Significant restrictions are being proposed in 2024 Novembers RAC's

Bux n Dux said:
I wasn’t talking to you, but congrats on your puffed up ego. You must be so proud of yourself.

Focusing 100% of the adult hunter pressure on a certain age class of deer is not the right answer. Also allowing the kids to plow whatever buck they see in the same unit is also not the right answer. You’re turning it into a hand me my trophy/special Olympics Easter egg hunt for the kids and a cut throat hunting environment for the adults. The division has done an incredible job at ******** up all types of Utah hunting in the last 20 years, just about every way possible. They have done it to the extent that none of us could have ever predicted. But just when you think they can’t make it any worse, they say hold my corn sack and watch this!
Click to expand...
No inflated ego here. Just replying to your rediculous claim that people in favor of APR need it to shoot big bucks.

Also I am not turning anything into anything. If you could read you would see I said I am against this proposal.

What I have said and will continue to say is that this DWR that you agree has F’d up hunting in almost every way is not who I am going to base my opinions on.

The statement and data that the age class was not increased during the APR on the fish lake and Henry’s is absurd.

If you hunted it you would know that. If you didn’t then you don’t know.

Carry on.
 
wweaver79 said:
Just looking at what surrounds the Pine Valley unit. I could see why they would consider turning it an LE unit (trophy potential). That unit could be a great deer area if managed a little higher buck to doe ratio, ( again I do not know the history here just speaking in facts about the NV side/AZ side but why not include Zion also ? I have 12 General points built up because I have been busy with other hunts and will be curious to see how this plays out the next couple years. Looks like I maybe glad I did. Is there a middle ground that could be reached between traditional LE and what the general units are now as far as B/D ratio? This would/will create crowding on other units and more general point creep for sure however. 7 Points for PV rifle now is a lot, but if a few older bucks start showing up with the 4pt APR in place it will be 10 points fast. Bottom line is they will never make everyone happy that is for sure and I understand why residents do not want the opportunity taken out of opportunity deer areas.
Click to expand...
Don’t feel bad, I have 23 and my friend has 15. Been trying to plan a hunt for years. Maybe take the kids with us.
 
Bux n Dux said:
I’m trying to figure out how we went from an opportunity type hunt structure to a trophy type hunt structure in the span of a year. The public voiced pretty hard that they wanted an opportunity hunt, so this idea originally got the axe. A year later, they bring it back up again like they’ve forgotten we even had this conversation once before.
Click to expand...

💯

I also find it kind of funny one person is citing the Book Cliffs as the success story of APRs while Bessy, the person most in favor of restrictions on this forum, cited the exact same situation as a disaster.

Yep, we’ll trust all your “eyes” over actual data for sure!
 
txhunter58 said:
I’ll bite. Who benefits?
Click to expand...

Why are you in favor?

That may answer your question.

I find it funny that as a LL holder, all these restrictions probably favor me more than most. I guess I’m one that realizes it isn’t just about me. Maybe I should stop giving a crap about anyone else at this point and just roll with all this stupid shiz and let the spoils and leftover fall in my lap?
 
Vanilla said:
Why are you in favor?

That may answer your question.

I find it funny that as a LL holder, all these restrictions probably favor me more than most. I guess I’m one that realizes it isn’t just about me. Maybe I should stop giving a crap about anyone else at this point and just roll with all this stupid shiz and let the spoils and leftover fall in my lap?
Click to expand...
Why am in favor? Because I believe it could lead to better quality bucks and more tags (more opportunity) if it works.

So no it doesn’t answer it.

Who do you think benefits monetarily? Still not seeing that.
 
I don’t see how they can reliably separate the effects of good weather/rain on a rebounding herd from the proposed APR.

Maybe it will be hunter satisfaction rate based? I can see it increasing satisfaction, just because guys will have no grounds to complain about “everyone shooting forkies”

It’ll be a double edged sword when guys have to hunt the whole time instead of half leaving opening day after shooting their forky. Sounds like a recipe for crowding.
 
Did you Not read The Article I Posted?

Were you Out There During The Hunts?

Were You Out There Lion Hunting?

The: 100 Deer Taken Legal & The 48 Per Every 100 Left To ROT Are Not My Numbers!

READ!

READ Nilly!

One More Thing Nilly?

Do I Need To Add The Fine For Doing So To HELL-F'N-RIGHT?

Or Is It Already Listed!



Vanilla said:
💯

I also find it kind of funny one person is citing the Book Cliffs as the success story of APRs while Bessy, the person most in favor of restrictions on this forum, cited the exact same situation as a disaster.

Yep, we’ll trust all your “eyes” over actual data for sure!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bux n Dux said:
So what about the dedicated hunters that are having this chit forced on to them that are currently enrolled in the program for a unit that has changes? They burned several years worth of points. They did not sign up for this. I don’t remember clicking a box acknowledging that they can just change chit up any way they feel whenever they want when you applied for the tag
Click to expand...

Yeah?

Cuz I signed up at $20 hr, they changed it to $40.

They changed the hour requirements several times since I started
 
Usually even when I disagree with Vanilla I can see a point.

But I'm still, days later trying to figure out the conspiracy.

Long as there's been units, dudes have roamed around for whatever reason. Not sure why if they do because of yhis, why it's a conspiracy.
 
There's Word Of Not Letting LL Holders Getting First Crack At It!

I Don't Know If It's A Conspiracy Or BULLSSHITT?

hossblur said:
Usually even when I disagree with Vanilla I can see a point.

But I'm still, days later trying to figure out the conspiracy.

Long as there's been units, dudes have roamed around for whatever reason. Not sure why if they do because of yhis, why it's a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
txhunter58 said:
Who do you think benefits monetarily? Still not seeing that.
Click to expand...

I’ve never claimed anyone necessarily benefits monetarily. I told Hoss this was similar to his rants on “following the money.” He seems very capable of doing that without an audit trail. I’d think he could similarly follow this trail to see who is really pushing this.

And it ain’t people that want to increase opportunities for me.
 
I haven’t been coy or vague about my belief this does the exact opposite of creating opportunity. Those that have been pushing for tag cuts (among other attempts to rob opportunities from other hunters) are the same people advocating these changes.

But it’s probably just a coincidence.
 
txhunter58 said:
Why am in favor? Because I believe it could lead to better quality bucks and more tags (more opportunity) if it works.
Click to expand...
What is the basis for this belief, seeing as neither of those things have resulted long term from any western state implementing APRs for mule deer?
 
johnnycake said:
What is the basis for this belief, seeing as neither of those things have resulted long term from any western state implementing APRs for mule deer?
Click to expand...
Not talking about APR. Talking about making weapons more primative. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. Only 1 of the units (pine valley) would be APR but all of the affected units would be weapon restricted correct?
 
Last edited:
There's Only One Thing I Know For Sure:

There'll Never Be A Plan/Change That'll Satisfy Everybody!

Even When A Change That Helps The Deer Herd & They Rarely Do!

It's Something That Usually Takes 4-5 Years Like Closures!

Then Within 2-3 Years You're Right Back To Square One After They O(pen The Unit/Units Back Up!

But As Everybody Can See!

They're Only Trying To Satisfy The OPPOR-F'N-TUNISTS In This State!
 
I can see 3 results:

1) no change or worsening in deer herd: cut number of tags

2) some improvement in deer herd: no change in tags.

3). Noticeable improvement in deer herd: tag increases

Barring weather herd issues, I find it hard to believe Vanillas prediction (option #1) will come true. I think more likely #2 with a possibility of #3

That said: when all is said and done, they should maintain some areas where opportunity is the #1 priority as long as herd at least is stable.
 
If those of you who are against these changes, please enlighten us with your particular ideas.

Or, if you don't have any, please enlighten us on why you don't want a change at all and how that in itself is going to benefit anyone or anything watching these units continue to decline.
 
Going by the data that was posted it only works for 3 years after there no gains. It goes the other way down. I think the 3 point is good option. I’m curious how much 2 points made up the harvest in Pine Valley? I’ve guess it around 80%+?
 
slamdunk said:
If those of you who are against these changes, please enlighten us with your particular ideas.

Or, if you don't have any, please enlighten us on why you don't want a change at all and how that in itself is going to benefit anyone or anything watching these units continue to decline.
Click to expand...

Ideas for what? What is the goal?

It’s odd to me during the muzzy tech discussions when people would say this won’t increase the eeer herds and I’d argue on your behalf that these are simply hunter management decisions, not deer management, you were the first to slam (pun intended) the like button and say you agree with me.

There isn’t a single change here that is a deer management regulation. It’s all hunter management. So what are you wanting ideas about? How to further stick it to hunters? I’m not on board with that and have zero ideas on how to further that mission so many are on.

If you want to take this out of hunter management and on to deer management, we can do that. But this isn’t the thread for that. This is a hunter management, screw others over thread.
 
quest said:
Going by the data that was posted it only works for 3 years after there no gains. It goes the other way down. I think the 3 point is good option. I’m curious how much 2 points made up the harvest in Pine Valley? I’ve guess it around 80%+?
Click to expand...
I would feel safe in "guessing" that an overall state average harvest are 2 point bucks would be well over 50% if not closer to 75.
 
slamdunk said:
If those of you who are against these changes, please enlighten us with your particular ideas.

Or, if you don't have any, please enlighten us on why you don't want a change at all and how that in itself is going to benefit anyone or anything watching these units continue to decline.
Click to expand...

Weapon restrictions should apply to archery in addition to the rifle and muzzleloader hunts, or not at all. I think the APR and/or weapon restrictions should apply to all units or none at all. Testing these restrictions on a few units is messy, because there will be shifts in the population of hunters. Allow hunters to buy only one permit every three years, but make that permit valid for three years.
 
Vanilla said:
Ideas for what? What is the goal?

It’s odd to me during the muzzy tech discussions when people would say this won’t increase the eeer herds and I’d argue on your behalf that these are simply hunter management decisions, not deer management, you were the first to slam (pun intended) the like button and say you agree with me.

There isn’t a single change here that is a deer management regulation. It’s all hunter management. So what are you wanting ideas about? How to further stick it to hunters? I’m not on board with that and have zero ideas on how to further that mission so many are on.

If you want to take this out of hunter management and on to deer management, we can do that. But this isn’t the thread for that. This is a hunter management, screw others over thread.
Click to expand...
How does reducing success rates not affect buck numbers survival rates?
That is the whole reason behind it, same as the tech rules.
"Cripple the weapon, reduce the success".

Managing the hunter with restrictions lowers success, isn't it a twofold equation?
 
Last edited:
gundog2 said:
Weapon restrictions should apply to archery in addition to the rifle and muzzleloader hunts, or not at all. I think the APR and/or weapon restrictions should apply to all units or none at all. Testing these restrictions on a few units is messy, because there will be shifts in the population of hunters. Allow hunters to buy only one permit every three years, but make that permit valid for three years.
Click to expand...
With a shifting the population, that shouldn't necessarily conclude that all the existing hunters on that unit will venture off into other units, it also should imply that new hunters could very well go to these units because of the changes.

My assumption would be the hunter numbers wouldn't change much in either direction.
 
slamdunk said:
If those of you who are against these changes, please enlighten us with your particular ideas.

Or, if you don't have any, please enlighten us on why you don't want a change at all and how that in itself is going to benefit anyone or anything watching these units continue to decline.
Click to expand...
New here, enjoyed the conversation so far. I guess on the changes I would say I feel bad for older folks that are going to be severely handicapped on units like the cache, can't imagine my dad hunting with those restrictions. Also, I spent a week on the south Manti, saw very few bucks and not many doe's. I don't know how more buck tags will help the situation. My guess is, in 5 years when success rates plummet and folks are desperate to find anything with antlers that we'll see a major overhaul again. No one wants to see the general deer hunt look like the general bull elk where yes, there may be a lot of opportunity for general elk but it's practically single digit harvest success rates, that won't fly with general deer.
My ideas would revolve around keeping the same system we have now, mother nature is the biggest driver of deer population growth, all of these ideas in the current proposal will do very little but will come at the expense of completely frustrating the average hunter even more. Be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
 
waterfowl kid said:
New here, enjoyed the conversation so far. I guess on the changes I would say I feel bad for older folks that are going to be severely handicapped on units like the cache, can't imagine my dad hunting with those restrictions. Also, I spent a week on the south Manti, saw very few bucks and not many doe's. I don't know how more buck tags will help the situation. My guess is, in 5 years when success rates plummet and folks are desperate to find anything with antlers that we'll see a major overhaul again. No one wants to see the general deer hunt look like the general bull elk where yes, there may be a lot of opportunity for general elk but it's practically single digit harvest success rates, that won't fly with general deer.
My ideas would revolve around keeping the same system we have now, mother nature is the biggest driver of deer population growth, all of these ideas in the current proposal will do very little but will come at the expense of completely frustrating the average hunter even more. Be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
Click to expand...
Welcome to MM.

I still stand by my believe that the winter of 21-22 left us with the best of the best quality of deer, the fittest of the fittest, and those deer are the one's regenerating or herds today.
I believe (weather permitting) we are going to see a spike in upcoming year's in overall deer numbers.
I can say with certainty that every Doe i saw this year had at least two fawns, and we even saw what we believed to be triplets with more than a handful of Does.

As for the restriction proposals, it's only 3 units and if people don't want to endure the new challenges with the restrictions, there are other options available.
I've talked to people who are saying they will actually move to these new restricted units because of them, so I don't feel an overall increase or decrease will happen as a result.
 
waterfowl kid said:
New here, enjoyed the conversation so far. I guess on the changes I would say I feel bad for older folks that are going to be severely handicapped on units like the cache, can't imagine my dad hunting with those restrictions. Also, I spent a week on the south Manti, saw very few bucks and not many doe's. I don't know how more buck tags will help the situation. My guess is, in 5 years when success rates plummet and folks are desperate to find anything with antlers that we'll see a major overhaul again. No one wants to see the general deer hunt look like the general bull elk where yes, there may be a lot of opportunity for general elk but it's practically single digit harvest success rates, that won't fly with general deer.
My ideas would revolve around keeping the same system we have now, mother nature is the biggest driver of deer population growth, all of these ideas in the current proposal will do very little but will come at the expense of completely frustrating the average hunter even more. Be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, people living in the Cache unit will not really have any viable alternatives unless they are willing to drive long distances through the Wasatch metro area to Southern Utah. I’m sympathetic to hunters that do not have extra money to buy weapons that meet new restrictions. I’m sure many people went out and bought new scopes for muzzleloaders when they made that legal a few years ago, now they want to eliminate all scopes. It appears to me that the UDWR really doesn’t know what they are doing and it is hard for me to believe that anything will change.
 
slamdunk said:
As for the restriction proposals, it's only 3 units and if people don't want to endure the new challenges with the restrictions, there are other options available.
I've talked to people who are saying they will actually move to these new restricted units because of them, so I don't feel an overall increase or decrease will happen as a result.
Click to expand...
That sounds contrary to your response to my concerns about shifting populations of hunters.
 
slamdunk said:
Welcome to MM.

I still stand by my believe that the winter of 21-22 left us with the best of the best quality of deer, the fittest of the fittest, and those deer are the one's regenerating or herds today.
I believe (weather permitting) we are going to see a spike in upcoming year's in overall deer numbers.
I can say with certainty that every Doe i saw this year had at least two fawns, and we even saw what we believed to be triplets with more than a handful of Does.

As for the restriction proposals, it's only 3 units and if people don't want to endure the new challenges with the restrictions, there are other options available.
I've talked to people who are saying they will actually move to these new restricted units because of them, so I don't feel an overall increase or decrease will happen as a result.
Click to expand...
Deer definitely looked healthy this year. As to the point about hunters can choose other units if they don't like the regs. I guess when you've hunted areas your whole life that's a hard pill to swallow to just be told if you don't like it then leave. I know you may not mean it that way but I have a feeling the northern rac commenters may see it that way. I don't mind our current system, enjoy the little boom Years when the weather cooperates and put pressure on the wildlife board to issue more permits during those boom years and tweak areas like pine valley to fit the buck to doe ratios that are reflective of a general unit and not that of an LE unit. But issuing more permits and pushing for lower harvest has me worried we'll turn the general deer success rate closer to the general elk success rates. Getting a deer permit every year with success rates that low does me no good and I'm worried with lowering buck to do ratios and more tags has us headed that way and in 5 years we'll go right back to the management we have now. We'll see just how fed up folks truly are with the current management during the racs in the coming weeks. I have a feeling folks will do an about face and suddenly like the current system.
 
Bux n Dux said:
So what about the dedicated hunters that are having this chit forced on to them that are currently enrolled in the program for a unit that has changes? They burned several years worth of points. They did not sign up for this. I don’t remember clicking a box acknowledging that they can just change chit up any way they feel whenever they want when you applied for the tag
Click to expand...
I'm guessing they would be able to ride things out the way things were when they signed up but I could see that as a potential problem for law enforcement. Some do gooder calls the poaching hotline about a forky he just saw guy shoot and when the C.O. gets there to investigate, it's a dedicated hunter that shot it under the rules he's grandfathered into.
 
@waterfowl kid
I totally understand your point about changing rules in a particular area, that could be frustrating for those who just want a buck, any buck.

I would assume it's tough on those who don't self regulate or implement a personal APR.

I have hunted the Wasatch West most of my adult life and it is a very pitiful unit, but it's easy to draw and because of my personal APR, I've taken two bucks in 12 years.

Having said that, I would welcome any new options to help that unit.

Perhaps Vanilla and others in opposition are correct that these proposals will be more detrimental than beneficial?
These are a "test" and were derived from huge public demands to do "something" temporarily and go from there.
 
slamdunk said:
If those of you who are against these changes, please enlighten us with your particular ideas.

Or, if you don't have any, please enlighten us on why you don't want a change at all and how that in itself is going to benefit anyone or anything watching these units continue to decline.
Click to expand...
People thought I was joking when I said 3-point or less every other year. Think about what that would do. More bigger bucks make it through the hunt, obviously. Bigger bucks would be left to do the breeding and will have a better chance of making it through the winter than yearlings. The 75% who want to shoot a 2 point could still do that and go home, decreasing crowding. Under 3-point or better, that 75% are forced to stay at it, actually killing more of the mature bucks that would have been left otherwise, decreasing the number of mature bucks on the landscape. If your goal is more mature bucks, APR is shooting yourself in the foot.
If increased hunter satisfaction is the goal, with those 75% of hunters who would have happily shot a 2 point , satisfaction will go down (except for a few lucky ones who kill a bigger buck). Hunter satisfaction with the other 25% who are looking for a bigger buck will go down because of crowding and a decrease in bigger buck numbers.
Under 3-point or less every other year, the buck/doe ratio is maintained at the DWR's lower numbers, increasing doe carrying capacity which increases deer numbers. Under 3-point or better, all those 2 points take up resources and don't producing anything. Plus a bunch of those 2-points are going to die over the winter instead of being in people's freezers.
Plus, with 3-point or less, you get the bonus of improving genetics. That's one thing I saw in the Book Cliffs when it had APR, an increase in 2x3s, 3x4s, mature 2x and 3x bucks, and crab claws.
As it is right now, I can draw an archery tag in the areas I hunt every 2-3 years. If I want to hunt a for a bigger buck, I would just apply for a tag in the years that is open to any buck. On the 3-point or less years, I'd apply for a point.
 
Last edited:
ktg said:
People thought I was joking when I said 3-point or less every other year. Think about what that would do. More bigger bucks make it through the hunt, obviously. Bigger bucks would be left to do the breeding and will have a better chance of making it through the winter than yearlings. The 75% who want to shoot a 2 point could still do that and go home, decreasing crowding. Under 3-point or better, that 75% are forced to stay at it, actually killing more of the mature bucks that would have been left otherwise, decreasing the number of mature bucks on the landscape. If your goal is more mature bucks, APR is shooting yourself in the foot.
If increased hunter satisfaction is the goal, with those 75% of hunters who would have happily shot a 2 point , satisfaction will go down (except for a few lucky ones who kill a bigger buck). Hunter satisfaction with the other 25% who are looking for a bigger buck will go down because of crowding and a decrease in bigger buck numbers.
Under 3-point or less every other year, the buck/doe ratio is maintained at the DWR's lower numbers, increasing doe carrying capacity which increases deer numbers. Under 3-point or better, all those 2 points take up resources and don't producing anything. Plus a bunch of those 2-points are going to die over the winter instead of being in people's freezers.
Plus, with 3-point or less, you get the bonus of improving genetics. That's one thing I saw in the Book Cliffs when it had APR, an increase in 2x3s, 3x4s, mature 2x and 3x bucks, and crab claws.
As it is right now, I can draw an archery tag in the areas I hunt every 2-3 years. If I want to hunt a for a bigger buck, I would just apply for a tag in the years that is open to any buck. On the 3-point or less years, I'd apply for a point.
Click to expand...
Interesting points to ponder 👍
 
slamdunk said:
If those of you who are against these changes, please enlighten us with your particular ideas.

Or, if you don't have any, please enlighten us on why you don't want a change at all and how that in itself is going to benefit anyone or anything watching these units continue to decline.
Click to expand...
With regards to APR in PV: I don’t feel that strongly but I am opposed. I’ll hunt and do my thing regardless. Here is what I have observed and what some data suggests about Wyoming APRs:

Hunted a unit with rotating APRs quite a few times. When the APRs are in effect, there is significantly less resident pressure. This is well documented in hunter surveys. Residents can choose to hunt a different general area, and lots of them do.

What I have observed with nonresidents during the APRs: crowded conditions the entire season. I think this is what you’ll see on PV. Utah guys will hunt hard to fill that tag. It’s not like they get to rifle hunt PV every year.

You will see a lot of 4pt harvest like this. Tomorrows trophy, today! With high fives all around. Joe Blow passed up 10 forkies before he found this gem!
DD060754-D865-4881-B3F0-68C475CBF525.jpeg


I think an APR will result in a more crowded and competitive experience with guys hunting the whole season and some good, young deer getting smashed along the way. I don’t see it magically producing a much better age class..marginally so if anything. I believe if APRs were effective we would have seen this play out in the many, failed attempts at APRs that have already occurred in states across the west.
 
Mallardsx2 said:
I wish they had made the weapon restrictions to the Pine Valley as well.....

-4 points on a side.
-Flintlock muzzleloaders patched round balls, open notched V sights only.
-Recurve bows with no sights.

Talk about growing some monsters in 4 years.....lord have mercy.

That would be a fun freaking hunt.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!
And draw a tag every year almost guaranteed!!
 
If we are guessing that the vast majority of bucks killed 50-75 percent are yearling spikes/forkies that will still stand by the road and wait to get shot. I have to wonder how many will be saved by iron sight modern rifles only. I mean even that means 150 yard range with minimal practice. By the way I am all for it and gives an excuse to get out my dads model 99 300 Savage again. Definitely would a be a unique deer hunt in all of the west. I am all for restrictions flintlocks/spears whatever and will hunt however I have to, hunting is hunting and getting out is 90 percent of it for me. But I want to be able to know there are mature animals also. This debate by springtime should be almost as long as waiting to hear about Zims buck he killed after passing 190s..... Good luck out there everyone that is in the woods.
 
ktg said:
People thought I was joking when I said 3-point or less every other year. Think about what that would do. More bigger bucks make it through the hunt, obviously. Bigger bucks would be left to do the breeding and will have a better chance of making it through the winter than yearlings. The 75% who want to shoot a 2 point could still do that and go home, decreasing crowding. Under 3-point or better, that 75% are forced to stay at it, actually killing more of the mature bucks that would have been left otherwise, decreasing the number of mature bucks on the landscape. If your goal is more mature bucks, APR is shooting yourself in the foot.
If increased hunter satisfaction is the goal, with those 75% of hunters who would have happily shot a 2 point , satisfaction will go down (except for a few lucky ones who kill a bigger buck). Hunter satisfaction with the other 25% who are looking for a bigger buck will go down because of crowding and a decrease in bigger buck numbers.
Under 3-point or less every other year, the buck/doe ratio is maintained at the DWR's lower numbers, increasing doe carrying capacity which increases deer numbers. Under 3-point or better, all those 2 points take up resources and don't producing anything. Plus a bunch of those 2-points are going to die over the winter instead of being in people's freezers.
Plus, with 3-point or less, you get the bonus of improving genetics. That's one thing I saw in the Book Cliffs when it had APR, an increase in 2x3s, 3x4s, mature 2x and 3x bucks, and crab claws.
As it is right now, I can draw an archery tag in the areas I hunt every 2-3 years. If I want to hunt a for a bigger buck, I would just apply for a tag in the years that is open to any buck. On the 3-point or less years, I'd apply for a point.
Click to expand...
I've been pondering these ideas all day and can't find much that I don't like about a reverse style APR.

One thing it does is immediately saves the older age classes, versus just the lucky one's that surve the hunt.
I can see that as an instant success right out of the gate and also helps speed up the process.

It would push older age class hunters to other areas, that would be a negative for the other units.

Here's an impossible question to ponder.
"Which would benefit the unit more efficiently, a regular APR of 4x and rely on the survivors to increase quality?
Or...
Do the reverse APR and put a hurting on the younger, easier to find and kill young bucks?"

Which of the two scenarios would work better for a 5 year test?
 
@slamdunk
My main reason for not supporting this proposal was already stated but mostly the LL holders grabbing up the best tags unless limited.

What I would like to see is a huge focus shift from hunter management to habitat improvement. The deer herd is in a spiral and has been for a very long time. As is always preached here and elsewhere - bucks don’t grow herds. We need does and lots of them. We have got to create an environment where the fawns can survive and 1/2 our deer are not getting killed on the roads.

I’m pretty sure it was you along with others who literally argued that the muzzy scope changes had nothing to do with success. It was to get it back to what a few deemed the hunt to “the way it should be”.

If we were looking to manage success a massive change with heavy restrictions to the any weapon hunt across the state would be the #1 change. Rifle hunters kill the lion share of the deer and elk in this state. We cant keep throwing thousands of rifle hunters with unlimited technology at the deer herd and expect any change.

Right now the deer herd is trying to recover from another horrible winter. Hunters are frustrated and in typical fashion Utah DWR and hunters are pulling another knee jerk reaction to better their odds of finding better bucks.

I’m all for primitive weapons and I will definitely utilize these changes to my benefit but I think we’re not even close to helping the herd overall managing hunter success.

*** just saw your latest post. I like APR because it allows older bucks to survive which in turn gets does bred earlier and fawns born sooner.

This directly correlates with the spike only change in Utah (which people thought was crazy too). This change was the beginning of the elk herd explosion in Utah. What was one of the biggest benefit to it? Mature bulls surviving the hunts and breeding cows earlier with older calves going into winter.

I’m not sure how this helps the pine valley unit tho. There is virtually no winter kill on the PV but there are a lot of vehicle collisions (several huge bucks were killed this year on the roads).
 
Silentstalker said:
@slamdunk
My main reason for not supporting this proposal was already stated but mostly the LL holders grabbing up the best tags unless limited.

What I would like to see is a huge focus shift from hunter management to habitat improvement. The deer herd is in a spiral and has been for a very long time. As is always preached here and elsewhere - bucks don’t grow herds. We need does and lots of them. We have got to create an environment where the fawns can survive and 1/2 our deer are not getting killed on the roads.

I’m pretty sure it was you along with others who literally argued that the muzzy scope changes had nothing to do with success. It was to get it back to what a few deemed the hunt to “the way it should be”.

If we were looking to manage success a massive change with heavy restrictions to the any weapon hunt across the state would be the #1 change. Rifle hunters kill the lion share of the deer and elk in this state. We cant keep throwing thousands of rifle hunters with unlimited technology at the deer herd and expect any change.

Right now the deer herd is trying to recover from another horrible winter. Hunters are frustrated and in typical fashion Utah DWR and hunters are pulling another knee jerk reaction to better their odds of finding better bucks.

I’m all for primitive weapons and I will definitely utilize these changes to my benefit but I think we’re not even close to helping the herd overall managing hunter success.

*** just saw your latest post. I like APR because it allows older bucks to survive which in turn gets does bred earlier and fawns born sooner.

This directly correlates with the spike only change in Utah (which people thought was crazy too). This change was the beginning of the elk herd explosion in Utah. What was one of the biggest benefit to it? Mature bulls surviving the hunts and breeding cows earlier with older calves going into winter.

I’m not sure how this helps the pine valley unit tho. There is virtually no winter kill on the PV but there are a lot of vehicle collisions (several huge bucks were killed this year on the roads).
Click to expand...
Great comments and insights.

I would support certain units to be restricted on centerfire rifles, absolutely, especially since i am primarily a muzzleloader hunter in Utah anyway.

I'd be tickled pink to see struggling units like my own Wasatch West implement primitive style weapons only, meaning archery and muzzleloader only and see if it would help recover some herd numbers and Buck to Doe healthier ratios.

As for saving "deer", it's always been my stance that loss of habitat and highway mortality take more deer in a year than all 3 weapon hunts combined.
Hence......my heavy dedication to the MDF and our conservation work.
 
The proposal for the Cache basically turns the whole unit into a HAMSS hunt.
I don't own a legal rifle to hunt the "new" ALW hunt.
I don't own a muzzy that meets the definition of the Primitive weapon.

But what I have witnessed is an up and down herd and that attributed to weather. Not hunters.

I'm primarily an archery hunter (with a compound) but as a DH I accepted the last limitation on the muzzle loader and hunt with a basic 30.06 during The ALW. Unfortunately it would not be legal under the proposed regulations.

I can't remember the last deer I killed as I'm content to "save a few". Unfortunately I was able to witness the loss of most if not all I ever saved during the winter of 22/23.

My belief is it won't matter. The WB has a known history of being conservative on tag increases and ruthless on cutting them listening to the squeaky wheels

The whole discussion of older age class bucks on a general unit is against the definition of general units. Enough bucks are left to do the breeding.

And no recent studies have show the does not being bred early.
 
slamdunk said:
@waterfowl kid
I totally understand your point about changing rules in a particular area, that could be frustrating for those who just want a buck, any buck.

I would assume it's tough on those who don't self regulate or implement a personal APR.

I have hunted the Wasatch West most of my adult life and it is a very pitiful unit, but it's easy to draw and because of my personal APR, I've taken two bucks in 12 years.

Having said that, I would welcome any new options to help that unit.

Perhaps Vanilla and others in opposition are correct that these proposals will be more detrimental than beneficial?
These are a "test" and were derived from huge public demands to do "something" temporarily and go from there.
Click to expand...
The public also voiced very strongly that they hated these ideas last year, yet here we are with almost and identical proposal for this round of RACs
 
gundog2 said:
Unfortunately, people living in the Cache unit will not really have any viable alternatives unless they are willing to drive long distances through the Wasatch metro area to Southern Utah. I’m sympathetic to hunters that do not have extra money to buy weapons that meet new restrictions. I’m sure many people went out and bought new scopes for muzzleloaders when they made that legal a few years ago, now they want to eliminate all scopes. It appears to me that the UDWR really doesn’t know what they are doing and it is hard for me to believe that anything will change.
Click to expand...
This
 
Bux n Dux said:
No that was the RACs reasoning for shooting it down. The general consensus was the public hated the idea in its entirety
Click to expand...
Ok, remember it as you wish and I'll remember it as i heard it from public and from our MDF guy who sits on that Mule Deer Committee.
"The public wanted to finish the current plan before we make any changes and the RAC agreed".
 
So Nilly?

Tell Us What Is Bothering You About The Plan?

Is It True They Won't Let The LL Holders Get First Crack At The Permits?

Or What?
 
gundog2 said:
Unfortunately, people living in the Cache unit will not really have any viable alternatives unless they are willing to drive long distances through the Wasatch metro area to Southern Utah. I’m sympathetic to hunters that do not have extra money to buy weapons that meet new restrictions.
Click to expand...

So, actually cutting opportunities from people rather than adding opportunity? That sounds like something I’ve been trying to suggest is the real outcome of this!


gundog2 said:
It appears to me that the UDWR really doesn’t know what they are doing and it is hard for me to believe that anything will change.
Click to expand...

I actually think they know what they are doing, but just won’t be forthright in what that is. They certainly aren’t listening to the biologists.
 
slamdunk said:
How does reducing success rates not affect buck numbers survival rates?
That is the whole reason behind it, same as the tech rules.
"Cripple the weapon, reduce the success".

Managing the hunter with restrictions lowers success, isn't it a twofold equation?
Click to expand...

What was your response over and over again on the several muzzy tech restrictions when people talked about them not helping the deer herds?

I can use the search function if you don’t remember.

Why so different now?
 
But There Seems To Be Something You're Not Telling Us That's Bothering You?

Please SPLAIN in More Detail?

You Didn't Keep Your OLD NON-GADGETRYIZED Weapons?

You Don't Wanna Lay Any Of Your HIGH DOLLAR GADGETRY Down?

Or What?

Vanilla said:
I’ve stated my beef no less than 6 times in this thread Bess. Open your darn eyes and read dude!
Click to expand...
 
Vanilla said:
What was your response over and over again on the several muzzy tech restrictions when people talked about them not helping the deer herds?

I can use the search function if you don’t remember.

Why so different now?
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to split hairs?

My stance on muzzleloaders hasn't changed one bit.

The idea is the same here, "cripple the weapon".

The difference here is that everyone on the mountain is packing a long range rifle for this hunt, whereas the long range muzzleloader was a fast growing issue with the acceleration of technology for that type of weapon, so it was squashed.
 
So?

I've Got Another Question For The PRO's On MM Here?

When The DWR Said There Was 48 Illegal Bucks Left To ROT Per Every 100 Legal Bucks Taken Legally In The Book Cliffs When The APR Was In Effect,Were The TAGS Cut The Following Year/Years To Compensate For This Illegal Activity?

I'm All For APR's On Let's Say 1/2 The Units In The State!

But How Are You Gonna Enforce It?

And Even If They Did Catch Somebody Doing It?

What Kinda PISSCUTTER Fine Will It Be?

We've Gotta Leave Some PISSCUTTER Units Open To A FREE FOR ALL For The BAWL-BABY OPPORTUNISTS In This State!

I Get That!

A Whole Bunch Of People Can PISS & MOAN On The Internet!

But Let's See How Few Show Up At The RAC Meetings?
 
elkassassin said:
So?

I've Got Another Question For The PRO's On MM Here?

When The DWR Said There Was 48 Illegal Bucks Left To ROT Per Every 100 Legal Bucks Taken Legally In The Book Cliffs When The APR Was In Effect,Were The TAGS Cut The Following Year/Years To Compensate For This Illegal Activity?

I'm All For APR's On Let's Say 1/2 The Units In The State!

But How Are You Gonna Enforce It?

And Even If They Did Catch Somebody Doing It?

What Kinda PISSCUTTER Fine Will It Be?

We've Gotta Leave Some PISSCUTTER Units Open To A FREE FOR ALL For The BAWL-BABY OPPORTUNISTS In This State!

I Get That!

A Whole Bunch Of People Can PISS & MOAN On The Internet!

But Let's See How Few Show Up At The RAC Meetings?
Click to expand...
It’s is like most of their laws, they can’t enforce it and I am pretty sure there were no tag cuts then
 
elkassassin said:
So?

I've Got Another Question For The PRO's On MM Here?

When The DWR Said There Was 48 Illegal Bucks Left To ROT Per Every 100 Legal Bucks Taken Legally In The Book Cliffs When The APR Was In Effect,Were The TAGS Cut The Following Year/Years To Compensate For This Illegal Activity?

I'm All For APR's On Let's Say 1/2 The Units In The State!

But How Are You Gonna Enforce It?

And Even If They Did Catch Somebody Doing It?

What Kinda PISSCUTTER Fine Will It Be?

We've Gotta Leave Some PISSCUTTER Units Open To A FREE FOR ALL For The BAWL-BABY OPPORTUNISTS In This State!

I Get That!

A Whole Bunch Of People Can PISS & MOAN On The Internet!

But Let's See How Few Show Up At The RAC Meetings?
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure the comment you were told by a DWR person for a 48/100 was very hypothetical, there's absolutely no way to count dead deer left to rot by hunters.

Did it happen, yes absolutely.

I put a big 2x2 out of it's misery out there in the early 90's that was lying there suffering from a bullet to the spine.
Yes it was illegal for me to do, but I knew it was the right thing to do for the deer.

I was in the Henry's the year they lifted the APR, there were dead two points and spikes in every camp being openly displayed because they were legal.

Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested.

If we knew how many deer were shot and lost each year between all the hunts, we'd all be sick.
Mistaken identity or bad hits, dead deer are dead deer.

We're not ever going to stop wounding and losses, but there should be no question that an APR gives a young buck a significant increase in chances of survival till he matures.

And no, younger bucks breeding does not change genetics, that's just silly.
 
When The Spike Buck That's Breeding His Mother That's Came From Several Generations Of JUNK,That Effects The Future Of Genetics!

Yes It Happens!

If The Spike Came From Good Genetics It's Not That Big A Deal!

Most Bucks Don't Live Past Age 1-3 Years Old To Know WHAT MIGHT OF BEEN!



slamdunk said:
I'm quite sure the comment you were told by a DWR person for a 48/100 was very hypothetical, there's absolutely no way to count dead deer left to rot by hunters.

Did it happen, yes absolutely.

I put a big 2x2 out of it's misery out there in the early 90's that was lying there suffering from a bullet to the spine.
Yes it was illegal for me to do, but I knew it was the right thing to do for the deer.

I was in the Henry's the year they lifted the APR, there were dead two points and spikes in every camp being openly displayed because they were legal.

Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested.

If we knew how many deer were shot and lost each year between all the hunts, we'd all be sick.
Mistaken identity or bad hits, dead deer are dead deer.

We're not ever going to stop wounding and losses, but there should be no question that an APR gives a young buck a significant increase in chances of survival till he matures.

And no, younger bucks breeding does not change genetics, that's just silly.
Click to expand...
 
elkassassin said:
One Last Question:

When We Gonna Grow Some More Does?
Click to expand...
This needs to be the #1 priority!

APR's may allow more bucks to live a few more seasons but they don't "grow" herd numbers.

These depredation tags need a re-visit!

My sons father in law owns 40 acres in San Pete County and gets 4 Doe tags every year whether there's deer using his unused land or not.
 
slamdunk said:
Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested.
Click to expand...

And here it is! We want bigger bucks, not more chances to hunt. And that is all this about. At least you are honest about it. We can disagree on the results we want, that is perfectly fine, but so long as people are trying to sell this as “increased opportunity,” I’ll continue to call it BS.

Be like slam folks and tell it as it is. At least have the spine to be honest about the motives. Slam does in this simple sentence. Most of the people supporting this have the same motives, but won’t admit it. Some here do. It’s why I’m directing people to those posts.

Kudos to those of you that are being honest about why you want all these changes. It’s time for the DWR to do the same.
 
johnnycake said:
That wasn't a hypothetical. The 48/100 is in the DWR's records and reports.
Click to expand...
Interesting, if it's true, I will retract my statement.

Can you point a direction to this report?

I'd certainly like to see how they came up with a near 50% wasted buck assessment.

Did they gather that information from hunter confessions, poaching calls, unit walk through counting carcasses?
 
slamdunk said:
Interesting, if it's true, I will retract my statement.

Can you point a direction to this report?

I'd certainly like to see how they came up with a near 50% wasted buck assessment.

Did they gather that information from hunter confessions, poaching calls, unit walk through counting carcasses?
Click to expand...
I too would like to know how they came to this conclusion?
 
When I watched some of the meeting that had data about mule deer, I think it was called the work session or something. They had a university guy trying to link low buck to doe ratios equating to more deer overall? Like when we had a bunch of deer 50 years ago, we ran a much lower buck to doe ratio. But isn't that a stretch to think that's the reason? Isn't it just correlation not causation? We had so many deer back then you could run low buck to doe ratios and still see a ton of bucks..Do people really believe there's too many bucks on these units? I see very few bucks on the south Manti, I can't imagine we're at capacity for bucks on these units and harvesting more would all of the sudden mean more deer. It seems like they are leaning into this theory for all of those units they are decreasing buck to doe ratios. I think when folks go from seeing a handful of bucks during their hunts to seeing maybe 1 or 2, you'll see another major overhaul and an emergency outcry.
 
waterfowl kid said:
When I watched some of the meeting that had data about mule deer, I think it was called the work session or something. They had a university guy trying to link low buck to doe ratios equating to more deer overall? Like when we had a bunch of deer 50 years ago, we ran a much lower buck to doe ratio. But isn't that a stretch to think that's the reason? Isn't it just correlation not causation? We had so many deer back then you could run low buck to doe ratios and still see a ton of bucks..Do people really believe there's too many bucks on these units? I see very few bucks on the south Manti, I can't imagine we're at capacity for bucks on these units and harvesting more would all of the sudden mean more deer. It seems like they are leaning into this theory for all of those units they are decreasing buck to doe ratios. I think when folks go from seeing a handful of bucks during their hunts to seeing maybe 1 or 2, you'll see another major overhaul and an emergency outcry.
Click to expand...
"Mule Deer Working Group"
 
elkhunterUT said:
yeah...that's BS
Click to expand...
You can grab a copy of this on Amazon for $22, and check out pages 119-138 while you're in there.
deVos, Jr. J. C., M. R. Conover, and N. E. Headrick. 2003. Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies. Berryman Institute Press. Utah State University, Logan.
I'll definitely take the word of that publication over the "I don't believe the data from the nerds and gubment bootlickers, 'cause I have my own eyes and anecdotal experience" crowd.
Here's a link to the archived article the DWR ran in the Deseret News that Bessy pasted the text from with the 48/100 illegal bucks per 100 bucks killed.
www.deseret.com

DWR SEEKS INPUT FROM SPORTSMEN ON 3-POINT OR BETTER DEER HUNTING

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is looking for public input concerning deer hunting regulations in the Book Cliffs. For the past five years, the Book Cliffs unit has been managed under a three-point or better hunting system.
www.deseret.com www.deseret.com

Of course, none of that matters with most of the pro APR folks because they refuse to accept data that supports conclusions that disagree with their beliefs. Which is exactly why ballot box game management is a terrible idea. Which is hilarious given how few pro APR folks are in support of Colorado's ballot box biology initiatives, while they are essentially doing the exact same thing demanding DWR try APR again despite there being no biological benefit to the deer herd as a result when and where APRs have been implemented for mule deer.
 
Elbanditojoaquin said:
Late to this thread and off topic, but I’m interested to see how crowded the extended gets if it becomes its own draw, and anyone with an archery tag can still hunt it. Gonna be interesting.
Click to expand...
I don’t think “anyone with an archery tag can still hunt it”, if it becomes its own draw as I understand the proposal. Maybe I am wrong?
 
gundog2 said:
I don’t think “anyone with an archery tag can still hunt it”, if it becomes its own draw as I understand the proposal. Maybe I am wrong?
Click to expand...
I think I remember it saying “existing extended archery hunting opportunities would remain unchanged” but I guess that could mean the areas won’t change? Who knows
 
Simpleton said:
I agree with Slam. It is nearly impossible to know how many were left. This number only reflects what they KNOW. So in reality, the number left can only be higher.
Click to expand...
Which does not help slam's argument. Having resulted in at least 48/100 illegal take with possibly more, is hardly a winning argument for "I don't believe the data, gimme back muh APRs"
 
johnnycake said:
You can grab a copy of this on Amazon for $22, and check out pages 119-138 while you're in there.
deVos, Jr. J. C., M. R. Conover, and N. E. Headrick. 2003. Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies. Berryman Institute Press. Utah State University, Logan.
I'll definitely take the word of that publication over the "I don't believe the data from the nerds and gubment bootlickers, 'cause I have my own eyes and anecdotal experience" crowd.
Here's a link to the archived article the DWR ran in the Deseret News that Bessy pasted the text from with the 48/100 illegal bucks per 100 bucks killed.
www.deseret.com

DWR SEEKS INPUT FROM SPORTSMEN ON 3-POINT OR BETTER DEER HUNTING

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is looking for public input concerning deer hunting regulations in the Book Cliffs. For the past five years, the Book Cliffs unit has been managed under a three-point or better hunting system.
www.deseret.com www.deseret.com

Of course, none of that matters with most of the pro APR folks because they refuse to accept data that supports conclusions that disagree with their beliefs. Which is exactly why ballot box game management is a terrible idea. Which is hilarious given how few pro APR folks are in support of Colorado's ballot box biology initiatives, while they are essentially doing the exact same thing demanding DWR try APR again despite there being no biological benefit to the deer herd as a result when and where APRs have been implemented for mule deer.
Click to expand...
Ok, that was a good read, nice arguments to the current topic.

I still don't see an explanation for how 48:100 ratio of waste was counted and collected, it just says that there were.

Maybe it was 75:100, maybe it was 10:100.

I will do more sleuthing and post my findings.
 
slamdunk said:
Ok, that was a good read, nice arguments to the current topic.

I still don't see an explanation for how 48:100 ratio of waste was counted and collected, it just says that there were.

Maybe it was 75:100, maybe it was 10:100.

I will do more sleuthing and post my findings.
Click to expand...
You too can grab a copy of this on Amazon for $22, and check out pages 119-138 while you're in there. Then follow up on the footnotes and have fun.
deVos, Jr. J. C., M. R. Conover, and N. E. Headrick. 2003. Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies. Berryman Institute Press. Utah State University, Logan.
 
johnnycake said:
Which does not help slam's argument. Having resulted in at least 48/100 illegal take with possibly more, is hardly a winning argument for "I don't believe the data, gimme back muh APRs"
Click to expand...
Even if this is factual that nearly 50% were shot and wasted, how many are shot now that they are legal to kill?
A dead 2 point is a dead 2 point, whether it ends up in a freezer or not.
 
Not really a fair comparison but I remember when the Pennsylvania Game Commission implemented APS's statewide and that fall there were dead illegal bucks laying freaking everywhere. It really was pathetic. In the following several years, this happened less and less and less. A lot of people quit hunting because of the APR's, City folks mostly, who only hunted the first day of gun season anyhow.

FFWD 20 years, 95% of the hunting population is happy that there are Antler point restrictions throughout that entire state. It was a real game changer and a major success story in Pennsylvania for the quality of bucks and still is to this day. They did have to make some changes and adjustments along the way, but it is still in place.

APRs are a real success story IN THAT PARTICULAR STATE.
 
Mallardsx2 said:
Not really a fair comparison but I remember when the Pennsylvania Game Commission implemented APS's statewide and that fall there were dead illegal bucks laying freaking everywhere. It really was pathetic. In the following several years, this happened less and less and less. A lot of people quit hunting because of the APR's, City folks mostly, who only hunted the first day of gun season anyhow.

FFWD 20 years, 95% of the hunting population is happy that there are Antler point restrictions throughout that entire state. It was a real game changer and a major success story in Pennsylvania for the quality of bucks and still is to this day. They did have to make some changes and adjustments along the way, but it is still in place.

APRs are a real success story IN THAT PARTICULAR STATE.
Click to expand...
And for that particular species. Effective management of mule deer vs management of whitetails is not the same.
 
Mallardsx2 said:
Not really a fair comparison but I remember when the Pennsylvania Game Commission implemented APS's statewide and that fall there were dead illegal bucks laying freaking everywhere. It really was pathetic. In the following several years, this happened less and less and less. A lot of people quit hunting because of the APR's, City folks mostly, who only hunted the first day of gun season anyhow.

FFWD 20 years, 95% of the hunting population is happy that there are Antler point restrictions throughout that entire state. It was a real game changer and a major success story in Pennsylvania for the quality of bucks and still is to this day. They did have to make some changes and adjustments along the way, but it is still in place.

APRs are a real success story IN THAT PARTICULAR STATE.
Click to expand...
Having you state this, it goes in line with my immediate response from the top guy at the DWR this morning told me this-

"Studies this robust were never implemented back in the 90's.
We are excited to do this and study the outcome for better or worse.
It might not be the silver bullet, but you never know if you don't try".
 
slamdunk said:
Ok, that was a good read, nice arguments to the current topic.

I still don't see an explanation for how 48:100 ratio of waste was counted and collected, it just says that there were.

Maybe it was 75:100, maybe it was 10:100.

I will do more sleuthing and post my findings.
Click to expand...
If you don't want to grab the deVos publication and dig into the citations, you can also make a GRAMA request to the DWR
 
slamdunk said:
Even if this is factual that nearly 50% were shot and wasted, how many are shot now that they are legal to kill?
A dead 2 point is a dead 2 point, whether it ends up in a freezer or not.
Click to expand...
Slam, I agree a dead deer is a dead deer. However, that isn't the point of the concern being voiced. If someone is willing to walk away from a 2 point they just shot, it isn't a stretch to believe there is high likelihood that same person is going to continue hunting.

1 dead two point= 1 dead two point, but APRs increase the potential for additional "legal" deer to be shot afterwards. Turning it into 1 dead two point + another dead buck. 2>1
 
slamdunk said:
Having you state this, it goes in line with my immediate response from the top guy at the DWR this morning told me this-

"Studies this robust were never implemented back in the 90's.
We are excited to do this and study the outcome for better or worse.
It might not be the silver bullet, but you never know if you don't try".
Click to expand...
Next time you talk to the top guy, pitch the 3-point or less every other year idea. I see no downside, and as he said, you never know if you don't try.
 
Simpleton said:
Slam, I agree a dead deer is a dead deer. However, that isn't the point of the concern being voiced. If someone is willing to walk away from a 2 point they just shot, it isn't a stretch to believe there is high likelihood that same person is going to continue hunting.

1 dead two point= 1 dead two point, but APRs increase the potential for additional "legal" deer to be shot afterwards. Turning it into 1 dead two point + another dead buck. 2>1
Click to expand...
I can completely agree and we still see that scenario today, but with wound and lost animals.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_4381.PNG
Couple Fantastic Trophy Bucks!
3.jpg
F12CF067-ED10-43AC-9E51-41A4CA783FF1.jpeg
3A971124-C6A5-43CB-81DE-546E39024F36.jpeg
IMG_7079.jpg
C0FA80BE-78BA-44D8-80F2-2734C04A3AF5.jpeg
IMG_5060.jpeg
houston3_zps84e333f9.jpg
E062C969-A158-4531-8443-1A32647501F9.jpeg
D866F1E1-6F3B-4E15-A344-35CB5EDE2E54.jpeg
IMG_0106.jpeg
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom