# 3 Point or Better Units--Revisited



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Alright not trying to start up a bunch of fighting again, I'll try to keep points valid as long as everyone else does. But how would everyone feel about keeping the current LE deer units the same as they are, and turning half or 1/3 of the general deer units into 3 point or better units? I would not want tags cut, in fact more tags could be given this way I think. And maybe after a few years of this bucks would begin to be better quality on these units and you could do late season management hunts to get rid of bad genes in the pool. Then manage the other half or 2/3 of the general units as they are now for the taking of any buck with antlers over 5 inches.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Really, this again? -O\__-


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Yep, killing only the biggest deer in the unit will cause the remaining deer to be bigger. And their genes would improve.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

It wld give the remaining bucks a chance to grow and after a couple years of bad harvest rates on the units those bucks that were allowed to grow would be there and it would in the end be more bucks.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

They wouldn't be allowed to grow. Everybody would be shooting them.
You either have to limit the number of hunters to the point of creating a limited entry unit which means less opportunity, or you're gonna have it the way it is. Killing the biggest bucks on the unit does NOT create bigger bucks.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

It does however give smaller bucks a chance to grow. And big bucks are harder to hunt and kill.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

The only way that antler restrictions has served a function has been with our premium limited entry management buck hunts. These animals are managed the opposite of what you are proposing. 

I have first hand experience on the Monroe unit observing dead 2pt after dead 2pt everywhere from Richfield to Annabella, to parts of Fillmore. Left to rot. Many of the hunters who shot these deer had good intentions and were a little confused by adrenaline. What would have been legal in years past became illegal and those hunters have since crossed a line which lead to a lot more than the accidental shootings of illegal bucks. The sick feeling of doing something wrong overcomes them on their first offense, but when they leave the animal to rot they spiral down the ethics drain and such regulations spawns blunt and ignorant poachers who can justify anything because they feel they were dealt the wrong hand. 

It's bad animal management and even worse hunter management. It creates a mind f#@K that corrupts hunters by marginalizing a standard that we dont have the man power to regulate. How many home grown poachers do you want to invite on your home turf in Sevier County?


----------



## muzzlehunter (Nov 29, 2009)

This was tried years ago, monroe mountain was one of the areas. You can still see the effects of what 3 point or better did down there. It doesnt work.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Well Goofy. DIG A FOX HOLE Big enough for both of us. Three point or better was one of the smartest things the dwr ever put into play . Ya don't agree thats fine... One thing I do know for sure I'am gunna catch He--!. .. Don't Care.. u bet there were some 2 points and spikers killed., I'll put this to you. were was the enforcement on these units, out of sight. And after the gun hunt is over they just show up, would you like to tell me how? and this comes from the dwr..do you count dead 2 points and spikes under 3 feet of snow that was down on the Fishlake unit , Boulders> Parker> Mytoge , and so on.


----------



## muzzlehunter (Nov 29, 2009)

If it was such a great tool why havent they tried it again? You ever want to see a mature fork horn thats 25 + inches wide that cant be harvested, start 3 point or better again. Those same mature fork horns become the main breeding stock. Bad genetics is what you get.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> The only way that antler restrictions has served a function has been with our premium limited entry management buck hunts. These animals are managed the opposite of what you are proposing.
> 
> I have first hand experience on the Monroe unit observing dead 2pt after dead 2pt everywhere from Richfield to Annabella, to parts of Fillmore. Left to rot. Many of the hunters who shot these deer had good intentions and were a little confused by adrenaline. What would have been legal in years past became illegal and those hunters have since crossed a line which lead to a lot more than the accidental shootings of illegal bucks. The sick feeling of doing something wrong overcomes them on their first offense, but when they leave the animal to rot they spiral down the ethics drain and such regulations spawns blunt and ignorant poachers who can justify anything because they feel they were dealt the wrong hand.
> 
> It's bad animal management and even worse hunter management. It creates a mind f#@K that corrupts hunters by marginalizing a standard that we dont have the man power to regulate. How many home grown poachers do you want to invite on your home turf in Sevier County?


You are kidding right? What your post is saying is hunters don't follow the rules, aren't ethical, and don't make sure they do things right before pulling the trigger. The same people who shot those 2 points are the same people who would poach if they thought no one would catch them. You have no fight on those points. You don't think that there are tons of 2 points and spikes not getting killed now? I have doubts that as many hunters shoot 2 points and spikes and leave them laying as they do shoot as many when it is legal. With the ones that you saw laying there that were shot by UNETHICAL UN-LAWABIDING hunters (poachers to put it another way) when the 3 point rule was in place I guarantee you 5 times that get shot when it's legal. The problem with a lot of you is you think you can tag tag tag tag tag and give opportunity out the ****ing roof and kill tons of bucks and the resource is never going to run out or go down hill. Obviously nothing the DWR has worked that has tried and yet you all say they are very educated individuals it seems all anyone has to say is............ well the DWR tried it and it didn't work. Maybe they didn't enforce it enough and the officers weren't catching people. Maybe people need to turn people in when they break the law. Maybe if the 3 point or better units were put in to place and thoroughly enforced it would make a difference.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

muzzlehunter said:


> If it was such a great tool why havent they tried it again? You ever want to see a mature fork horn thats 25 + inches wide that cant be harvested, start 3 point or better again. Those same mature fork horns become the main breeding stock. Bad genetics is what you get.


That's why I said after a few years of this program into place, start a management hunt with limited tags and put it during a little later to take 2 point or less. There's your more opportunity.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Alright not trying to start up a bunch of fighting again, I'll try to keep points valid as long as everyone else does. But how would everyone feel about keeping the current LE deer units the same as they are, and turning half or 1/3 of the general deer units into 3 point or better units? I would not want tags cut, in fact more tags could be given this way I think. And maybe after a few years of this bucks would begin to be better quality on these units and you could do late season management hunts to get rid of bad genes in the pool. Then manage the other half or 2/3 of the general units as they are now for the taking of any buck with antlers over 5 inches.


If your goal is to increase mature bucks you should do the opposite of what you are proposing. Instead of a three point or better unit you would go with spike only units, (which I am not for). Putting more pressure on the big bucks will not net you more big bucks.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

Leave it the way it is and soon this forum will be empty...since there wont be anything left to [email protected] about! Shoot your two points all day long if you want! I simply dont care anymore. The DWR will never do anything remotely close to the right thing! I know of a certain unit where the landowners association took control and since that time...tons of deer and alot of bucks, heck even a few 200 inchers


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > Alright not trying to start up a bunch of fighting again, I'll try to keep points valid as long as everyone else does. But how would everyone feel about keeping the current LE deer units the same as they are, and turning half or 1/3 of the general deer units into 3 point or better units? I would not want tags cut, in fact more tags could be given this way I think. And maybe after a few years of this bucks would begin to be better quality on these units and you could do late season management hunts to get rid of bad genes in the pool. Then manage the other half or 2/3 of the general units as they are now for the taking of any buck with antlers over 5 inches.
> ...


+1 I would much sooner support antler restrictions in the direction of no more than 3 points on 1 side not including the brow tine before I could consider point restrictions requiring a minimum of 3 points.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Nambaster said:
> 
> 
> > The only way that antler restrictions has served a function has been with our premium limited entry management buck hunts. These animals are managed the opposite of what you are proposing.
> ...


 They didnt enforce it enough and there is not enough enforcement currently. I agree with you we need to police other hunters while we are out in the field to improve the quality of our existing hunting heritage. We need hunters to be the good guy instead of the greedy guy.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I think it would be a good idea to implement some sort of QDM aside from just a LE and general classification. Something in the middle, I think, is definitely called for.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I hear ya Fudd, I'm digg'in a big fox hole!!

If positive results come from Wyoming's new Antler restion units,, WELL,
Look out Utah cuz they're coming....

And if not AR's, Utah will just have to go with more LE units......
I can see it coming, Utah's deer hunters are gett'in just a bit pizz'ed off with poor hunting...( on most general units)
JMHO...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

If you keep your buck to doe ratio targets the same antler restrictions don't work as desired. Its been tried in Utah and other states. Let me explain.

You have to understand the management plan and how general units work. If every year we have a goal to be at say 18 bucks per 100 does on a given unit you issue enough tags (based on success rate) to get you to that number. All that happens is that you focus all your hunters on older bucks and all that's left is young bucks after the hunts. The end result is LESS mature bucks but the same amount of total bucks. If you want more bucks and/or older bucks you simply change your buck to doe ratio objective. 

Any landowner or unit that sees more bucks and bigger bucks achieved those results because they have increased their buck to doe ratio whether intentional or not. If a landowner ran his property the same way the mule deer plan was written (not written by the DWR by the way) then he/she should be issuing more tags/trespass permits as success rates decrease and buck to doe ratios increase along with his antler restrics plan and would not result in more and bigger bucks.

I'm not trying to be rude or condensending but I challenge some of you learn the deer management plan and understand how it works. If you put antler restrics in this year, and change nothing else, and issue the same amount of tags its true that success rates would likely go down resulting in more bucks next year. But based on the management plan you just issue more tags next year to compensate for the lack of harvest this year. Eventually you will end up killing the same amount of bucks, even if it takes 3 times the hunters, you'd have the same amount of bucks left on the mountian but your buck population would be much younger on average.

So the fallacy in this argument as that you assume that tags numbers would not increase as your success rate drops with antler restrics.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> And if not AR's, Utah will just have to go with more LE units......
> I can see it coming, Utah's deer hunters are gett'in just a bit pizz'ed off with poor hunting...( on most general units)
> JMHO...


I agree with you that many of the vocal minority is expressing displeasure with "quality". However I have talked with a lot of folks and the for the most part the average guy that doesn't get on hunting forums and spend all year talking about hunting is much more frustrated with the draw complexity and ever growing number of rules than they are the hunt "quality". At least that is what I am hearing from many sources including my own experience.

Others repeat what they hear others say but when questioned they have little idea of what is happening and why.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> If your goal is to increase mature bucks you should do the opposite of what you are proposing. Instead of a three point or better unit you would go with spike only units, (which I am not for). Putting more pressure on the big bucks will not net you more big bucks.


No because you wouldn't be able to get off your 4 wheeler or open your truck door and walk 5 feet off the road to shoot the 2 point or spike because your too lazy and a big buck is to hard for you to go out and find. Have you not noticed how hard a big buck is to hunt? Isn't that what where all trying to get for the most part? We'll what makes you think we would be any more successful at finding and taking a lot more big bucks just because there was something saying you couldn't shoot the 2 point or spike in front of you. I doubt antler restrictions would really change the area someone hunts or the way someone hunts, so in the end you just save the smaller bucks to get bigger, you don't end up killing many if any more big bucks. It just not as simple and easy to say your gonna go shoot a giant 4 point because now there's an antler restriction and you can't shoot the 2 point you just saw.



Nambaster said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > #1DEER 1-I said:
> ...


I don't understand your thinking on that, you have to let small bucks grow in order to become big bucks........ guess what big bucks eventually die on their own. Killing all the small ones so they couldn't become mature obviously wouldn't do any good.



Nambaster said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > Nambaster said:
> ...


Now as for this... I don't really think all those 2 points that were came across were 30 inch wide 2 points with a point on one side just an 1/8 of an inch to small to be legal were they? No this is as exaggerated of a situation as you could come across. I think the 2 points you stumbled across shot were shot by hunters who were not obeying the law, and hence were poaching. If not there must be lots of 30" wide 2 points where you were at with a 7/8" point on one side.

As for a renewable resource, well ya it is but that renewable resource your talking about is the only big game species in North America whose numbers have been continually declining over the past few decades. It won't be renewable once it's pushed to a point it shouldn't be.



stablebuck said:


> I think it would be a good idea to implement some sort of QDM aside from just a LE and general classification. Something in the middle, I think, is definitely called for.


I think some of us should be able to enjoy units that aren't as hard to draw as LE units, but are managed for quality bucks. Thank you.



goofy elk said:


> I hear ya Fudd, I'm digg'in a big fox hole!!
> 
> If positive results come from Wyoming's new Antler restion units,, WELL,
> Look out Utah cuz they're coming....
> ...


Ya I'm getting awful tired of tags costing me more and more money and yet the hunting just keeps getting worse and worse.

Bullsnot I understand your point on the management, but I would also say raise the buck:doe ratio objective for the units that would be 3 point or better. Then to better meet whatever objective was set, you would have a late season hunt to get rid of the big 2 points and spikes in order to meet the b:d ratio and get rid of bad genes in the pool.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Bullsnot, thanks for bringing some reason to this topic.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I hear ya Fudd, I'm digg'in a big fox hole!!
> 
> If positive results come from Wyoming's new Antler restion units,, WELL,
> Look out Utah cuz they're coming....
> ...


Wouldn't we have un-purchased tags in "most general hunt" units if this were the case? IMO, there is no reason to change product or lower prices if you are selling out of all of your product. Fairly simple economic indicator.

Then again, maybe all of these "pizzed off" people are making room for folks that are content with what is.

If we see a big decline in hunters purchasing available tags, then something might need to be addressed, but antler restrictions, based on division feedback I've received, doesn't seem like something that would be considered.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Hey Tree---sshhh!!! Don't go bringing economics into the equation! That would be just too darn rational!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

muzzle,
Please explain how the Monroe is still showing anything to do with 3 point or better????? I'm really curious?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> muzzle,
> Please explain how the Monroe is still showing anything to do with 3 point or better????? I'm really curious?


I was wondering the same thing. It seems a little dissonant to point to something such as this. I hear the same thing about the book cliffs from some folks. I'm not convinced that there's a unique identifier that is left after a few years of AR's, but it definitely puts the focus on the mature segment of the population while it is being implemented.


----------



## martin3369 (Mar 12, 2013)

I can see the bad and the good with one way or the other, but here is what I'm proposing if the DWR encouraged three point or better instead of forcing it. People do get excited and shoot before they count points to realize the buck they thought they saw was not! There is not enough DWR officers in the state to enforce a three point or better so maybe they should encourage the idea!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

There's not enough officers to enforce any rules then so maybe instead of buying hundreds of 40000 dollar truck every year they could hire a few more officers.


----------



## muzzlehunter (Nov 29, 2009)

Weak genetics plain and simple. Its the only unit Ive been on that you can see numerous spikes that may be 2 or 3 " tall if that. This is just personel observations but it makes you wonder. It has been better in the last few years, but its not something that changes in just a couple seasons. If I remember right I believe other states have tried 3 point or better and its never worked.


----------



## muzzlehunter (Nov 29, 2009)

I would suggest to call the dwr and ask why they dont go back to 3 point or better.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Antler restrictions ARE NOT going to fly, for a while anyway....

Thank goodness though there is a way to fix buck to doe ratios....

It's called Option 2  

Just cut deer permits on units with low BtoD ratios,,,Problem solved :!:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

muzzle,
If you looking antler genetics and growth you find that spikes have more to do with when the fawn is born and the feed on the unit. Not genetics. 

Heres something to chew on it you think it is genetics. There is currently antler restriction on every single unit in the state. The law is you can not shot a spike that is under 5". So in all actuality the only deer we are currently protection are the bucks that you are claiming to be genetically inferior. :shock: 

Looks like more than half of the posters would like to see 3 point or better on at least some units. Hey what do you know... That is now a valid option that we have 30 units. Lets try in a some and see how it goes.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The DWR used to have a whole lot more CO's afield back when we used to manage wildlife for hunters. 

You need to understand the DWR manages in spite of hunters not for hunters.

IMO it's a wonderful way to increase B/D ratios with out cutting opportunity. And IMO if any given deer herd is at capacity then I'm in favor of increasing the B/D, harvest more buck in fall and leave more room on the range for doe and fawn survival. But instead we send the deer herd in onto winter at capacity causing more competition for available forage.

That is if the deer herd is at capacity. :? 

Unlawful kills IMO would be a non factor. Unless the deer herd is at capacity. Then it really would be a non factor. Because those deer would have died anyway. :roll:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

There should be 2 tags an any buck and a 3pt or better. And prescribed accordingly to achieve desired results. It is much more feasible to do now with option 2.


----------



## muzzlehunter (Nov 29, 2009)

Muley73, yes feed has alot to do with it. But in that area with only mature 2 points running around and doing most of the breeding. The genetics went down. Genitics has as much to do with growth as feed. Again just my oppinion.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Why is it that the trophy hunters have to change the general season units to be trophy units? It is frighteningly selfish...afterall, every year trophy deer are harvested from virtually every single general season unit. Why do we need to manage for more trophies? The great thing about how Utah's system is set up is that it tries to appease each type of deer hunter--we have premium LE hunts that are managed for very large deer (Henry's, Pauns), we have LE units that are managed for big bucks (Book Cliffs, Vernon, etc), and we have general season units that are managed for opportunity and low quality. The reality is that you cannot have both high opportunity and high quality. IF a change needs to be made, force deer hunters to either put in for a general season tag or a LE tag but not both. This would help move people through the LE system much quicker...

...As far as 3-point or better goes, it is the same ol' crap. The reality is that virtually every western state has tried these regulations and ALL have come to the conclusion that they do NOT work. Wyoming is reinventing an old wheel and trying it again, true; however, they are doing it under pressure from well-meaning sportsmen and not under advisement from the WG&F department (sound familiar?). And, the WG&F has come right out and said in their own management plans that these regulations will not produce more big bucks. It is completely asinine to me to keep trying management plans that do NOT work. The way to increase the number of big bucks in a unit is to reduce the number of tags given out. The problem with 3-point or better regulations, as others have said, is that you cannot place all of your hunter harvest and focus on the oldest bucks.

1-I, you are correct in saying that older bucks are harder to hunt. In fact, most (if not all) 3-point or better studies done in the west have shown that hunter harvest percentages go down with this management strategy. However, the number of 3-point or better deer does NOT go up. Why? Again, because all of the hunter harvest is focused on this one group of animals instead of the hunter harvest being spread out. Remember, not all bucks will reach that magical 3-point or better status...even if they are left unharvested and allowed to mature (some don't have the right genetics, some are killed by predators, some are killed by cars, and some die from disease and winterkill). Ultimately, then, the end result of 3-point or better regulations is less harvest and the same or even fewer mature bucks...it is a lose-lose situation for deer hunters!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> The DWR used to have a whole lot more CO's afield back when we used to manage wildlife for hunters.


Remember, the DWR has had to cut COs because our state legislature has cut the DWR's budget.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> There's not enough officers to enforce any rules then so maybe instead of buying hundreds of 40000 dollar truck every year they could hire a few more officers.


Sorry, but this is one of those stupid quotes that people throw out who don't have a clue. First of all, nobody in the DWR get's a new truck every year. Second of all, the auto companies bid on a contract with the DWR as to who gets to sell the state trucks and once trucks reach a certain amount of miles, they are replaced.

I would suspect, though, that with a comment like that, you would expect DWR employees to use their own vehicles on the job...sounds like a pretty good tax write off to me. I don't know, but it seems like it would be a waste of tax dollars to be paying these guys to drive their own vehicles...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Simply speaking you have your 3 point or better units. They are call Limited-Entry hunts. Go stand in line and hunt them. Leave the rest of us alone.........


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Stand in line for the LE? Well if you look at the poll it looks like half the hunters voting would like to see it. Sooooo I think it would make sense to take 10 to 15 of the general units and make them 3 point or better. Then the hunters that wanna hunt any buck do have their units and get left alone and the ones that would like to see 3 point or better can have their units to hunt. 

Anyone wanna bet on which units have the most applicants after 2 or 3 yrs of 3 point or better???


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Ok, so you want to make a 3pt rule? Personally, I love eating my fork horn from last year way more than ANY of the mature bucks my family has taken. Herd health dictates that we shouldn't be harvesting many(if any) does---and those are my favorite to eat, so that leaves me with tender tasty young bucks. As has been said, if you want some units to be 3pt units---how is that providing a different opportunity than already exists with LE units? Not to mention(as has already been stated) there are whopper bucks to be had if you work hard enough on nearly all units. A particular 190" buck on the Wasatch West muzzleloader hunt last season comes to mind. I bought my WWmuzzle tag otc last year because not enough people applied. This could be seen as an indication that the public viewed that unit as a poor choice---yet, some guy killed I buck I would be hard pressed not to pull the trigger on it on any unit. On nearly the same day I shot a tasty little forkie and watched what could have been his twin run away unharmed. Same unit, different but equally great opportunities. And this in one of the 'worst' units in the state according to hunter demand. 
I like the idea of option 2, being able to manage the herds on a more micro level is something that I have thought made sense since I was a child. Before we try to do something new--why not let the current plan have some time to work out the kinks and gain some benefits?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Stand in line for the LE? Well if you look at the poll it looks like half the hunters voting would like to see it.


If you want to go back and look at more comprehensive polls done, the results are very much more in favor of opportunity over quality. So, by your line of thinking, we should probably open up some more of those LE areas to general season hunting!

Here is the question I want answered by those who want these 3-point or better regs: Why go back and institute a management strategy that has not only been tried in Utah and failed but also tried in every other western state and failed?

3-point or better hunting strategies are like slot limits on reservoirs--if a reservoir has a slot limit allowing the harvest of fish under 13 inches and over 22 inches, almost all of the fish left are going to be between 13-22 inches because everything else is harvested. It works the same way with hunting...and, FWIW, fish over the slot limit are also harder to catch just like bigger bucks are harder to kill!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I completely understand that many hunters are content to go out and shoot a yearling buck. My point is that from the poll it looks as if there is a large % that would like to see 3 point or better. Why should they have to only get the LE units? To me they should get a % of the general units. If only the 3 point or better crowd was allowed to apply for the LE then sure I would buy that. That however is not the case.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Better go back and look again. Number 1 quesstion is to do away with LE and replace with 3-point or better. If you wanted to replace all the defined LE units with 3-point or better, I would be okay with that. Those units are for the point people.

Wanna bet which units are butt plugged after 2 or 3 years? Wanna bet which hunters will cry for more 3-point or better units to hunt because of a butt plug and long waiting lines? 

Personally I think a LE hunt is nothing more than a high fence hunt and deserves about as much respect.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Stand in line for the LE? Well if you look at the poll it looks like half the hunters voting would like to see it. Sooooo I think it would make sense to take 10 to 15 of the general units and make them 3 point or better.


I'm not sure this is even a valid public question. Why implement something that has been tried already and we know doesn't work because some armchair biologists think it will work?

I think the valid public questions have been addressed continuously for years about the balance between quality and opportunity and here we are. The same folks are still making the same arguments despite the issue being settled for all intents and purposes.

We don't want to turn the public into bioligists. If you think the current wildife managers are bad, wait till the public makes biological policy. We want to ask them what they want out of the hunting experience and then impliment biological policy from there.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I completely understand that many hunters are content to go out and shoot a yearling buck. My point is that from the poll it looks as if there is a large % that would like to see 3 point or better. Why should they have to only get the LE units? To me they should get a % of the general units. If only the 3 point or better crowd was allowed to apply for the LE then sure I would buy that. That however is not the case.


The way to increase the size of bucks within a herd is to limit tags and increase buck/doe ratios. If hunters want more opportunity for some bigger bucks, the way to do it is through tag numbers and buck/doe ratios not through a feel-good management strategy like antler point restrictions. Or, to increase deer herd sizes (which every state in the West is trying to do with limited success). If I remember correctly, Utah's premium units are managed for a buck/doe ratio of 40-50/100, Utah's LE areas are managed for a buck/doe ratio of 25-35 bucks/100 does, and Utah's general season areas are managed for buck/doe ratios of 15-17/100 does or 18-20 bucks/100 does depending on the unit.

IF you want more general season units with a better chance at a mature buck, the way to do it is to change the buck/doe ratio objectives and to limit tags a bit. For example, a third general season unit could be adopted that is managed for a buck/doe ratio between 20-25 bucks/100 does. The trade-off, again though, is that tags would have to be cut on these units.

The thing that bothers me about this discussion is that--if CWMUs are included--we already have a buttload of trophy deer hunting opportunity outside of our general season units and even more if you include the chance of shooting a trophy in our general season units, yet the trophy crowd always wants more....and they want it at the expense of the general season hunter.

I still believe the best way to appease both trophy hunters and the opportunity type hunters is to make hunters choose between applying for LE units and general season units and disallow them to apply for both.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> The thing that bothers me about this discussion is that--if CWMUs are included--we already have a buttload of trophy deer hunting opportunity outside of our general season units and even more if you include the chance of shooting a trophy in our general season units, yet the trophy crowd always wants more....and they want it at the expense of the general season hunter.
> 
> I still believe the best way to appease both trophy hunters and the opportunity type hunters is to make hunters choose between applying for LE units and general season units and disallow them to apply for both.


 Spot on........

I'm starting to think going one step further by saying if you draw a tag it costs you your points, whether it's first or fifth choice.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> I still believe the best way to appease both trophy hunters and the opportunity type hunters is to make hunters choose between applying for LE units and general season units and disallow them to apply for both.


+1, or have just one deer draw for all units, especially with the adoption of option 2. (Simply stipulate that you can't apply for a premium deer unit as well as a pronghorn or LE elk tag in the same year to prevent more backups in LE elk or pronghorns)


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

W2U,
I actually agree completely that you could set it up the either apply for general season or LE, but not both. 

Here is my question if a higher percent choose LE does that mean that more units should go to LE. If we are truly trying to give the public what they want should the the units reflect that? 


Hunt,
I did read the first question, it had very little support. Antler restriction overall however had more support than no antler restriction at all. Look that the poll in its entirety. 
As far as LE being like high fenced and having no respect for either. Well I guess if have no respect for others opinions we should not really care about your opinions either????? I'd really like to hear your explination for not having respect for LE units???? o-||


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Screw the 3 point or better just fix the system

Im for combining the points system. Meaning if you put in for le and draw you use your points. if you put in for a general tag and draw you use your points. NO putting in for LE hunt not drawing and then going out and killing on a general hunt. IF YOU GET A TAG FIRST OR LAST CHOICE YOU LOOSE YOUR POINTS!

This is the only system that is fair and allows the ones who likes to hunt the big bucks better odds at doing so. 
It also takes the ones that want to hunt the big bucks out of the general areas so the guys that like to pound the dinks better odds at pounding the dinks.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

sw,
Agreed, however I believe that there should be a higher number of LE units. To match the demand.

Antler restriction is just an option to satisfy both camps.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Antler restriction is just an option to satisfy both camps.


That's just it....APR's won't satisfy either. 3-point or better restrictions won't grow more big bucks and, at the same time, they will restrict those who just want to harvest something.



Muley73 said:


> Here is my question if a higher percent choose LE does that mean that more units should go to LE. If we are truly trying to give the public what they want should the the units reflect that?


I don't think so....unless a unit has fewer people apply than what there are tags. In that case, I would suggest that tag numbers are further limited in that unit...which would ultimately accomplish what you want anyway.

If the demand for a unit is high enough that there are more people trying to draw it than what there are tags available, it should be left alone. At the same time, I also don't think that more units should be managed like a general season unit if a higher percent chooses them...I believe the balance is already good.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Hunt,
> I did read the first question, it had very little support. Antler restriction overall however had more support than no antler restriction at all. Look that the poll in its entirety.
> As far as LE being like high fenced and having no respect for either. Well I guess if have no respect for others opinions we should not really care about your opinions either????? I'd really like to hear your explination for not having respect for LE units???? o-||


An individual who out smarts a big old buck on a general hunt deserves far more respect than an individual hunting a LE unit were the odds have been stacked.

I said nothing about not respecting your opinion. What I said was not having respect for LE hunts. I've hunted one deer LE hunt back in the beginning. It was fun. Had a good time, but I decided that I enjoyed the GS hunt with my family better. I choose what I want to harvest (I have not harvested a deer less than 3-points in 20 years). Thats by my choice. I enjoy the adventure in looking and trying to out smart a deer and my fellow hunters. I have far less impact on the deer in my area, from a harvest point of view, but some say I should only be allowed to hunt once ever 5 years. As has been pointed out half this State is already set aside for Trophy hunters. Go hunt it and quite trying to take from the rest of us.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I dont know why you guys keeps saying GE unites.Utah does not have them any more.All of our unites are LE units and all of are hunts beside waterfowl and upland game is Le hunts any more. That all changed last year when we went to the 30 unites.

Im sick of reading 3 point or better threads every year. It the same damd thing every year.Like said before you want big bucks hunt fro them. Stop telling me I cant shoot a 2 point or a spike. If I want a big buck I will hunt for him. If not im going to shoot what walks in front of me.My family and I in joy eating deer steaks. This get old fast. By the dwr cant be every where at the same time.The north eastern unite only has four officers covering that whole are.How do I know my ex wife called in a guy.The officer told her thanks and him and a couple of his guys looked for what they need to bust the guy witch did not happen. he told her thanks for watching out there only four of us covering these whole unite. 

3point or better is not going to work.Just drop it and let move on.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Half the state LE??? Please explain...again. 

If you don't want to be told what buck to shoot, well then go ahead and apply for a non antler restriction unit. You saying leave it alone because that's what you want is telling more than half the hunters polled that their opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Half the state LE??? Please explain...again.


100% of the state is limited entry... some areas are more restricted than others (henery's more than the books, the books more than wasatch east etc), but besides landowner and auction tags, everyone has to be lucky to draw a deer tag to hunt. The open General Deer season hasnt existed since 1994.

-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Thank goodness!!!

I remember when I was on this site a couple years ago and was laughed and called a fool for thinking Option 2 would pass. Well I'll go out on a limb again and say I'll bet AR gets another try before it's all said and done. Looks like the majority would like to see it.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Thank goodness!!!
> 
> I remember when I was on this site a couple years ago and was laughed and called a fool for thinking Option 2 would pass. Well I'll go out on a limb again and say I'll bet AR gets another try before it's all said and done. Looks like the majority would like to see it.


Just because the majority of those who have responded to this thread have expressed an opinion of being in favor of antler restrictions doesn't mean that the majority of hunters in the state of Utah would agree.

If AR gets another try, I'll go out on a limb and say that the results will be the same. No increase in bucks. No increase in overall size of bucks. More 2 points shot, killed and left.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Guess we'll see.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Half the state LE??? Please explain...again.
> 
> If you don't want to be told what buck to shoot, well then go ahead and apply for a non antler restriction unit. You saying leave it alone because that's what you want is telling more than half the hunters polled that their opinion doesn't matter.


Nope you're wrong again. Those that want to hunt big antlered animals have a place to do just that already. What those that want 3-point or better really want is to tie up more ground to get a few more permits out of the system to hunt bigger animals by restricting the individuals off that ground.

As far as majority goes, I'll believe that when every hunter that puts in for a tag says yes or no. Till then it's just trophy hunters trying to take more ground through BS.........


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

AR or whatever you want to call it.........DOES NOT WORK. OR IT WOULD STILL BE AROUND.
I have been called: old, stupid, dumb, and about everything else over the years for being against it. That's okay.
The fact is.....way too many bucks were shot and left in 3-point or better units. 
Don't care what anyone says about ethics, values, or anything else. That's what happened.
I was on a statewide big game board in the mid-80's, before the RAC stuff, and it was talked about heavily before being dropped. VERY expensive game management.
Slam me if you want, I was there, I saw it, and was involved in the decision.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I hunted Fillmore back in the 80's when the 3 point or better regulation was in place. We saw lots of bucks of every size, and always managed to kill 3 point or better bucks. I hunted this area several times after the 3 point or better regulation was dropped and the deer have all but vanished. I don't know, maybe the 3 point or better system was working. The way things are now, I think they need to close some areas of the state down completely to hunting deer. I feel very fortunate that I had the opportunity to hunt deer back in the '80's when it was a general season and tags were sold over the counter. Somewhere since then something went wrong.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Once again, AR's are not coming back into Utah soon.

BUT, Thank goodness we have option 2 in place now, TIME TO USE IT!

Plain and simple, all units with deer numbers below objective levels,
and/or below buck to doe ratios,,,,,,,CUT DEER PERMITS!!!! It's a no brain-er :!:


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Half the state LE??? Please explain...again.


it not half of the state it the whole state. You have to draw a tag to hunt. so it now a LE state to hunt.


----------



## Gweedo (Mar 12, 2013)

At one point in time I fell prey to thinking that AR's would grant me an oppertunity to harvest bugger bucks. After a lot of research I've come to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. Deer hunting in Utah started a rapid downward spiral years ago when legislators put the money garnered from license sales into the general funds and then giving the Fish and Game a set budget to work with. If the F&G maintained control of their funding at the time we would have been able to conserve more habitat for the deer that the general public would be able to hunt on. As it is now they went to CWMU units where they got help from private landowners to try and conserve habitat and animals. In my opinion these are just big buck shooting Zoos' for the wealthy. It will still be a couple years before we really see any change from option 2. Depending on how the cards are played option 2 may help with sucsess rate or the size of bucks. Unfortinately they will have to reduce the number of tags to get the ratios up meaning the average joe that just wants meat for the table may onle be able to get a tag once every couple years. Antler Restrictions will only make things worse. Please don't push for them.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> sw,
> Agreed, however I believe that there should be a higher number of LE units. To match the demand.


How do you figure there is higher demand for LE units? IF you were to look at the total number of applicants for GS units and compare them to the total applicants of LE units, you will find that the number is higher for GS units (and its not even close!)....so how do you figure? Based on your reasoning, we should actually be changing more LE areas to general areas...

The reality is that you cannot determine which units have the higher demand between GS units and LE units because people can apply for both....my bet is that if you forced hunters to only apply for one deer unit instead of both, the demand for the Henry's, for example, would drop considerably because people with low points know they will not draw it.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well, if we want to see what the majority wants in terms of LE and non-LE, maybe we should just allow people to obtain a permit for one or the other over a 5 year period. My wager is most want to hunt as often as possible. They apply for LE deer because they can and still be able to get their "lesser" tag. Looks to me that most who want a LE tag also just want to hunt. They did a survey and stats analysis on the LE/non-LE which showed the grand majority just wants to hunt.

Can APRs of the 1980s-early 90s be used to substantiate their value to a herd's management? Units which had APRs and units which didn't ALL have seen lower deer numbers. It is a universal problem- extending across the West.

We all want to curb the deer loss, we all want to see results, but maybe the cause of the problem isn't under our control and even if it is, the fix may take decades to see results.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Fowlmouth Know where your coming from..The year they opened that entire area and all other 3 point or better units to any Buck.. The slaughter was on.. I was a rifle hunter back then, and after what I witness, the crazyness,, the absolute kill everything with an antler mind set, the total lack of ethics, one camp had 9 Bucks hung up. that was my last rifle hunt. people were outa control. acted as if they had never seen a buck in their lives.. only stands to reason if you limit units to 3 point or better for years. and the Buck population booms. then remove the restrictions without limitations on how many tags were issued, human nature sends half of the State into units that were limited to 3 point, and BAM BAM BAM , what took years to build up was killed off in 2 weeks.. After all is said and done and the populations crash. Heres what you tell the hunting public"" Have to close some units off due to Drought " isn't it kinda strange that most of the units closed off were the year after 3 point was removed.They now are called LE Units.. I think we were snookered..


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
I understand what you are say. However I think there would be more hunters than you think that would choose the 4-5 year option. 

I think the poll is telling on what hunters are looking for. 

Bottom line however is the focus should be growing more deer and then deciding how to manage them. I'm with you on that 100%.

I just keep looking at the fact that when we stopped hunting on the Books, Henrys, Pauns... They all grew more deer. Not just bucks, the overall #s increased. We started hunting them and they have fallen yes but not near to the low #s of when they were General units.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Oh please let us find out. 

Lets move all the micro units into the LE bonus point draw. Allow people to choose if they want to put in for a Bookcliffs tag or the Wasatch East unit. None of this LE and "General" applications... its just a deer app and you get 1 first pick across the state. If you draw ANY deer tag you loose your points. 

The hardcore people you mention can choose to wait their 4-5 years between tags by *ONLY* putting in for a first choice pick.


-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

It sounds to me that instead of beating the dead horse of APR with this survey, that the more informative survey should be;

"Do you favor changes to the deer draw requiring a hunter to either pick LE or general, but not both?"


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I would support combining the points systems and just have one deer draw. If you don't draw your first choice then you get a point. No points lost for drawing a 2nd through 5th choice. I would not be in favor of making hunters choose "what type of hunter" they are. If you want to put Wasatch West as your first choice you can. If you want to put the Henry's as your first choice you can. But I do not like the idea of telling hunters they can't apply for an LE unit because they like to get out and hunt. That divisive.

Again the poll here doesn't reveal anything other than how the 50 or 60 people that responded on this forum feel. Broader surveys that have statistical validity to them and survey a broader audience tell a different story.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Plain and simple, all units with deer numbers below objective levels,
> and/or below buck to doe ratios,,,,,,,CUT DEER PERMITS!!!! It's a no brain-er :!:


I agree with you on the buck to doe ratio portion of you comment. You will see me support tag cuts when units drop below objective or are trending down quickly.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

As far as I'm concerned nobody has addressed what I believe to be the elephant in the room and what I brought up earlier. If we manage to buck to doe ratios what do AR's do for us?

My understanding is that Wyoming is using AR's as a way to lower success rates and increase buck to doe ratios. They won't be increasing tag numbers. In Utah we simply cut tags in that scenario. But if AR's were implmented in Utah today the success rate would likely drop with AR's and then the plan calls for increased tag numbers next year and the net result actually would mean the same amount of bucks left after the hunts with many less mature bucks. That sound good to anyone?

Nevermind all the deer that get shot and left because they don't meet the restriction.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Get rid of LE units and the Pauns and Henry's will fill up with lifetime licenses. As I hold one, I guess I could be selfish and say lets do it. But I don't think that's the right thing to do. 

I used to buy into antler restrictions in units with the caveat that youth under 18 could shoot any buck. But the more I've read about the strategy the more I've learned is they don't work for the stated goal. If over half the hunters in the state support 3-point or better, then self-regulate and don't shoot something smaller. I've done that many years and ate tag soup because of it. This year I'll have my 6-year old daughter hunting with and I'm sure the first legal buck we see will be turned into jerky and back straps.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

TS30 said:


> Get rid of LE units and the Pauns and Henry's will fill up with lifetime licenses. As I hold one, I guess I could be selfish and say lets do it. But I don't think that's the right thing to do.


IMO, any "one deer draw" plan like what I proposed on page 5 or what Bullsnot proposed would still have to have some units still designated as "premium" or "LE" (whatever name you want to choose) to prevent what you described here and also to prevent a glut of (previous) LE deer applicants flooding the LE elk and antelope draws. However, with that designation in place, and lifetime holders still having to draw for a "premium/LE" tag, it could work and take some pressure off both the so called trophy guys and the "general" hunters.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Plain and simple, all units with deer numbers below objective levels,
> ...


So you know hunter harvest is compensatory. :^8^: And you claim to be for hunter opportunity. But right off the bat even hypothetically you favor tag cuts.



bullsnot said:


> As far as I'm concerned nobody has addressed what I believe to be the elephant in the room and what I brought up earlier. If we manage to buck to doe ratios what do AR's do for us?


The elephant in the room is hunters aren't the only thing that kills bucks. Cougar kill plenty of buck. Why don't you support removing a few cougar to save a few deer and increase the B/D ratio? IMO you work for hunters not predators so take from them not from those you represent. But you don't even want to know how many cougar there are. So how could you even begin to grasp the issue. :roll:

I think your part of the problem not part of the solution. -)O(-


----------



## hatuquack (Nov 15, 2011)

Reinstate the life time permit, then all of us who can afford it might be happy. :O•-:


----------



## martin3369 (Mar 12, 2013)

Muley73 said:


> I completely understand that many hunters are content to go out and shoot a yearling buck. My point is that from the poll it looks as if there is a large % that would like to see 3 point or better. Why should they have to only get the LE units? To me they should get a % of the general units. If only the 3 point or better crowd was allowed to apply for the LE then sure I would buy that. That however is not the case.


look at the poll again!!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Look at what??? That 54% of those polled would like to see AR??? Is that what I'm suppose to be looking at?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Screw it.... Carry on.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> The elephant in the room is hunters aren't the only thing that kills bucks. Cougar kill plenty of buck. Why don't you support removing a few cougar to save a few deer and increase the B/D ratio? IMO you work for hunters not predators so take from them not from those you represent. But you don't even want to know how many cougar there are. So how could you even begin to grasp the issue.
> 
> I think your part of the problem not part of the solution.


This might hold water IB if cats preyed on mostly bucks, but I can assure you that they prey on more does overall, which would lower B/D ratios even more if we took them out of the picture. Maybe that is why the DWR is so hesitant to remove them, to keep the B/D ratios higher. There is another conspiracy theory for your journal...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm not so sure that cougar feed more on doe than they do buck. 

I'm sure more doe die per yr to cougar than buck. But that's because there's 6X more doe than buck. I'm thinking a cougar probably kills more than one buck for every 6 doe. So proportionately more bucks are killed. I think a cougar can kill a solitary buck easier than a doe in a group. 

My whole point is cutting tags is an anti hunting act. Haven't we cut tags enough? "Tag cuts" are a dirty word and should never be supported by a hunter advocate. Unless all other avenues have been pursued and then maybe and only maybe.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Bullsnot,
I think another “elephant in the room” is hunter/customer satisfaction. As this poll indicates, it may be at an all-time high or low. People may not necessarily want ARs but they want some sort of improvement in quality and quantity of bucks they are seeing.

If a sub-unit falls below the set 15/100 or 18/100 buck to doe ratios, we either can cut a lot of tags (20%+) or I propose to re-distribute tags for a three-year period. If tags need to be cut, I propose to cut 5-10% off the top, then change the current ratios as follows:
Rifle- 60%
Muzzleloader -20%
Archery- 20%
To
Rifle- 30%
Muzzleloader -30%
Archery -40%
Then, after the three years, if buck to doe ratios increase above the quota, return the hunt ratios back to where they are now.

This would give more hunter opportunity, while lowering hunter harvest numbers, which should increase quality and quantity of bucks in that unit.
Would something like this work or be concidered?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I like that thinking ridge


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Bullsnot,
> I think another "elephant in the room" is hunter/customer satisfaction. As this poll indicates, it may be at an all-time high. People may not necessarily want ARs but they want some sort of improvement in quality and quantity of bucks they are seeing.


Couldn't agree more :!: ......Exactly whats happening.......


----------



## Huge30incher (Nov 29, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> I like that thinking ridge


Me too!


----------



## Nalgi (Apr 16, 2010)

*the reason I voted no*

years ago they had a 3pt OB in Fishlake and all they succeeded in doing was killing alot of forkys by mistake that got left in the field.
Some people want to shoot "A Deer" others want a trophy deer, others want to shoot a 3pt or better.

Why not offer them all. With the unit system in place, this would be manageable. I think 1/3 or 1/2 is too much.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: the reason I voted no*



Nalgi said:


> years ago they had a 3pt OB in Fishlake and all they succeeded in doing was killing alot of forkys by mistake that got left in the field.
> Some people want to shoot "A Deer" others want a trophy deer, others want to shoot a 3pt or better.
> 
> Why not offer them all. With the unit system in place, this would be manageable. I think 1/3 or 1/2 is too much.


absolutely! there is no reason, with the unit system in place, that they can't offer a few options in terms of managing the deer herd. Make one unit 2-point or smaller, make another unit 3-point or better, leave other units alone and see which units hunters seem to like more, and then possibly rotate the way each unit is managed. (A very loose example of how things can be diversified to experiment with the herd and the hunters) Right now I think there are way too many assumptions as to what hunters are happy with and what management techniques produce quality animals. Right now all we know is cutting tags to virtually nothing on an LE unit produces quality animals...shocker :shock: 
We as the hunters pay these guys in the DWR to employ biologists and wildlife managers...how about they start managing wildlife using a more multi-faceted approach that encompasses Habitat Management, Herd Management, Herd Monitoring, and Hunter Management. I've hunted Utah for 9 years now and in that time all the state has come up with is unit-by-unit hunter management and buck:doe ratios...you gotta be kidding me...


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Utah has cut tags, micromanaged the hunters, reduced the amount of area the hunters can hunt etc, etc.... yet the deer herd still suffers. Maybe we should focus more on the deer herd and less on micro-managing the hunters.

Reducing predators and the health of the does and fawns should be the focus if we want to increase the quality and quantity of muledeer. We spend way to much time micromanaging the hunters.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Bullsnot,
> I think another "elephant in the room" is hunter/customer satisfaction. As this poll indicates, it may be at an all-time high or low. People may not necessarily want ARs but they want some sort of improvement in quality and quantity of bucks they are seeing.


I don't disagree with your statement one bit. All I'm saying is lets not put policy in place that we know doesn't work.

Custer would've likely died an old man if he had paid any attention to history such as the plight of Nepoleon.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> My whole point is cutting tags is an anti hunting act. Haven't we cut tags enough? "Tag cuts" are a dirty word and should never be supported by a hunter advocate. Unless all other avenues have been pursued and then maybe and only maybe.


The resource first, then hunters. This simple philosophy benefits hunters in the long run IMO. But you know what I stand for, you are looking for some sort of reaction from me. PM me and tell me what you're looking for and I'll make your day. I promise I'll really ham it up and make it seem real.

Until then I am unable to connect with your perceived reality...it confuses me.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I don't disagree with your statement one bit. All I'm saying is lets not put policy in place that we know doesn't work.


Exactly! Antler restrictions have been shown to have the opposite impact of what is desired. They actually increase hunting pressure on the exact segment of the herd that is desired, thus minimizing their presence within the herd as well as reducing age class diversification. AR's produces more 2 1/2 year old bucks prehunt, but do not increase the average age class of bucks overall.

In addition to this nasty little revelation, the fact remains that AR's also result in a higher rate of yearling bucks being shot and abandoned. Antler restritions only remain in place in areas where social pressures are significant enough that wildlife managers dare not remove them.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: the reason I voted no*



Nalgi said:


> *years ago they had a 3pt OB in Fishlake and all they succeeded in doing was killing alot of forkys by mistake that got left in the field*.
> Some people want to shoot "A Deer" others want a trophy deer, others want to shoot a 3pt or better.
> 
> *Why not offer them all*. With the unit system in place, this would be manageable. I think 1/3 or 1/2 is too much.


I think you answered your own question in the second paragraph with your comment in the first paragrpah didn't you? It not only doesn't work but it makes things worse.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Threads like this drive me crazy, and give me insight why hunting will likely not be an option for future generations! I offer up a quote from a wise SPORTSMAN: "Manage wildlife with hunters instead of managing wildlife for hunters!" I have just read through 10 pages of a discussion about managing wildlife *FOR* hunters, which is deeply flawed, is short-sighted, and is counter-productive. It is as foolish as QE's from the government, it makes things worse, and it completely ignores the real problems. This is simple really, mule deer are struggling in EVERY state, those with extremely liberal permit allocations, those with extremely rationed permit allocations, so it should be obvious that its not the number of buck permits that is the primary limiting factor to mule deer populations. If the actual goal is more 'trophy'/mature bucks, figure out how to get the total mule deer population to increase. Back in the hey-days of the 50's, 60's, 70's, and early 80's were not due to rationed permit numbers, nor to antler restriction, it was because there was an abundance of mule deer, so much so that one could kill two bucks every year. I pray for the day we allow the biologists to do what they know, which is use biology and PROVEN science, then and ONLY then will mule deer have a chance at increasing in sustainable numbers/means! This mindset of setting management policies based on polls and ignoring science and common sense is a major reason the future of hunting is looking dim. IMHO!!


----------



## Twitchell (Apr 14, 2010)

To all those who think 3 point or better won't work, think about this.........

If you think reducing tags creates bigger bucks, eg. LE Units, where it is proven that it does work. Why wouldn't antler restriction work along the same lines, In other words, antler restriction is similar to limiting tags because the success rate would go down, right. Remember the older mature bucks are smart and are not going to be jumping out saying shoot me. Who ever thinks that all the big bucks will be shot with 3 point or better is wacko, they will still be just as witty. Anyway, When a hunt is unsuccessful isnt it pretty much like no tag given out, because there was no kill. Anter restriction = reduced tags.

You could also allow youth to kill any buck, to help keep the bad genes out.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It has been said before but I'll say it again. The Henry Mountain deer herd and the Book Cliff deer herd were doing quite fine as a 3 pt or better hunt until the division opened it up to any buck. Then after half of the state hunted in those two units for a couple of years you couldn't find a decent buck since all the small ones had been shot off the previous couple of years. Then they closed both units to let the herd recover from what they had done.\

I hunted both units and the Henry Mountain area when it was 4 pt or better and I never did see a single 2 pt or a 3x3 buck that had been shot and left.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> "Manage wildlife with hunters instead of managing wildlife for hunters!" I have just read through 10 pages of a discussion about managing wildlife *FOR* hunters, which is deeply flawed, is short-sighted, and is counter-productive.


+80 hundred

I think I remember saying something to the tune of post-hunt survey calls are worthless because what does "how you feel your hunt went?" have anything to do with wildlife management??? You either killed something or you didn't...end of story. This coddling hunters thing is getting old...real old...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Whether you like it or not stablebuck and the rest, there is a social side to hunting. Stablebuck you say surveys are a waste. I say there not. Whether you like it or not hunter satisfaction needs to be addressed. The division can use the hunter survey data to spot trends so it can predict the deer numbers better. 

I personally wont punch or attempt to purchase or punch a rifle tag in this state. I haven't hunted the rifle hunt with my own tag in over 10 years because it sucks. Ive been out on the rifle hunt with family and friends every year and every year its like a kick to the balls. It sucks!

The tide is turning because there are more and more people that feel the same way i do. 

Sure if game numbers were trending upwards instead of down the hunt would be alot funner and we would not be having this conversation but when herds are trending down and have been doing so for over 10 years there is nothing to do except manage hunters and thats a fact!

You cant control winters, you cant control cheetgrass, You cant effectively control cats, bears, coyotes enough without the use of 1080. The only thing you can control is man! 

So your just going to have to get used to it.

I could care less if they used 3 point or better or it they made you only shoot spikes and made anything larger a draw. They could go 33%, 33%, 33% tag allocations or they could make you use your points no matter what you want to hunt. Any of the last two suggestions in mind that would increase hunter satisfaction. However one would fix the problems with the bonus butt plug and at the same time allow our general units to have better quality. 

Mark my words something will change in the way we manage our hunters in the near future because this is utah.

Bray on fellas its almost hunting time. Lol joking


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Twitchell said:


> Why wouldn't antler restriction work along the same lines, In other words, antler restriction is similar to limiting tags because the success rate would go down, right.


You are correct in that in some cases where APR's have been tried that harvest is lower. The problem, though, is that there will always be fewer bucks above the slot because fewer bucks will make to that magic point where they can be legally harvested--some bucks will never make it because of genetics, some bucks will be illegally harvested, some bucks will die from natural causes, and some bucks will be preyed upon. And, when you focus all your hunting pressure on these bucks--even though they are older and smarter--you still harvest a lot of them...most of them. And, as a result and as this management strategy has shown time and again, you are left with fewer bucks above the slot. So, no, APR's are not at all like LE units....LE units restrict harvest much more than APR's ever could.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

In my mind three point or better could be the main reason the genetics suck in the bookcliffs.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Twitchell said:


> To all those who think 3 point or better won't work, think about this.........
> 
> If you think reducing tags creates bigger bucks, eg. LE Units, where it is proven that it does work. Why wouldn't antler restriction work along the same lines, In other words, antler restriction is similar to limiting tags *because the success rate would go down, right*. Remember the older mature bucks are smart and are not going to be jumping out saying shoot me. Who ever thinks that all the big bucks will be shot with 3 point or better is wacko, they will still be just as witty. Anyway, When a hunt is unsuccessful isnt it pretty much like no tag given out, because there was no kill. Anter restriction = reduced tags.
> 
> You could also allow youth to kill any buck, to help keep the bad genes out.


I answered this question on the second page of this thread. The current management plan has target buck do doe ratios. Any time you reduce success rates, you have to increase tags to stay within those target ratios.

Pro, I agree with you. I just use different words but don't let that be a hang up. Yes we should manage game with hunters. I just refer to as the resource comes first but when talking policy I think we are on the same page.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> The resource first, then hunters. This simple philosophy benefits hunters in the long run IMO.





stablebuck said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > "Manage wildlife with hunters instead of managing wildlife for hunters!" I have just read through 10 pages of a discussion about managing wildlife *FOR* hunters, which is deeply flawed, is short-sighted, and is counter-productive.
> ...


 -Ov- viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49121

You mean manage wildlife in spite of hunters.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

The funny thing is all of these people bitching that they are not seeing big bucks. dont go and put the time in to scout and get off the roads. i see big bucks every year and chase them.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

3 point or better? Naaaa, been there done that. ;-)


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I personally wont punch or attempt to purchase or punch a rifle tag in this state. I haven't hunted the rifle hunt with my own tag in over 10 years because it sucks. Ive been out on the rifle hunt with family and friends every year and every year its like a kick to the balls. It sucks!


I'm right there with you...I grew up in Texas and the only people who hunt with bows/muzzleloaders in Texas are people who do it simply for the challenge. I started bowhunting in Utah and everywhere else because of the one deer season I hunted with a rifle in Utah. But I think it is naive to think that hunters won't adapt to changes made on behalf of the deer herd even if they are at a detriment to the rifle hunt. I would fully support a 33/33/33 split...and if the resident rifle hunters wouldn't...guess what life will go on and, contrary to popular belief, the DWR's money will not vanish into thin air. I think it is a shame how the rifle pool has the DWR by the coin-purse. The biologists and DWR should be making the decisions. Prior to 2004 you would have never caught me concerned with anything regarding archery equipment. I hunted with a rifle in Utah in October 2007 and I got a bow in January 2008 and have hunted solely archery for all big game in multiple states since then. I did it...why can't others? Plus hunting with a rifle is just boring :lol:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

dark,
Is that really what you think? That the only reason I'm pushing for change is I can't find big bucks or that I don't get off the road? 

:roll:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> The funny thing is all of these people bitching that they are not seeing big bucks. dont go and put the time in to scout and get off the roads. i see big bucks every year and chase them.


I'll address this first. No I'm not in favor of change because I can't find a big buck or I don't get off the roads and walk my ass off. I put a ton of work into just watching deer and elk, let alone trying to harvest one. Don't tell me how I hunt or the way I hunt because you don't know me dkhntrdstn, you simply don't know. The reason dk is and should obviously be the fact that the amount of bucks, deer, and sizes of bucks are dropping all over the state, and all the DWR and you advocates of "no change" because you don't want to not be able to hunt ever year I just don't get. If something dosen't change look at what has happened over the last 3 decades? Well they haven't fixed anyting have they and things just keep getting worse so how bad can we expect things to get in another decade if the fix isn't found out? We have all this information and have had decades to figure out how to help deer but we seem to just be sitting at a standstill not knowing what to do still. What do we do wait till there are nothing but small bucks? Less and less deer until there is no more? What do we do? I understand you all say that bucks are excess, but I can promise you everywhere but Utah and Salt Lake county deer herds are under capacity of their winter range? Do you disagree? I don't see winter ranges that are in terrible condition (with the exception of the fact that cheat grass needs to be conrolled)? Lots of winter ranges could hold more deer, why aren't the herds growing? It's a combination of things and yes I think the biggest reasons are predators and the fact that cheat grass is overtaking the BLM land in Utah and I haven't seen anything done about it. But something needs to be done. I'm tired of watching whats happening just get worse.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Interesting how many of the posts on this topic seem to go along the line that nothing is being done. That is not the case. 

Utah currently has 4 different buck objectives on the various herd units, the state has been divided into small units for ONLY one season, there are current studies being done to evaluate the doe/fawn segment of the herd, they are fencing hundreds of miles of roads, putting $10 million plus into habitat restoration THIS YEAR, started a war on coyotes this year, reduced the rifle permits by 15,000 over the past 4 years, installing guzzlers, etc.....

How about seeing what happens over the next 5 years to evaluate the success of the current strategies? There is no way to see what works if we change every year.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

"Something needs to be done." Well, according to the houndsmen, there aint enough cougars left to hunt let alone effect deer herds, so decimating the cougs has been done, check! No more need to worry about yotes, some con org got two bills passed to fund taking care of that problem, check! Been building underpasses, overpasses, sidepasses and fences, so that's sumpin', check! This state has spent more money on habitat restoration than ANY other western state, like a gazillion acres or so, so that's sumpin' too, check,! Been cuttin' tags for a while now clean across the west, so that's sumpin' too, check! Made it a whole lot harder for all those dang families to hunt together in groups so that's sumpin', check! Made the whole state limited entry so that's sumpin', check! Why the hell not add AR's to the fray, let's go for it! Hmmm, sorry for the rant, I must have SMP! Ain't that sumpin'!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> Interesting how many of the posts on this topic seem to go along the line that nothing is being done. That is not the case.
> 
> Utah currently has 4 different buck objectives on the various herd units, the state has been divided into small units for ONLY one season, there are current studies being done to evaluate the doe/fawn segment of the herd, they are fencing hundreds of miles of roads, putting $10 million plus into habitat restoration THIS YEAR, started a war on coyotes this year, reduced the rifle permits by 15,000 over the past 4 years, installing guzzlers, etc.....
> 
> How about seeing what happens over the next 5 years to evaluate the success of the current strategies? There is no way to see what works if we change every year.


I couldn't agree more. 
My earlier post was just an alternative to the 3 point or better idea but I didn't really say how I feel about them. 
To answer 1-I's first post. I don't think 3 point or better units would really produce that many more bucks in the long run. Sure the first year, success rates would be lower but after that, a lot of 2 and 3 year old bucks would get killed every year. The success rate would be about the same and if they added more tags, then the buck to doe ratio would drop. 
I personally like the way things are headed. I loved the 9 day season this year, except a few more tags may need to be cut if the harvest rates come in higher than they have in the last few years.
The thing I dislike the most about ARs, is that I think anyone should be able to kill whatever buck they want. Most of you know that I hunt only mature bucks but you will never hear me putting down someone for shooting a yearling. Good for them.
One thing I hope does get changed, is the carryover rule. 
Meaning, unused archery tags should not be converted over to muzzleloader or rifle tags. Bad idea


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Haha, good post packout ;0)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Haha, good post packout ;0)


No love my way? 
Jerk! :mrgreen:


----------



## Twitchell (Apr 14, 2010)

dkhntrdstn said:


> The funny thing is all of these people bitching that they are not seeing big bucks. dont go and put the time in to scout and get off the roads. i see big bucks every year and chase them.


Are you serious...you are wrong, and its not funny. I put in alot of time to scout and I don't hunt anywhere unless its a two hour hike from a road. Yes I do see big bucks every year, but not as many as 2,4,6,8 years ago. I am concerned with the trend. Something has to be done to reduce the pressure on the bucks, I am in favor of cutting the tags in half, more preditor control, even increase tag prices.

I still think 3 point or better would be better then where we are, while letting youth hunt any buck. This would give them a better chance at killing a buck, yet it would make it harder for adult to kill a buck, all in all leaving more bucks for the next year.Plus, Killing the 3 points would keep the bad genes at bay. Remember studies say that 3 points have bad genes...right.

...And no, most of the big bucks would not be killed, there would have to be more left over every year, no matter the added pressure to hunt them. It is simple math. Do you not realize how many people road hunt, and will for as long as they live. And if you are a serious hunter then you know for a fact that bigger bucks stay away from roads, the added pressure won't be much more than it is now. More might be killed, but that is because there were more to start with because of the two points that grew into 3 points or bigger the year before, because there was not near the pressure on them.

I also don't like to compare now to the past, because a lot of things have changed, there are a lot of differences in technology and the attitudes of hunters, trophy hunters etc. philosophy's and theories also change a great deal,in all aspects. mainly because the variables changes, so that changes everything.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > Haha, good post packout ;0)
> ...


I'm too dang slow on this internet thing! Everyone typing at the same time,  Hellofa post there ridge!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> -Ov- viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49121
> 
> You mean manage wildlife in spite of hunters.


 Yes and no. Yes, as bullsnot astutely put it.....manage to the health of the species FIRST, then and only then manage to hunter wishes. No, because humans......like it or not......are part of the ecosystem, and thus we impact EVERY species of wildlife in some measure. So, we as stewards are bound by duty to manage and minimize the negative effects our activities have on wildlife. When humans put highways through traditional migration routes, we have a responsibilty to help wildlife adjust, not simply stand back and allow animals to die or suffer needlessly. Thus, we as lovers of all things wild can be used as management tools to aid wildlife. But, when we start placing the wants/wishes of humans above the needs of the species we claim to care so deeply about, bad policies are enacted that result in causing more harm on wildlife.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thought this was an interesting take on AR's in the great North Country...

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/2969364/18 ... +in+BC.doc


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Twitchell's last post nailed it!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Thought this was an interesting take on AR's in the great North Country...
> 
> http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/2969364/18 ... +in+BC.doc


for those that dont want to read the whole thing

"In conclusion, we summarize reasons why we suggest this APR has been successful at maximizing hunter opportunity while sustaining mule deer populations. Firstly, this season structure is a combination of any-buck and four-point season and is not exclusively an APR. This combination serves to maintain hunter opportunity, ensures harvest is not focused only on older age classes of bucks, and limits harvest during vulnerable periods. Secondly, the remoteness, ruggedness and heavily timbered nature of many deer ranges within this study area limit hunter intensity and success. The overall hunter density on fall mule deer ranges during this study was 0.2-0.4 hunters/km2 which is likely much lower than many jurisdictions in the US that offer general open seasons for mule deer. We are conscious that access can, and is in some areas, increasing concurrent with industrial development which in turn could make mule deer bucks more vulnerable to harvest. We also recognize that non-hunting mortality especially from severe winters can impact deer populations.

As such, we stress the importance of monitoring mule deer populations, especially sex ratios to monitor the effectiveness of harvest strategies and suggest the following four options to manage buck harvest if sex ratios drop below the management objective of 20 bucks/100 does: 1)Season harmonization - pursue further harmonization of mule deer seasons in adjacent regions to distribute harvest and avoid concentrating hunters ; 2) Antlerless harvests - increase antlerless harvests provided populations can support increased harvests and management objectives can continue to be met;Access management - implement more stringent access management regulations and/or work with industry to physically manage access through decommissioning/blockage of new and existing access points; 4)Season adjustments - adjust buck season timing and/or length to reduce hunter numbers and/or success."

What I get out of it
1. shoot the does to increase buck to doe ratios :O>>: 
2. "Harmonize deer seasons" This sounds like a liberal artsy fartsy person wrote it. *-band-* 
3. Block roads and limit access OOO°)OO 
4. adjust season timing or length of season to reduce hunter numbers or success. O-|-O I hate 3 day rifle hunts! You reduce hunter numbers by cutting tags! :O---:


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

dkhntrdstn.. Ya can't be serious. Really? Come on Man.. Didn't draw a tag last year. 1st time in 50 years.Scouted my butt off.Spent 2 weeks on the Boulders..Year 2011 spent a month scouting and 21 day hunting with my Bow..Ask Goofy if he has ever been scouting.Granted their are hunters who never scout. But I still feel the Deer Herds are in Pi-- Poor shape and haven't been managed properly in 20 years. But HEY! Thats just me.. Have a Nice Day All..


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> "Something needs to be done." Well, according to the houndsmen, there aint enough cougars left to hunt let alone effect deer herds, so decimating the cougs has been done, check! No more need to worry about yotes, some con org got two bills passed to fund taking care of that problem, check! Been building underpasses, overpasses, sidepasses and fences, so that's sumpin', check! This state has spent more money on habitat restoration than ANY other western state, like a gazillion acres or so, so that's sumpin' too, check,! Been cuttin' tags for a while now clean across the west, so that's sumpin' too, check! Made it a whole lot harder for all those dang families to hunt together in groups so that's sumpin', check! Made the whole state limited entry so that's sumpin', check! Why the hell not add AR's to the fray, let's go for it! Hmmm, sorry for the rant, I must have SMP! Ain't that sumpin'!


AMEN!!!! Shout it from the roof tops....


----------

