# RAC Packet



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I know there is another thread on cow moose, and I didn't want to hijack that one with all the other stuff. So I figured I'd start a new thread for people to sound off on any proposed change.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2016-04_rac_packet.pdf

-Interesting that they want to eliminate the cow control tags on the Wasatch, but are increasing the bull tags 44 total, taking the unit to over 800 tags! 6450 private land only cow elk tags on the 3 Wasatch units. That seems insane! How many of these people will actually get access...100? Maybe less than that? Berrysblaster...any idea if some of the private landowners are going to open up and let this program actually work?

-I like seeing some of the premium units like the San Juan and Pahvant increase instead of decrease, for once.

-As someone that only has 5 points in the bison pool, I like seeing increases in bison tags. I might be able to reduce my wait time to under 300 years if that trend continues!


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

-I agree that 6450 private land cow elk tags on the Wasatch seems a bit high. I wonder what kind of a success rate the DWR is anticipating. 

-Over 4000 more general deer permits than last year is cool. Big increases in antlerless deer permits over the past few years as well. I could get used to these deer numbers. 

-There is a substantial decrease in Plateau pronghorn permits. Not surprising, after so many were offered last year. Not sure if I can draw it this year, but this year would be ideal for the antlerless hunt (less competition than usual). We'll see.

-My chosen LE and OIAL units are looking good as far as permit numbers go... between those and the antlerless draw, maybe I'll have something to chase this fall besides my dad's general deer.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I also wonder why the large number of Private Land Only Antlerless Elk permits. You suppose this is to quell the cries we heard recently from ranchers about the Elk having a negative impact on domestic grazing?

If the large increase and increased numbers start in August, then perhaps that will push more elk onto public ground and increase overall success rates? 

Very little change to any of the units or species I hunt, but it's still interesting to watch the trends across the state.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

So much for hopes my wife and old man would draw LE Elk for South Cache this year. I knew the age objective change would reduce tags but wasn't expecting a 50% cut.


----------



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

Here's the wildlife boards contact information to give your input:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

It's important sportsmens voices are heard on issues that most directly affect us, so be sure to email, call, or attend a board meeting to give your opinions. The other sides are speaking loudly, sportsmen need to as well.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

I am glad they are getting rid of the control permits on the wasatch. Hopefully it can rebound fairly quick


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

WELL/ Still trying to figure out where the Department of Wildlife Gets their numbers? That soda pop bottle they play spin the bottle with. got to be just bout wore out.Maybe should get a map of these Units and start tossing DARTS! I KNOW LETS START A LOTTERY. Holly Catfish.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It looks like a solid recommendation package to me,

ALL except the Wasatch elk.....
It's STILL messed up.:!:.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> I know there is another thread on cow moose, and I didn't want to hijack that one with all the other stuff. So I figured I'd start a new thread for people to sound off on any proposed change.
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2016-04_rac_packet.pdf
> 
> ...


Honestly they expect success rates to be AWFUL.

However, it does allow them to have some leverage when landowners do complain about elk problems.

Also the majority of landowners who participated in the committee meetings were very open to allowing hunters access, how that translates to the rest of the unit is a really big question.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

berrysblaster said:


> Also the majority of landowners who participated in the committee meetings were very open to allowing hunters access, how that translates to the rest of the unit is a really big question.


Do you think a list of landowners who will grant hunters access will be complied and made available for those who draw these tags? I know, in the past, Wyoming had a list and it made finding access a lot easier.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

hazmat said:


> I am glad they are getting rid of the control permits on the wasatch. Hopefully it can rebound fairly quick


hazmat, IMO,
It might be worse for Wasatch elk 2016!
I don't believe there is ANY chance for a recovery process to begin this year.

804 LE public any bull draw permits,.
Plus conservation , landowner, and CWMU tags puts this number closer to 900 big bull tags.
AND spike only hunting from August to November.

Cow permits on the Wasatch? WOW!
6,450 PL permits. ( were most Wasatch elk reside these days )
With hunting dates on these permits from August 1st thru Jan. 31st 2017.

1,160 LE antlerless public land cow permits .....

Look at Currant Creek alone, 3,850 cow permits still!-------CRAZY IMO..:!:..


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Frustrating. The antlerless cow permit numbers are down drastically on Monroe, Dutton, and Plateau. It would be nice to have this information prior to the application period closing. I would not have put in for archery deer where I did had I known the cuts would be so significant to cow permits. Remind me again why it takes more than 2 months to complete the draw process? The application period should be open until after recommendations are out, and the draw process should be shortened (as it is in other states) so results are still out at the same time.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Charina said:


> The antlerless cow permit numbers are down drastically on Monroe, Dutton, and Plateau.


I just spoke with Justin Shannon on the numbers and drastic cuts. Justin indicated that they did aerial counts on all southern units, so they feel the population estimates they are working off of for the 2016 permit recommendations are solid. The assumption is that aggressive cow harvest in prior years has had the intended impact, and then some, so they need to back way off on antlerless this year.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> hazmat, IMO,
> 
> It might be worse for Wasatch elk 2016!
> 
> ...


I guess limited entry draw permits being cut across the board wasn't good enough? The unrestricted free for all that was control permits ending isn't good enough either?

It isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we had.

I am slightly surprised at the recommended increase in bull permits, but given the flight counts I suppose we had to see an increase somewhere

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Does anyone want to take a stab at how many points it might take to draw that new Box Elder, Snowville doe antelope hunt? I think I have 1 point now... wondering if I should go for that one or just try to get a Plateau tag while I wouldn't have 599 other hunters to compete with.

My gut says I won't draw it...


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

I was eying that hunt with my 4 points. I imagine it will take 3-5 to get a tag. I am going to have to cruise up there and see what the public access to goats is like.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Clarq, I don't think any doe antelope tags will go to applicants with 1 point this year. Maybe a handful of youth hunters but that's it.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> hazmat, IMO,
> It might be worse for Wasatch elk 2016!
> I don't believe there is ANY chance for a recovery process to begin this year.
> 
> ...


yes goofy far from perfect but it is a start. I just hope this Wasatch elk committee takes this very serious and this is not just a smoke screen because a few years from now the Wasatch will be in a real ugly place if they don't keep making adjustments

but the unlimited cow tags are a start. every cow elk that showed a glimpse of itself was being wounded or harvested with these control permits. and it did a lot of damage so good riddance to the elk control permit on the unit.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof,

You're playing smoke and mirrors here with those figures. You know as well as I do that very few of the 6,000 private land only tags will be filled. I would be shocked if they reach 10%. 

These 6,000 cow tags may as well be considered similar to purchasing a cow moose bonus point when there wasn't even a hunt.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

huntinfanatic said:


> Clarq, I don't think any doe antelope tags will go to applicants with 1 point this year. Maybe a handful of youth hunters but that's it.


That's true. I've got one point, and I think my dad has 3 or 4. I was actually wondering if we should try as a group or put him in separately (but my hurried post didn't at all reflect that, sorry).

I'm guessing it would be wise to apply separately. We'll try to run up there and see how the unit looks. If we don't like what we see, we'll probably try to get Plateau as a group.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Goof,
> 
> You're playing smoke and mirrors here with those figures. You know as well as I do that very few of the 6,000 private land only tags will be filled. I would be shocked if they reach 10%.
> 
> These 6,000 cow tags may as well be considered similar to purchasing a cow moose bonus point when there wasn't even a hunt.


Haven't you learned yet not to ruin a good diatribe with facts and reason?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Sorry, but I don't understand why the success rate on private lands would be so bad. If all of the elk really are hanging out on the private lands in the Wasatch unit, wouldn't those tags lend themselves to a high success rate? 

I know I wouldn't buy one without first gaining access to a land that I know holds elk. If I obtained such access, though, I'd say my odds of success are pretty good at that point.

If anything, I'll bet they just don't sell them all.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yes Clarq, My thoughts exactly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I just think of the number of guys that show up here a week before their hunt, knowing nothing about it except it was available leftover OTC. There's going to be lots of people getting those tags and then trying figure out how to access their valid unit areas. Only so many will get access and those that do will likely have high success, but the overall success I bet is moderately low to very low.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Question Clarq, and hopefully Goof chimes in here as well. How many of these 6,000 tag holders do you think even gain access? 

Family and close friends of the landowners only...with a handful of exceptions. It just isn't going to happen. I'm betting those tags don't exceed 10%.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I thought it was interesting that they are still planning on giving out 3 Stansbury sheep tags as they have in the past 3 years.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> I thought it was interesting that they are still planning on giving out 3 Stansbury sheep tags as they have in the past 3 years.


Noticed that too. Will there be 3 mature rams to hunt by the fall?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Noticed that too. Will there be 3 mature rams to hunt by the fall?


I think it will be a really tough hunt. I'm guessing the dwr must have seen a few mature rams on their last fly over.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Question Clarq, and hopefully Goof chimes in here as well. How many of these 6,000 tag holders do you think even gain access?
> 
> Family and close friends of the landowners only...with a handful of exceptions. It just isn't going to happen. I'm betting those tags don't exceed 10%.


I don't have enough knowledge of the private property on the Wasatch or its landowners to hazard much of a guess. It will all depend on whether the private landowners hop on board with the idea.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if you're right. But I wouldn't entirely be surprised to see a bunch of landowners selling access rights either. If I had land there and could let 10 or 15 guys onto my land for a few hundred bucks apiece, I would.

I won't try to argue with your 10% projection. But I'll bet it has the potential to be higher IF (notice that's a big if) landowners try to capitalize on the idea.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Clarq said:


> I don't have enough knowledge of the private property on the Wasatch or its landowners to hazard much of a guess. It will all depend on whether the private landowners hop on board with the idea.
> 
> I wouldn't at all be surprised if you're right. But I wouldn't entirely be surprised to see a bunch of landowners selling access rights either. If I had land there and could let 10 or 15 guys onto my land for a few hundred bucks apiece, I would.
> 
> I won't try to argue with your 10% projection. But I'll bet it has the potential to be higher IF (notice that's a big if) landowners try to capitalize on the idea.


I do not see this being a viable solution moving forward I hope I am wrong but I see alot of landowners complaining of property damage littering and tresspassing.

The private property elk need to be dispursed throughout the unit. But the unit shouldn't be managed based on this alone


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Clarq, suppose 60 landowners sell access to 10 hunters each, and 100% of those people harvest---that is 10% overall. 

We know not every person that obtains permission will harvest. It would take close to 900 hunters getting access at a 70% success rate to get to 10% overall. I don't think it is reasonable for us to assume 900 people are getting permission on private lands this fall. Goof, you think I'm wrong on that?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Idk, if the landowners are smart, there are lots of guide outfits that charge $1500-2k for a 3 day guided public land cow. Want to bet that they could make some great partnerships and sell private guided cows for $2-3k and kick the landowner $500-1000 per person? That would open a lot of land real fast IMO.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Goof, you think I'm wrong on that?


+1

I'd like to hear from someone who know way more about the Wasatch than I do. I just know it's a big unit with a lot of ground.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

ridgetop said:


> I thought it was interesting that they are still planning on giving out 3 Stansbury sheep tags as they have in the past 3 years.


My thought on this was that the 3 tag offering was in the plan to recommend long ago. With the recent developments this recommendation will be one of the only ones if not the only one that doesnt get approved--but we will see.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

I really hope the Wasatch private tags have a high success rate, it means good things in the long run for hunters


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goat tags sure took a hit. Bison tags up. The OIL game sucks!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Clarq, suppose 60 landowners sell access to 10 hunters each, and 100% of those people harvest---that is 10% overall.
> 
> We know not every person that obtains permission will harvest. It would take close to 900 hunters getting access at a 70% success rate to get to 10% overall. I don't think it is reasonable for us to assume 900 people are getting permission on private lands this fall. Goof, you think I'm wrong on that?


Here is what I think TS.

If this were a 2 month season, I think you would be right.
It's not, we are looking at SIX MONTHS to hunt these private land permits.
Thats a long time to find access to ground to hunt.

Also, Unlike the control permits, hunters HAD to tie it to an antlered permit,
( this made the cow permit second option, not primary. )
The new private land cow permits put hunters out with one mission,
kill a cow and fill the freezer!

I also think A LOT of land owners will take advantage of these PL permits.
With such a long season, everyone with a hayfield, or a cabin, or a 5 acare
lot could get a permit......We will see, time will tell.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

IF a guy is a public land hunter AND a unit can only have a limited number of elk on it THEN he should want LESS elk living on private lands. To get less elk to live on private lands: A-Kill more private land elk AND B-Pressure private lands elk so they go to public lands.

Why does it matter if they issue 6,000 permits? The private lands access is the limiting factor. As Vanilla points out- you won't kill even half that number, mostly because the elk won't stand there waiting to be shot. If they kill elk on private and pressure the rest off private that means we should be able to grow more on public lands. 

One of the biggest complaints from some has been that there are few elk left on the Wasatch-- which has been proven false time and time again. The UDWR tries to implement a solution to redistribute elk within the unit- based on recommendations from the stakeholders-- and yet the same people still call foul. One day they might be right, but for 10 years they've been wrong. 

--


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Here is what I think TS.
> 
> If this were a 2 month season, I think you would be right.
> It's not, we are looking at SIX MONTHS to hunt these private land permits.
> ...


Goof, does it ever get old? I mean it doesn't seem to matter what is done, you will find what's wrong with it and no matter what, your way seems to be the only realistic option.

You've managed to get the guys who agree with you in principle to say just WTF?? Dude it's time to change your tone.

Here's the reality.

6000 cow tags have been issued, from only a land to hunt perspective, the vast majority of the unit is now off limits and in a position to heal.

Of those 6000 tags I fully expect them to go undersubscribed because like you said, most of the tags sold will go to landowners and friends. There's just not a huge amount of huntable private land on the unit. I reckon 1000 permits is a realistic guess.

Of the few public land hunters who decide to try their luck, I can't see them paying more than $500 to access land. Remember demographically the guys who do 'meat' hunts like this don't have large amounts of disposable income.

Then you have to consider the 'absolutely not' tracts of land. CWMU's, anti hunters, and those that just choose not to let any one on for any reason. Now you've further limited accessible land. Plus it's these guys that call and complain about elk doing damage. Guess what happens when that call comes in, they get asked if hunters were allowed to come in and manage the elk? When they say no the division gets to say well that's too bad no money for you.

Further more, the LE public land hunts are mostly on low access or late season hunts designed specifically to target problem herds.










As far as the bull tags go, the early rifle actually got cut, those permits and the additional added tags were given to archery, and late rifle guys. Guess what? Those are hard hunts, and the late hunt targets elk that may have been on private all summer.

Lastly, if you are right, and I really hope you are. Let's say that the success rates are REALLY high, and they sell a bunch of permits. It's a slaughter, guess what? Our current problem is now solved. We would then have a viable long term solution for dealing with private land elk. The public herds can be left alone until they are as big as objective will allow while we keep hammering the private land elk. It's a win win for hunters right now but you refuse to see it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

On the price of an access fee, it seems to me that ksl has several adds each year between $600-1500 just for access for a cow hunt, and typically in areas of the state that are a several hour drive from the Wasatch. I see landowners successfully charging a pretty tidy sum for private access within an hour's drive of the weekend warrior, or the dad with young kids who works for one of these tech companies and can't afford a 3-5 day time off request for a 10% success rate on public land but $1000 and a day or two with little to no competing pressure? That is doable, especially if he can drive home at night and do some work from his couch.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> Goof, does it ever get old? I mean it doesn't seem to matter what is done, you will find what's wrong with it and no matter what, your way seems to be the only realistic option.
> 
> You've managed to get the guys who agree with you in principle to say just WTF?? Dude it's time to change your tone.


Blaster, 
Only want to see 2 more things happen and you'll never hear from me again about
Wasatch elk.

1) Up the herd objective by at least double. ( triple would be better )

This change alone would end these crazy cow permits 
AND allow public lands to recover elk numbers......

2) Dont mind trying Private land cow hunts, BUT 6,450 ????? NO!
2,000 sounds more reasonable to me.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Let's not forget that the DWR/Wildlife Board also recently approved that a hunter could obtain a maximum of three elk permits now where in years past you could only obtain two. That means that these landowners and friends/family of landowners could apply for a permit then purchase a second PL tag assuming that there will be tags remaining following the drawing.

Five months to fill two elk tags would totally have my attention if I had the property or the access... I noticed that there will be a number of similar tags on the Ogden unit which is where my family property is at and it has my attention. I'm still weighing the pros and cons between this and the regular tag, but it's definitely on my radar.


----------



## snw_brdr10 (May 20, 2014)

I just read through the packet, saw they have antlerless cwmu recommendations but not for cwmu bucks and bulls. Any idea when they will publish those recommended number of tags?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The Cwmu bucks and bull permit numbers 
For 2016 were done and posted a few momths ago.


----------



## snw_brdr10 (May 20, 2014)

goofy elk said:


> The Cwmu bucks and bull permit numbers
> For 2016 were done and posted a few momths ago.


Oh really? I was unaware of that. Where can I find those?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> 1) Up the herd objective by at least double. ( triple would be better )
> 
> This change alone would end these crazy cow permits
> AND allow public lands to recover elk numbers......


Have you followed some of the threads on here about cattle ranchers and land use? There is no way on earth that landowners and agriculture would agree to doubling or tripling the elk herd objective. Slight increases maybe, but not doubling or more.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Blaster,
> Only want to see 2 more things happen and you'll never hear from me again about
> Wasatch elk.
> 
> ...


The objective will very likely be increased later this year. It won't double, and it definitely won't triple, but it will be a significant increase. That said, increasing the population objective may temporarily reduce cow permits, but in the long run you will likely see more cow permits. Why, might you ask? Because when a population meets objective, we have to start killing cows just to maintain the population and prevent it from growing over the objective. Larger population = Larger crop of offspring = more cow permits to maintain objective.


----------



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

Depending on your opinions, you probably want to contact the wildlife board and/or local RAC. MuleyCrazy sent this email out I've put in quotations below. I understand people wanting to see more bucks but it is exactly as this article states how the wildlife board can be influenced. That should not be what conservation or wildlife managment is about, it should be based of of professionals doing their job and I understand those professionals are also pulled and pushed around to do their job a certain way. This email kind of struck a nerve with me though in the fact that beating back buck tags when they make sense does nothing to help our deer herds and sadly that's what so many sportsmen groups such as MuleyCrazy focus on is the size of the Bucks not the health of the herd. If you don't want to see tags and opportunity get pounded back into submission in suggest you get involved and show support for the DWRs recommendations where you agree with them and let them know when you don't also. It's vital wildlife managment moves away from politics and social pressures and into science and things that actually affect herd health. Our deer herds are up right now, opportunity should be up as well. I don't know that deer numbers are as high as they say either, and I think the winter kill this year is going to have some implifications going forward in some areas but it's ridiculous to suppress tag numbers and then have certain groups throw a fit when the herd grows and they recommend more opportunity.



> Fellow Utah Deer Hunters,
> 
> Based in Southern Utah, our team at MuleyCrazy is fortunate to see a majority of the big deer that get harvested each year, and hear about the experiences of thousands of hunters across the West. While all other states are seeing flat-lining or declining mule deer populations, the state of Utah is the only state on the upward trend, where hunters are seeing more bucks, and more mature bucks.
> 
> ...


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I didn't know that MuleyCrazy was an "anti" magazine. And all this time I thought...


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Ryan does not understand that when there is more deer........that means there can be more tags. 
And also, that not all of us are so hung up on proving our manhood that our lives are over if we don't shoot the biggest buck. 

On a side note:
It figures that the LE elk unit I talked myself into putting in for, the tags got cut.
And, the unit I was going to put in for the tags got increased.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

snw_brdr10 said:


> Oh really? I was unaware of that. Where can I find those?


In the 2016 application guide book, starting on page 58.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Depending on your opinions, you probably want to contact the wildlife board and/or local RAC. MuleyCrazy sent this email out I've put in quotations below. I understand people wanting to see more bucks but it is exactly as this article states how the wildlife board can be influenced. That should not be what conservation or wildlife managment is about, it should be based of of professionals doing their job and I understand those professionals are also pulled and pushed around to do their job a certain way. This email kind of struck a nerve with me though in the fact that beating back buck tags when they make sense does nothing to help our deer herds and sadly that's what so many sportsmen groups such as MuleyCrazy focus on is the size of the Bucks not the health of the herd. If you don't want to see tags and opportunity get pounded back into submission in suggest you get involved and show support for the DWRs recommendations where you agree with them and let them know when you don't also. It's vital wildlife managment moves away from politics and social pressures and into science and things that actually affect herd health. Our deer herds are up right now, opportunity should be up as well. I don't know that deer numbers are as high as they say either, and I think the winter kill this year is going to have some implifications going forward in some areas but it's ridiculous to suppress tag numbers and then have certain groups throw a fit when the herd grows and they recommend more opportunity.


Mr. Hatch seems to be missing the mark in a big way. His behavior is very similar to all the wolf advocacy groups that agree to a plan, then when it becomes a reality that the "management" part of the plan is warranted, start crying foul.

I respect a guy that wants bigger bucks. There is a lot of opportunity for all hunters in Utah. However, part of the plan from the beginning was to be able to more effectively manage the numbers of hunters and deer based on population growth in a more specific unit.

Finally, 4,000 tags seems like a lot when you say it as Mr. Hatch did. However, when you spread 4,000 tags over all the units discussed and different weapon seasons, I think it's unlikely that any one unit is going to experience a drastically different experience than this past year.

Any bets on what our SFW sponsored Wildlife Board will do?


----------



## snw_brdr10 (May 20, 2014)

goofy elk said:


> In the 2016 application guide book, starting on page 58.


Wow. Can't believe I didnt see that. Thanks!


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Also, Mr. Hatch makes his living taking people for big money to get "big" deer.
So his perspective will be much different than most of us.

I like to get a good buck as much as the next guy. But I also like to be able to have the chance most years as well. I know that we pass up bucks now that we would have taken 15 years ago. So in my humble opinion things have improved. At least for me and the people I hunt with.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The more this day goes on, the more this statement burns me up. What a stupid and selfish statenent to make. I hope everyone can see it for what it really is. 

His questions are easy for me to answer. I'd rather see more hunters in the field. I'd rather see more bucks getting killed. The more bucks out there, the more mature deer will be around. So long as the herd can maintain this level of hunting, it should happen. Biology, not Ryan Hatch's ability to make a profit off the public resource, should guide this decision. 

Man, I'm so bothered by this.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> The more this day goes on, the more this statement burns me up. What a stupid and selfish statenent to make. I hope everyone can see it for what it really is.
> 
> His questions are easy for me to answer. I'd rather see more hunters in the field. I'd rather see more bucks getting killed. The more bucks out there, the more mature deer will be around. So long as the herd can maintain this level of hunting, it should happen. Biology, not Ryan Hatch's ability to make a profit off the public resource, should guide this decision.
> 
> Man, I'm so bothered by this.


Right there with you on that one....


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I noticed in the RAC packet with the general deer tag recommendations that the percentage distributions listed are 30% archery/40% rifle/30% muzzleloader... was there a change made to the distributions that I missed somewhere?
Just a quick glance at some of the numbers from last year and I'm seeing a distribution in 2015 of ~23% for archery, ~54% rifle, and ~23% muzzleloader and I thought in previous years the distribution was on the order of 15%/60%/15% (but I could be misremembering there).
If that is the case... even with the 5% tag increase there should still be fewer rifle tags offered this year. A unit that offered 2500 total tags last year had ~1350 rifle tags and under this "new" distribution would only offer ~1050 rifle tags. 

What does Senor Hatch have to say about that?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Is that split for more than just the Plateau Thousand Lakes unit? I read that as only being for that unit on page 7. Did I miss another section that talked about it?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Clarq said:


> Does anyone want to take a stab at how many points it might take to draw that new Box Elder, Snowville doe antelope hunt? I think I have 1 point now... wondering if I should go for that one or just try to get a Plateau tag while I wouldn't have 599 other hunters to compete with.
> 
> My gut says I won't draw it...


 Clarq-
If you really want to draw a doe antelope tag, look no further than WY. You can draw a tag every year - depending of course what unit and how far you are willing to travel. Very reasonable too for an out of state hunt at, I believe, $48 per tag. Most units allow you to put in for at least 2 doe tags, some even three.

Shoot...that isn't much more than you'll be out for a doe speed goat tag here in UT.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> I think it will be a really tough hunt. I'm guessing the dwr must have seen a few mature rams on their last fly over.


 Maybe they're trying to allow hunters to kill those mature rams before the current die-off gets them. I can't disagree with that in the unit's current situation. I also agree that it will be a really tough hunt to try and tag one of those mature rams, but hey, if the doom and gloom scare off the masses, it might open up windows for others that would never have dreamed they'd draw a sheep tag.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> Maybe they're trying to allow hunters to kill those mature rams before the current die-off gets them. I can't disagree with that in the unit's current situation. I also agree that it will be a really tough hunt to try and tag one of those mature rams, but hey, if the doom and gloom scare off the masses, it might open up windows for others that would never have dreamed they'd draw a sheep tag.


I don't really have a problem with it either but they do need to be upfront with the hunters that draw and let them know there may be very few rams to pick from.
That way, at least the hunter has a chance to turn their tag in if they want.
I was just commenting that I was surprised that they kept it at 3 tags when only 4 years ago it was at 2 tags with 4 times as many rams available to hunt.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Is that split for more than just the Plateau Thousand Lakes unit? I read that as only being for that unit on page 7. Did I miss another section that talked about it?


Ahhh, asterisks... the distribution is modified for Plateau, Thousand Lakes and South Slope, Vernal/Bonanza.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> MWScott72 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe they're trying to allow hunters to kill those mature rams before the current die-off gets them. I can't disagree with that in the unit's current situation. I also agree that it will be a really tough hunt to try and tag one of those mature rams, but hey, if the doom and gloom scare off the masses, it might open up windows for others that would never have dreamed they'd draw a sheep tag.
> ...


I understand - I was very surprised too. I hope you're right and the DWR does apprise them of the situation .


----------

