting opportunity turned into LE type hunting. Obviously moving mule deer hunting in the direction Utahs elk hunting has gone.

Are these groups accurate do you think in saying "most hunters" would like to see this? Do you, your family and friends want this?

DING!
DING!

What else are we going to do while we wait for draw results


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> There are "members" of some conservation groups (cough sfw) that feel most hunters would like to see more of Utahs annual general season deer hunting opportunity turned into LE type hunting. Obviously moving mule deer hunting in the direction Utahs elk hunting has gone.


Why start off with a false statement? :? Go back and research this, then 'edit' your post. I think I'll sit on the sidelines and watch the show as folks respond to mis-quoted agendas. _(O)_


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I think you already know the answere to that question. I don't want to get into another dead end debate that goes no where. Of course I would be ticked off if they took away some general season hunting areas and turned them into more LE hunts. I don't think that is right, I hope it doesnt happen. I would think that we should just raise the amount of appicants that draw each year, not take away opportunity. I also don't think we should do away with the LE hunts. I have never put in for a LE hunt, don't care to. But there is nothing wrong with those who do. There should be room to make the current system work, instead of fighting over this, lets stop butting heads and just make it work, have said this before, we are all hunters lets get along.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Why start off with a false statement? Go back and research this, then 'edit' your post. I think I'll sit on the sidelines and watch the show as folks respond to mis-quoted agendas.


There is something we agree on.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

PRO, here is our discussion from another thread today



> *10000ft.* - However (correct me if I'm wrong) aren't they (SFW) and other conservation groups lobbying for making some of Utahs current general season deer hunts into more LE type hunts? Lets shoot straight here PRO and if I'm wrong in my statement I will eat crow.





> *PRO *- I am unaware of any 'lobbying' for more LE type deer hunts by SFW. What has happened is MEMBERS of SFW have asked SFW to look at how many people would favor such a program, that is different than 'lobbying', it is looking at issues brought up by the members.


Now either explain why my original post is a false statement or explain just what the "members" of SFW are talking about.

Why don't people want to talk about this? I'm concerned!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> PRO, here is our discussion from another thread today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now either explain why my original post is a false statement or explain just what the "members" of SFW are talking about.

Why don't people want to talk about this? I'm concerned![/quote:2kgc8hq7]
Here is what your first post on this thread said:


> There are "members" of some conservation groups (cough sfw) *that feel most hunters would like* to see more of Utahs annual general season deer hunting opportunity turned into LE type hunting. Obviously moving mule deer hunting in the direction Utahs elk hunting has gone.


I put in bold the very *different* statements that you/I made.

There you go, have fun. 8)


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

PRO when you said, *"to look at how many people would favor such a program"* doesn't that imply that you believe possibly the majority could have interest? I.E. "most hunters"

And why don't you give this thread some clarification if this is not what "some members" of SFW are proposing? Elkhuntingfool I don't think this is just to divide the state into smaller units I think it is about limiting hunters in certain units(taking away general season tags) in some areas to produce bigger animals and having all sorts of diffrent deer hunts ranging from the Heneries to the LE hunts to hunts like I400 (not quite as limited as true LEs).........

What do hunters think of this?

If you are part of a group wanting this, give us some detail! Educate me. maybe I'll get behind you.

That is unless you don't want the silent majority to get loud right before decissions are suposed to be made.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> That is unless you don't want the silent majority to get loud right before decissions are suposed to be made.


Come on, you know better than that. :roll:


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

A lot of what I post is sarcastic- this is honestly just a question. Not leading, just asking. I am not really for smaller units and one reason is that I can't imagine how more management can cost less. In other words - the tighter they circle things and work and look the more they spend on manpower, maps, public input etc. I am not even a fan of our current 5 area system. Let supply and demand work it out unless an micro area is clearly stressed and then close it for a season. One year the south would be hot, two years later somewhere in the desert, etc. 

To the actual question- would more units necessarily turn into higher expenditures and does watching a pot boil really change that much? The animals still have to eat, mate, and get through winter no matter how many SFW guys cart healthy bulls around to cows to make sure they all mate and give us more for our money. 

OK - some of it was sarcasm- would it cost more? Does more management really have a positive outcome?


----------



## 4x4 Bronco (Sep 7, 2007)

I just want to hunt deer every year.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

leave LE alone and change the general units and micro manage them you wouldn't even have to change any tag numbers. I hope they take a ton of tags away from the rifle hunt and spread them through the muzzloader and archery like 40-30-30. We can all dream can't we?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

In bow range, correct me if I'm wrong but the muzzy and rifle tags are first come first serve when they sell out they sell out. Seems like an OK system to me until tags completley sell out in the draw.

Back on track, what do hunters think of changing current general season deer areas into new LE type hunts?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> In bow range, correct me if I'm wrong but the muzzy and rifle tags are first come first serve when they sell out they sell out. Seems like an OK system to me until tags completley sell out in the draw.
> 
> Back on track, what do hunters think of changing current general season deer areas into new LE type hunts?


Define "LE type hunt" please. If you mean splitting up the state into 20-30 units, thus requiring a draw, I like it.

The term LE is misleading in my opinion. Right now there are about as many hunters as there are tags, it won't be any different if it goes to what you call "LE type hunts". It's just people won't get to hunt all over the place anymore.


----------



## TAY (Feb 13, 2008)

Why don't people want to talk about this? I'm concerned![/quote]

The reason I wont get on and talk about stuff on here and other sites is because of the wonderful I-400. When that whole mess was start I tried to voice my opinion on the subject, only to be slammed by PRO. Why should people waste there time when it just fall's on deaf ears? There are a few people floating around that know everything, if you try to tell them different they just want to change the subject or get all puffy(on the internet ofcourse). The next subject on this whole thing is how bowhunters should get to hunt for 3 month's of there choice and rifle hunters should get 3 hours one night from 8 p.m-11 p.m. Mark my words on this.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

That sounds like a great idea TAY! :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The next subject on this whole thing is how bowhunters should get to hunt for 3 month's of there choice and rifle hunters should get 3 hours one night from 8 p.m-11 p.m. Mark my words on this.


So are you saying that rifle hunters are going to be spotlighters now?


----------



## TAY (Feb 13, 2008)

No that is my point they will try and push rifle hunters out just like they have in "The Best Lie Ever" I-400.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't know much about deer management, but micro-management like Colorado does, does not make sense to me.  This is just a question, if they were to micro-manage the deer would you be able to hunt more than one little unit. If you couldn't I would be against it. I archery hunt a lot of different areas depending on where I am at at the time. I know that is just a luxury, but one that I really enjoy. If I had to choose one little unit and they got rid of the extended hunts, I am not sure I would have near the desire to hunt that I do now. I think there would be a huge amount of people that feel the same way as I do. I know, I am being selfish! 

Tay, I am not sure you are understanding I-400 correctly?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> No that is my point they will try and push rifle hunters out just like they have in "The Best Lie Ever" I-400.


That is not even close to what I400 is about.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

PRO, has it not been proposed by "some" members of SFW to "look into" the possability (if hunters support it) of taking some existing general season deer areas and *limiting tags *in said areas to produce more trophy class deer?

Tree, that is what I mean by LE, limiting tags in an area (that is currently general season) to produce more trophy class deer.


----------



## TAY (Feb 13, 2008)

I understand it, I have 13 points. The unit my family and I have hunted for ever is one of the units they want to destroy. Just because some of the people pushing for I-400 have already had a chance to hunt elk and probably will never draw again isn't a reason to destroy units so they have a chance again. My family,friends and I have a lot of time invested into the LE elk and dont want to see it ruined. Again I have tried to voice my opinion just to get told I was wrong. I have lived on this unit since birth, I tried to tell a certain person why his numbers where wrong. He said he would look into it and get back to me..... I am still waiting!!!!!!!!!

I am not trying to steal this post, I was just trying to give my opinion about why people aren't posting about this issue.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I


> understand it, I have 13 points. The unit my family and I have hunted for ever is one of the units they want to destroy. Just because some of the people pushing for I-400 have already had a chance to hunt elk and probably will never draw again isn't a reason to destroy units so they have a chance again. My family,friends and I have a lot of time invested into the LE elk and dont want to see it ruined. Again I have tried to voice my opinion just to get told I was wrong. I have lived on this unit since birth, I tried to tell a certain person why his numbers where wrong. He said he would look into it and get back to me..... I am still waiting!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I am not trying to steal this post, I was just trying to give my opinion about why people aren't posting about this issue


I'm sorry if that is the way you viewed I400, but we do not want to destroy any unit. That would be the worse things to ever do. We want to maintain quality and still give out more tags. If you move the rifle hunt out of the rut then the success rate will go down therefore you can give more people the opportunity to hunt bull elk. Many units have a surplus of bulls of at least 5 years and that is the reason that average age of harvest continues to rise.

Tay, so of course we are not trying to destroy ANY LE bull elk unit. That would be flat out foolish.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

From what I understood of the SFW idea, they were looking at changing the deer plan to include two management options: A units and B units. The A units would be managed as general season and the B units would be managed for trophies. When I read the idea that was posted by Pro, I was immediately alarmed because it sounded like SFW would be pushing an increase in LE units and a decrease in general season units...

...as Pro mentioned, though, this idea was geared towards some kind of poll that asked Utah deer hunters what their preferences were. Then, according to poll results certain percentages of the deer habitat would be managed for type A or type B hunting.

In all truthfulness, I think the idea is sound....BUT ONLY IF ALL DEER HUNTERS ARE POLLED. I also believe that our results would be very similar to the results Arizona and Wyoming saw where 80% of the hunting public viewed themselves as "opportunity" hunters and not "trophy" hunters. I think these kinds of results go against what SFW wants and would hope for.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Tay, like you I have been putting in for a unit that would be affected by 1400. I hunted this same unit before it was ever made a limited entry unit. Unlike you, I support I400, because I see it as an opportunity to hunt mature bulls on this unit that I know and love more than once in my lifetime. I despise being limited to hunting spikes. Even if I am only able to draw an I400 tag once every 10 years, it is still more of an opportunity than what I have now (once in a lifetime). The luxury you have with your 13 points is you could change units and have a really good chance at a better bull. Also, with 13 points, you should be able to draw any of the affected I400 units within the next year, so I don't know what you are complaining about. 

Regarding the deer, I have always supported smaller units. It will be interesting to see how it affects the archery season though. Being the avid archery hunter I am, I would hate to see us limited to one small unit. But if thats what it takes to help the deer and secure future opportunites for my children, so be it. I don't think the SFW agenda is to limit opportunity to increase trophy potential. They have that now with the current LE hunts. Just consider what the SFW and the MDF are doing now with feeding the deer, there would be more tags lost this next season if it wasn't for their feeding efforts. So you see, these special interest groups are FOR increased opportunity. The feeding is taking place on general season areas, not LE areas where it is assumed all of their interest lies.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Wyo2ut,

That is what I vaigley remember hearing and either that push has fallen apart or I honestly believe there are those who don't want to stir up the general season deer hunters but rather push this agenda to the deer management board "under the table" so to speak.

If anyone from SFW knows more on this I would love to here from them.

If what wyo2ut said is true I would have to think in order to create "B type" or LE units this would mean limit currently available general season opportunity and obviously closing down some areas to general season hunters.

What would you deer hunters think of making existing general season hunts into *NOT JUST MICRO UNITS *but *LIMITED ENTRY *units?


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Honestly, I would be against making any current General Season unit into a LE unit. I do think that from a micromanaged perspective, tags could be allocated differently to meet management objectives. For instance, if the central region is broken up into say, 10 sub-units. Some of these with lower than objective buck/doe ratios should have limited tags while others that are inline or above the managment buck/doe ratio could have more. Statewide I think the total tag allocation should be maintained at the current level of 95,000 tags though this number could fluctuate depending on the overall health of the herd statewide. 

What does this mean?

It means some areas would have limited tags due to management issues, not trophy management issues. Is this something that I agree with? Yes, 100%. The only way I would agree to the A unit and B unit program is if the current LE units were included and general season tags AND areas were not reduced to implement the program.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

FWIW, I am very in favor of micromanaging units...I think individual deer herds or units could be managed better to meet goals...I am adamantly against, though, changing current general season units into LE or "B" trophy units.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

Micro managing doesn't take tags away! Any LE of any kind on the gerneral units TAKES AWAY! Micro managing you could leave the archery hunt the same state wide, muzzleloader nine days. You could even change the rifle hunt back to 7-9 days but i do think the only way to do that is take some tags from rifle and spread them out through the archery and muzzleloader hunts.


----------



## TAY (Feb 13, 2008)

> The luxury you have with your 13 points is you could change units and have a really good chance at a better bull. Also, with 13 points, you should be able to draw any of the affected I400 units within the next year, so I don't know what you are complaining about.


Flyfish my problem is i want to see my younger brother's and my son be able to shoot something better than a raghorn on this unit. This units elk herd has exploded under the current program. I have always believed if it ain't broke dont fix it. Now tell me how killing everything is going to make it better. But you guys are the "EXPERTS" so tell me I am wrong.

10000ft again I am sorry about all of this I was just trying to say why I thought no one was replying. I want to thank you for bringing this subject up and give people a chance to talk without telling them they dont know because you are the "EXPERT"


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

so Tay, out of curiosity, which unit area you talking about?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Had to dig but I found it



> If Utah made two different kinds of deer hunts, pick which one you would want. Type A will be managed for 15-12 bucks per 100 Does post season. Type B will be managed for 35 bucks post season. If you pick a unit within Type A, you can probably hunt most every year. If you apply for a unit in type B, you will draw a tag every 4 years or so. If you apply for Units in A, you can NOT apply for hunts in Units B. And Vice Versa.
> 
> Then, if 60% of the hunters want Units Type A, the 60 percent of Utahs deer units are managed for 15-20. And 40% want type B, 40% are managed for 35. The main key would be to try and manage the product produced, with the desire of the customers.


PRO you posted this months ago and said this idea would be taken to the board this fall. I'm just curious if there was ever a survey done or if SFW is still proposing something like this to our Deer board here in a few months?

In theory this is what I wish they would do for elk, make people choose LE points or a general season tag. NOT BOTH. If you want hunting restricted in an area to have an easier chance at a trophy animal then *YOU* sit out for 4,5,10,20 years. As for me I will persue trophy animals EVERY YEAR on the general season.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut is correct, it was a poll ONLY. The point of the poll would be to see how many hunters would like to see more LE units vs the current system. The line of 'logic' would be: say 30% want the LE unit increase, so look at making 30% of the deer herd be under LE management. True democracy right there. That way those who like the 'opportunity' type hunts could still have still have that, and those who are willing to be more 'limited' on their 'opportunities' could do so. The catch would be if you apply for a LE tag you would be unable to get a general season tag, those would be reserved for the 'opportunity' hunters ONLY.

I believe this winter has shown the benefit of micro-managing deer herds. There are small pockets that are getting hammered, while others seem unaffected. This would enable the DWR to adjust tag numbers year to year based on specific counts and buck/doe ratios. It has done wonders in Colorado and Idaho, I see no reason why it wouldn't work in Utah.

TAY, you need to grow a set and man up. :roll:


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

So possibly your poll could show that Utah already has sufficient LE deer hunting we would just need to require to get a point you cant buy a general season tag. 

Imagine how much better our general season areas would be if LE hunters were not hunting in them the years they are aquireing points or hunting LE units for both elk and deer.

The only problem I see with this and it has already effected thousands of elk hunters and possibly could effect many deer hunters is how would you feel if they told you the places you have hunted the general season the last 50 years is now going to be LE?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> In all truthfulness, I think the idea is sound....BUT ONLY IF ALL DEER HUNTERS ARE POLLED.


I agree 100%. Speculating on hunter desires is getting old, FROM BOTH SIDES.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I agree Tree.

So I will ask *again* to any SFW members who might know, is this still on the "agenda" for this years deer board? Have they polled already?


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

FLYFISHN247 Very well said I agree 100%.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The wording is important as well, to ask: "Do you like to hunt every year?", would NOT be a valid question, it would need to be less vague and be more specific. Give hunters 'real' options and 'real' solutions are possible.

While at it we could do a poll on elk options, give them several scenarios and let them choose. I don't like the either/or stance, I believe we should have multiple options since their are multiple management options than can be implemented for deer/elk.

10000ft, it WILL be discussed at the 'deer board' this year, and if the board agrees, a poll will be conducted. I'll let you know what the feedback is after the first meeting, which will likely be in May.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

TAY said:


> Just because some of the people pushing for I-400 have already had a chance to hunt elk and probably will never draw again isn't a reason to destroy units so they have a chance again.


There are only a few who support I400 that have already drawn. I am one and I have not drawn, nor will I put in for I400 with the points I have.



> What would you deer hunters think of making existing general season hunts into NOT JUST MICRO UNITS but LIMITED ENTRY units?


No way. I think most of us are on the same page on this issue. It would just allow the DWR to regulate how many hunters are in any specific area hunting at any given time and manage the units accordingly.

IMO, the number of current LE deer units is about right. The number of LE elk units and the amount of land tied up in them is a bit out of whack. I would like to see more general season units opened up, and I400 is a step in that direction.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The wording is important as well, to ask: "Do you like to hunt every year?", would NOT be a valid question, it would need to be less vague and be more specific. Give hunters 'real' options and 'real' solutions are possible.
> 
> While at it we could do a poll on elk options, give them several scenarios and let them choose. I don't like the either/or stance, I believe we should have multiple options since their are multiple management options than can be implemented for deer/elk.
> 
> 10000ft, it WILL be discussed at the 'deer board' this year, and if the board agrees, a poll will be conducted. I'll let you know what the feedback is after the first meeting, which will likely be in May.


Who will run the poll Bart? IMO, if SFW runs the poll, the numbers may be skewed towards trophy hunters, because SFW is obviously made up of people who are a little more serious about hunting, so they would inherently gravitate in that direction. Not a bad thing, just reality.

What about requiring the public to take a 10 question poll before being allowed to check on their draw status or buy an OTC tag? I think the results would be closer to what the public really wants.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Who will run the poll Bart? IMO, if SFW runs the poll, the numbers may be skewed towards trophy hunters, because SFW is obviously made up of people who are a little more serious about hunting, so they would inherently gravitate in that direction. Not a bad thing, just reality.
> 
> What about requiring the public to take a 10 question poll before being allowed to check on their draw status or buy an OTC tag? I think the results would be closer to what the public really wants.


I would expect the mule deer plan committee to conduct the poll. I like your suggestion, I'll recommend that at the board meeting.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What about requiring the public to take a 10 question poll before being allowed to check on their draw status or buy an OTC tag? I think the results would be closer to what the public really wants.


There is a great idea.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Who will run the poll Bart? IMO, if SFW runs the poll, the numbers may be skewed towards trophy hunters, because SFW is obviously made up of people who are a little more serious about hunting, so they would inherently gravitate in that direction. Not a bad thing, just reality.
> ...


Just make sure you give me credit, otherwise I will have sue you. :mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The wording is important as well, to ask: "Do you like to hunt every year?", would NOT be a valid question, it would need to be less vague and be more specific. Give hunters 'real' options and 'real' solutions are possible.
> 
> While at it we could do a poll on elk options, give them several scenarios and let them choose. I don't like the either/or stance, I believe we should have multiple options since their are multiple management options than can be implemented for deer/elk.
> 
> 10000ft, it WILL be discussed at the 'deer board' this year, and if the board agrees, a poll will be conducted. I'll let you know what the feedback is after the first meeting, which will likely be in May.


I have discussed some of this stuff with the DWR and have been told that the chances of Utah conducting a similar poll are almost nill. Polls like this are very expensive and cost around $500,000 dollars...according to what I have been told, the DWR puts a lot of stock into what other states have learned from their polls. FWIW, the polls conducted in both Arizona and Wyoming were very comprehensive and conclusive...I suggest anyone go back and read those polls. I believe both can be found in their state's wildlife agency's sites...and FWIW neither of the polls were conducted by the agency itself; they were conducted by an independent company that has no real interest in the outcome.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

We'll see wyo2ut. Funny how public pressure can change the DWR's viewpoint. They are there to serve us, not the other way around. I believe if the deer committee wants a poll done, it will get done. I looked at the polling questions asked in Arizona's poll, there are a few I think were 'bent' for a specific response, but that is the nature of MOST polls I have taken, hunting related or not. What does 'independent' mean? Is it possible for anyone, or any business to not have biased views? I say, NO!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Wyo2ut were these polls asking people what they would choose in a given year, LE v.s. general season tag? 

This would also be a very hard survey to conduct in that if I had to choose one or the other I would obviously take general season every year. But I may throw a point at a LE hunt from time to time, especially if I was trying to help one of my own kids, family memebers or friends get an animal in a certain year and I could DRAW a LE tag with 3 or 4 points.

It truely would be the best system for two reasons:

1) Less people in general season areas (= more and bigger animals)

2) Less people applying for LE hunts (= MUCH shorter waiting periods)


----------



## TAY (Feb 13, 2008)

TAY, you need to grow a set and man up. 

PRO

Funny how you forget how you sold out when you talk to me on the phone. You seem to forget I wanted to meet face to face but you refused! If you want to stop writing and running on the internet just tell me where. And when you write your responce make sure you put a cute face on it. The worst thing about you is you really have some good ideas your just not willing to listen about ideas of yours people have concern's about. I dont know if your wife or boyfriend left you for a real man, or if you are having a mid-life crisis but I feel for you. I am sure there are hotline's out there let could help you thru the process of find boyfriend. I wish you the best of luck.

10000ft again I am sorry but the "PRO" wont let it die already.

And for anyone that wants to know what unit it is FISHLAKE, ya the dwr made a mistake and killed a few to many cows but it is rebounding very fast in the current program.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Dude, chill out yeah?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

What poll questions would get accurate data needed?

1. Do you hunt GS deer every year?
2. If not, on average how many years out of every 10?
3. Do you hunt GS elk every year?
4. If not, on average how many years out of every 10?
5. Do you put in for LE deer every year?
6. If not, on average how many years out of every 10?
7. Do you put in for LE elk every year?
8. If not, on average how many years out of every 10?

9. To reduce the waiting period on LE deer hunts if you had to choose each year between a bonus point or a general season tag (NOT BOTH) over the next 10 years how many years would you hunt GS v.s. LE for deer?

10. To reduce the waiting period on LE elk hunts if you had to choose each year between a bonus point or a general season tag (NOT BOTH) over the next 10 years how many years would you hunt GS v.s. LE for deer?

I could devide the state up by hunters prefrence with the answers to those 10 questions.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not sure what results you would get from asking those types of questions. Maybe Yes/No or multiple choice. Maybe I am missing something, but what would they deduce from asking what you would likely do out of 10 years?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAY said:


> TAY, you need to grow a set and man up.
> 
> PRO
> 
> ...


100% pure BS, why come on here and write such LIES? This "phone conversation" NEVER happened.

Good spin as well, *you* mention my name, then act surprised when I respond. HELLO! I'll pass on your concerns to my lovely wife. :roll:

For the record, I have never received a phone cal, nor have I made a phone call to "meet at the flag pole". I out grew that in the 9th grade. Sorry 10000ft your topic has been hijacked by someone obsessed with me.  :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I would hate for this thread to go away to the dark and dreary gutpile. Take it easy everyone.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

TAY, honestly, the current system *is* broke and does need fixing, that is the sole purpose behind I400. Fishlake (your preferred unit) and Wasatch (my preferred unit) are not Premium LE units by any means, but there are great bulls, and too many of them. Even when these units were general season, a hunter didn't have to settle for a raghorn, just like we won't have to settle for one if I400 or a similar proposal* is *implemented. It just means we will have to hunt harder to get what we want and there may be more competition in the field.

I don't know why you think I400 will destroy the herd, if anything it will help overall herd health. As it stands right now, your brother, depending on how many points he has, has a while to wait for a tag. Your son on the other hand may never have the opportunity to hunt there with the current draw system.

So what is more important to you? Hope your son draws a tag in your lifetime so he can have a chance at a 400" bull or have an opportunity to hunt in an area of great significance to your family multiple times with your son, and have real opportunities to harvest great bulls multiple times. The choice is yours.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

The reason I say out of ten years is because if I had to choose hunting deer on a LE unit every 5 years or hunting the general season every year I would obviously choose general season.

I know there are hunters who will say I want to hunt GS the next three years but then I will sit out for two years (put in for a LE points) and help my 14 year old get his first few bucks, then hunt the general season for a few years, then put in for a LE point the year I hunt deer in Wyoming..........

I choose the number 10 because you could see what percent of the time they anticipate hunting GS vs. LE and then you devide the states herds and units accordingley.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have liked your idea of choosing one or the other since you brought it up months ago. If I want a LE bonus point, I should NOT be allowed to get a tag for that species the same year, deer or elk. If I want a deer LE point, I should be willing to 'wait' my turn, not get a point AND get a general season tag the same year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Wyo2ut were these polls asking people what they would choose in a given year, LE v.s. general season tag?


Go to this website and you can find a bunch of different polls regarding hunter retention and recruitment.

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/huntingreports.html

FWIW, Arizona's poll was 165 questions...a link to this poll and the results can also be found at the above site.

Pro, which questions were "biased" or steered towards a certain answer? You seem to discount this poll/study and any other poll/study that comes up with different results than what you want. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You don't even know "what I want". :roll: You're right though, all these questions and not a single one skewed one way or the other. It is the first poll in history that has no biased questions. Well done Arizona, you have done the impossible! :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You don't even know "what I want". :roll: You're right though, all these questions and not a single one skewed one way or the other. It is the first poll in history that has no biased questions. Well done Arizona, you have done the impossible! :?


Typical...when the results of a study/poll differ from what your expectations are, you question the validity of the poll or study... :roll:

Instead of questioning the results, read them...I doubt seriously that you have!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Doubt all you want. One question I don't like is: Q12./3. What was your primary reason for hunting big game in Arizona? A)For the meat? B)To harvest a trophy animal? C)To enhance skills or use equipment? D)To be with family/friends? E)For the sport, recreation, challenge? F)To be close to nature ans spend time in the field?

I don't like option E) as I believe it is entwined with B) too much. So, I personally would lump B) and E) as one answer, making it receive 46% of the vote, with 'meat hunters' getting 24%. Yet that is NOT what was concluded. I am sure you see it differently, hence proving my point!

Now tell me, do you still doubt I read the **** thing? :? _(O)_ 

I could even make a case to include C) as part of BE). :shock:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

You are now telling me that you read all 195 pages of it in the last ten minutes...****, you are intelligent! :roll: 

FWIW, it wasn't concluded that way because of the numerous other questions that were asked and used to come up with conclusions...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You are now telling me that you read all 195 pages of it in the last ten minutes...****, you are intelligent! :roll:
> 
> FWIW, it wasn't concluded that way because of the numerous other questions that were asked and used to come up with conclusions...


I'll type this slowly for you, I had already read this survey BEFORE you posted the link to it. I also have taken speed reading courses, which allows me to read around 2000 words a minute, tell me professor, how long would it take me to read this report? :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Another complaint is the inclusion of turkey hunters in the poll. That can skew all kinds of responses. There has NEVER been a poll conducted that was fail-safe and immune to bias'. That is akin to claims journalists are 'neutral' when reporting 'news'. Impossibility.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

PRO what do you want to see done with the deer herds? everyone keeps bashing you but i haven't really heard from you what you want just all this hear say.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

inbowrange said:


> PRO what do you want to see done with the deer herds? everyone keeps bashing you but i haven't really heard from you what you want just all this hear say.


I would like to see micro-management of the deer herds. I believe the 5 regions are too big to properly manage for population objectives and buck/doe ratios.

I also would like to see a diversity of management objectives on different units. What I mean is maybe look at managing for high buck/doe ratios in more remote areas where the herds are at/near current objectives. I also like the idea of finding out how deer hunters want the deer herds managed. I am excited to be a part of the deer management committee that will help draft the new deer management plan and the new objectives/goals of the deer herd in Utah. As my signature says, I believe the new DMP should: "Define, develop, and sustain *both *trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah."

There you go. 8)


----------

