• Just a heads up: On November 13th, we'll be performing some updates on the website. You might experience some unresponsive pages, though we’re hoping for minimal disruption. Thanks for your understanding!

Significant restrictions are being proposed in 2024 Novembers RAC's

Mallardsx2 said:
It’s really just managing people. Lol
Click to expand...
And that's where I think some of the discussion in this thread gets muddled. Most of the proposals are people management with little goal of modifying the herd numbers or structure. But APR is both a people management strategy and one that modifies herd numbers and structure. And again and again, the result is not what APR advocates claim the goal that is supposed to be attained.
No long term improvement in buck ratios, either no long term improvement in "mature" buck ratios or decreases with greater than or equal to 4pts in ID being the exception for mature 3pts (full disclosure I haven't dug into ID and what's behind the table here, but not tracking compliance raises more than a few questions). But get this: decrease in total harvest but no total population increase from APRs...
Those certainly seem like negative biological outcomes.
1000006521.jpg
 
Last edited:
johnnycake said:
And that's where I think some of the discussion in this thread gets muddled. Most of the proposals are people management with little goal of modifying the herd numbers or structure. But APR is both a people management strategy and one that modifies herd numbers and structure. And again and again, the result is not what APR advocates claim the goal that is supposed to be attained.
No long term improvement in buck ratios, either no long term improvement in "mature" buck ratios or decreases with greater than it equal to 4pts in ID being the exception (full disclosure I haven't dug into ID and what's behind the table here, but not tracking compliance raises more than a few questions). But get this: decrease in total harvest but no total population increase from APRs...
Those certainly seem like negative biological outcomes.
View attachment 162144
Click to expand...
I like this, thank you for sharing, it's very interesting.
 
I have read a lot of comments. I agree DWR needs to try a few other hunting options. More people and fewer deer.
II have hunted the Cache unit all my life. Helped a lot with conservation projects and had meetings over the years with DWR.
Fact: You can't stockpile bucks in an area that has a lot of winter kill every few years. What good is it to save more bucks, have them compete with pregnant does on limited winter range, then winter kill every few years.

Predator management will need to be managed and encouraged, we don't want higher predator numbers killing the bucks saved from a decrease in hunter success.

Saving more bucks in areas where winter kill isn't much of a problem, providing more hunting opportunity, with less successful guns and bows is a reasonable thing to try.

I have a life time license and didn't even bother to go hunting on the Cache, because poor deer numbers the past two years.
 
I used to hunt a unit in Idaho that had < 2 or 3 point antler restrictions (I can remember if it was 2 or 3). It was cool to see mature bucks on the landscape. My biggest complaint with a < 3 APR is that it is hard to prove something (a 4th point) is not there. Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean that it is not there. With a 4 point requirement, you can be sure it is legal if you can count at least 4 points. I think it would be easier to mistake a four point for a three point, especially if things are happening fast.
 
Vanilla said:
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!




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.
Click to expand...

How are they cut?

Telling folks which weapon they can use, IS NOT limiting oppurtunity.

I can't rifle hunt the archery hunt.


For the 7th time.

We are gonna need who "they" are
 
But Is Somebody Gonna Be PISSED When I Can't Remember Which Year We're On?:D

Or If I Make A Mistake Can I Just WASTE The Animal?





ktg said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
elkassassin said:
But Is Somebody Gonna Be PISSED When I Can't Remember Which Year We're On?:D

Or If I Make A Mistake Can I Just WASTE The Animal?
Click to expand...
Should be easier than when the youth go from archery elk to rifle. I always remind them when rifle starts, "you can't shoot a cow now. You can't shoot a cow."
 
hossblur said:
How are they cut?

Telling folks which weapon they can use, IS NOT limiting oppurtunity.

I can't rifle hunt the archery hunt.


For the 7th time.

We are gonna need who "they" are
Click to expand...
I would guess that "they are" the people who keep suggesting ways to give themselves an advantage over someone else in getting a tag.

I can't believe you can entertain the thought the WB is going to increase tag number based on success percentages.

They have shown time and again they will bow to the squeaky wheel.
 
middlefork said:
I would guess that "they are" the people who keep suggesting ways to give themselves an advantage over someone else in getting a tag.

I can't believe you can entertain the thought the WB is going to increase tag number based on success percentages.

They have shown time and again they will bow to the squeaky wheel.
Click to expand...

How Bout Bowing To Some Decent Management For A F'ED Up Deer Herd?
 
I've Seen Several Units Closed Due To PISS POOR F'N Management!

There Are People Suggesting & OK With CLOSURES Because None Of The Other BS Management Plans Have Worked & Some Are Now thinking Closures Beat What We've Had In Many Years!

I Myself Don't Think There Should Ever Be A Unit/Units Closed!

But Proper Management Might Help Prevent Closures!




middlefork said:
Ok let me suggest.....
Close the whole damn state down for deer hunting the next 6 years and start over.

Then we would really see if any current programs are working.
Click to expand...
 
I’d wish someone would create a poll on these ideas there planning to talk about just to see where we’re at?
 
elkassassin said:
I've Seen Several Units Closed Due To PISS POOR F'N Management!

There Are People Suggesting & OK With CLOSURES Because None Of The Other BS Management Plans Have Worked & Some Are Now thinking Closures Beat What We've Had In Many Years!

I Myself Don't Think There Should Ever Be A Unit/Units Closed!

But Proper Management Might Help Prevent Closures!
Click to expand...
I've been waiting for the DWR to close another unit for 5 years, but I'm tired of waiting. My wife has enough points to draw any non-CWMU tag and I'm only a couple behind her. I think we'll burn them in the next couple years and be done with that.
 
elkassassin said:
I've Seen Several Units Closed Due To PISS POOR F'N Management!

There Are People Suggesting & OK With CLOSURES Because None Of The Other BS Management Plans Have Worked & Some Are Now thinking Closures Beat What We've Had In Many Years!

I Myself Don't Think There Should Ever Be A Unit/Units Closed!

But Proper Management Might Help Prevent Closures!
Click to expand...
Closing is not the answer- it doesn’t affect the lose of habitat we are seeing in many areas. We can debate these changes but closing units doesn’t help solve any issues. I am emotionally invested with some of the changes they are not the end of the world but closing it down would be for me.
Yes I want to catch the biggest fish in the lake be mostly I just want to go.
 
middlefork said:
I would guess that "they are" the people who keep suggesting ways to give themselves an advantage over someone else in getting a tag.

I can't believe you can entertain the thought the WB is going to increase tag number based on success percentages.

They have shown time and again they will bow to the squeaky wheel.
Click to expand...

Hoss ain’t seeing it cause he doesn’t want to.

Tell the guy that has to go buy a new gun to hunt a hunky he’s been hunting his whole life if he wants to keep hunting that unit in the next 5 years this isn’t cutting opportunity. Oh yeah, everyone drives super duty trucks with 12 inch screens instead of the 8 inch. Got it!
 
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...

I honestly can’t believe this is the mindset.

A person lawfully killing a 2 point and taking it home and someone illegally killing a 2 point and leaving it to waste are the same thing?

And this is why “groups” will never speak for me.
 
slamdunk said:
How TF did you twist that into the most absurd thing I've read all day in this thread?
You've got to be joking......not too mention completely wasting our time here.
Click to expand...

It’s not twisted. You’ve mentioned it now twice in this thread.

I agree it’s utterly absurd, but it’s your words, not anyone else’s.
 
middlefork said:
I would guess that "they are" the people who keep suggesting ways to give themselves an advantage over someone else in getting a tag.

I can't believe you can entertain the thought the WB is going to increase tag number based on success percentages.

They have shown time and again they will bow to the squeaky wheel.
Click to expand...

Wrong argument.

Vanilla is claiming decreased oppurtunity.
 
Vanilla said:
Hoss ain’t seeing it cause he doesn’t want to.

Tell the guy that has to go buy a new gun to hunt a hunky he’s been hunting his whole life if he wants to keep hunting that unit in the next 5 years this isn’t cutting opportunity. Oh yeah, everyone drives super duty trucks with 12 inch screens instead of the 8 inch. Got it!
Click to expand...

I had to buy sights on a muzzy on the unit I've hunted my whole life.

I had to change from Nov, to Sept on a unit I've hunted my whole life.

I've gone from 2 weeks, to 5 days, and back, on a unit I've hunted my whole life on.

What the hell is the difference in me having to buy open sights for my muzzy, vs , buying them for a rifle?

I'll wait
 
hossblur said:
I had to buy sights on a muzzy on the unit I've hunted my whole life.

I had to change from Nov, to Sept on a unit I've hunted my whole life.

I've gone from 2 weeks, to 5 days, and back, on a unit I've hunted my whole life on.

What the hell is the difference in me having to buy open sights for my muzzy, vs , buying them for a rifle?
Click to expand...
You Can Handle It Hossy!

But when these LONG-RANGERS Have To Take 5K Worth Of GADGETRY Off Their F'N Rifles They're Gonna BAWL!






hossblur said:
I'll wait
Click to expand...
 
T
Vanilla said:
I honestly can’t believe this is the mindset.

A person lawfully killing a 2 point and taking it home and someone illegally killing a 2 point and leaving it to waste are the same thing?

And this is why “groups” will never speak for me.
Click to expand...
hat isn't the mindset of any group, that was a comment solely by me, myself and I.

Why would you even state such a sloppy, ignorant and self loathing comment?

Care to enlighten me on how a dead buck isn't quite a dead buck if it's taken legally or not?
It's still removed from the herd, is it not?
 
Last edited:
hossblur said:
I had to buy sights on a muzzy on the unit I've hunted my whole life.

I had to change from Nov, to Sept on a unit I've hunted my whole life.

I've gone from 2 weeks, to 5 days, and back, on a unit I've hunted my whole life on.

What the hell is the difference in me having to buy open sights for my muzzy, vs , buying them for a rifle?

I'll wait
Click to expand...
So your only rifle is a straight walled cartridge with open or peep sights?
Props to you!
 
slamdunk said:
How TF did you twist that into the most absurd thing I've read all day in this thread?
You've got to be joking......not too mention completely wasting our time here.
Click to expand...
Zero twisting required.
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...

slamdunk said:
Yes there were some two points shot illegally, but look how many are shot now.......the majority of them.
Click to expand...
slamdunk said:
I agree with you that one wasted 2 point turns into two dead deer, 100%.

But i would have to argue the amount of wasted Deer left in the field, there's no possible way to have an accurate count on that.

But in the end, a dead 2 point is a dead deer regardless of waste or not.
The fact remains that the mass majority of young bucks are being legally taken now versus a very low percentage during an active APR unit.
Click to expand...

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...
Expand that last one in particular, your statement speaks for itself. And it's a downright shameful opinion for somebody who was on committees recommending wildlife management actions.
"Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested."
 
@Vanilla
I'll tell you what.
Go to the RAC's and beg they leave your PV unit as is and demand they implement ALL those proposals to MY unit.
The Wasatch West, because that unit needs immediate help and I'm not to proud to let a group of people make decisions about where i hunt, especially when "improvement" is the common goal.
 
johnnycake said:
Zero twisting required.






Expand that last one in particular, your statement speaks for itself. And it's a downright shameful opinion for somebody who was on committees recommending wildlife management actions.
"Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested."
Click to expand...
It's not that hard to understand.

5% waste of the 2 point population versus 80% of them taken out of a unit.

What's so hard to understand???

Isn't 5% less than 80?

Removing 80% doesn't leave much left now, does it?
 
slamdunk said:
It's not that hard to understand.

5% waste of the 2 point population versus 80% of them taken out of a unit.

What's so hard to understand???

Isn't 5% less than 80?

Removing 80% doesn't leave much left now, does it?
Click to expand...
Pretty easy to understand the math…
 
Let's Get Back To The EQUAL TAKE Of GADGETRY On The Other 2 Weapon Types As Well!

Yes!

I Hunt With All 3!

So Don't Start Your BS With Me!

This Isn't Directed At Any One Person!

It's Directed At Everybody!

I'll Wait For It...................!
 
@Vanilla
@johnnycake

Isn't this other guys comment from another thread exactly what I stated?

"killing any buck takes a buck away, whether it be a spike or a 4x4"

My quote-
A dead two point is a dead two point whether it's in a freezer or wasted"
My entire point is a dead deer is a dead deer, it's still removed from the overall herd.
And I'll say it again-
I'd rather have 5% of yearlings REMOVED than 80%"
Screenshot_20241029_205159_Chrome.jpg
 
Vanilla said:
I honestly can’t believe this is the mindset.

A person lawfully killing a 2 point and taking it home and someone illegally killing a 2 point and leaving it to waste are the same thing?

And this is why “groups” will never speak for me.
Click to expand...
I am glad a few of you pointed this out. When I first read it, I couldn’t find the words to express my disgust in Slam’s statement without being rude. Condoning any waste and be pro conservation and a sportsman are two things that can’t coexist. I am not implying that Slam is not a sportsman or pro poaching. From what I can tell from his history of posts, I know that’s not the case, but that was a bad look in my opinion. I have to hope that it reads different than what he means.
 
elkassassin said:
Let's Get Back To The EQUAL TAKE Of GADGETRY On The Other 2 Weapon Types As Well!

Yes!

I Hunt With All 3!

So Don't Start Your BS With Me!

This Isn't Directed At Any One Person!

It's Directed At Everybody!

I'll Wait For It...................!
Click to expand...
Here's an already mentioned old idea 💡

Go back to how it used to be.
1- Archery hunt
1- Muzzleloader hunt
1- Any Legal Weapon (rifle)

3 hunt types, one choice.
 
slamdunk said:
@Vanilla
@johnnycake

Isn't this other guys comment from another thread exactly what I stated?

"killing any buck takes a buck away, whether it be a spike or a 4x4"

My quote-
A dead two point is a dead two point whether it's in a freezer or wasted"
My entire point is a dead deer is a dead deer, it's still removed from the overall herd.
And I'll say it again-
I'd rather have 5% of yearlings REMOVED than 80%"
View attachment 162205
Click to expand...
Try and change your own words and twist away all you want.

You clearly said "Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested."

That is cut and dry, you would rather there be 5% of the bucks shot illegally and left to rot illegally than have 80% of them be harvested legally, and go home with happy hunters that will eat them.

And no, that is not the same as "
killing any buck takes a buck away, whether it be a spike or a 4x4"
 
Simpleton said:
I am glad a few of you pointed this out. When I first read it, I couldn’t find the words to express my disgust in Slam’s statement without being rude. Condoning any waste and be pro conservation and a sportsman are two things that can’t coexist. I am not implying that Slam is not a sportsman or pro poaching. From what I can tell from his history of posts, I know that’s not the case, but that was a bad look in my opinion. I have to hope that it reads different than what he means.
Click to expand...
You guys are grasping at straws…
 
Simpleton said:
I am glad a few of you pointed this out. When I first read it, I couldn’t find the words to express my disgust in Slam’s statement without being rude. Condoning any waste and be pro conservation and a sportsman are two things that can’t coexist. I am not implying that Slam is not a sportsman or pro poaching. From what I can tell from his history of posts, I know that’s not the case, but that was a bad look in my opinion. I have to hope that it reads different than what he means.
Click to expand...
I would never "condone waste", ever.

Waste is going to happen regardless.
Just look at the literally dozens of social media posts of people losing game, it's a miracle we have as many animals to hunt as we do, and we only hear or read about 1/2% of them.

I apologize if my words came out confusing, I simply stated I'd rather take 5% loss than 80% loss.
 
johnnycake said:
Not even close. What else is meant by slam saying, "Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested."
Click to expand...
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.....

I've rephrased it numerous times and you're still stuck trying to figure out how 80% of deer removed is better than 5%.
 
slamdunk said:
I would never "condone waste", ever.

Waste is going to happen regardless.
Just look at the literally dozens of social media posts if people losing game, it's a miracle we have as many animals to hunt as we do, and we only hear or read about 1/2% of them.

I apologize if my words came out confusing, I simply stated I'd rather take 5% loss than 80% loss.
Click to expand...
You chose to use "5% wasted" as your preference over 80% of young bucks being legally harvested, and based on your position throughout your comments you do in fact believe that. You're only scrabbling backwards now that some of us are attacking just how terrible that is.
 
johnnycake said:
Not even close. What else is meant by slam saying, "Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested."
Click to expand...
As much as anyone doesn’t want to hear it but waste is going to happen.., There are slime balls amongst us, but I completely agree with Slams comment…
Read it in a different way, see below…

“I apologize if my words came out confusing, I simply stated I'd rather take 5% loss than 80% loss”
 
johnnycake said:
You chose to use "5% wasted" as your preference over 80% of young bucks being legally harvested, and based on your position throughout your comments you do in fact believe that. You're only scrabbling backwards now that some of us are attacking just how terrible that is.
Click to expand...
"Wasted" was in reference to an assumptive figure of two point bucks mistakenly shot.........🤦‍♂️
 
slamdunk said:
"Wasted" was in reference to an assumptive figure of two point bucks mistakenly shot.........🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...
No, it was very much in reference to 2 points shot illegally. Your post #269 also talks about them being left to rot before you make your position clear.

Backpedal and try to reverse justify it all you want, but that's malarkey. You would be happier with 5% of young bucks being wasted illegally instead of 80% of young bucks being killed legally. I disagree, and find your position abhorrent.
 
johnnycake said:
No, it was very much in reference to 2 points shot illegally. Your post #269 also talks about them being left to rot before you make your position clear.

Backpedal and try to reverse justify it all you want, but that's malarkey. You would be happier with 5% of young bucks being wasted illegally instead of 80% of young bucks being killed legally. I disagree, and find your position abhorrent.
Click to expand...
"Wasted" and "Illegally Shot" are the same thing!!
 
slamdunk said:
"Wasted" and "Illegally Shot" are the same thing!!
Click to expand...
And you prefer that over legal kills as long as the total number killed illegally is less than the total number killed legally. Yep, I've understood that part of your position too.

It's still despicable.

And just to be pedantic, no "Wasted" and "Illegally Shot" are not necessarily the same thing. Buck A, a 2x2, is shot and left to rot, it was a legal buck and legally shot, but illegally wasted. In APR, Buck A is illegally shot and illegally wasted by being left under a sage brush. In APR Buck A could be illegally shot, properly recovered and not wasted (preferably by surrender and self reporting). Even without APR, Buck A could be shot, brought home, but left to rot in the garage and then thrown out---potentially illegally wasted.
 
Well!

Nobody Ever Believed Me On How Bad The Number Of Wasted 2 Points In The BOOK CLIFFS Was!

But As Soon As The DWR Posted It Everybody Believed It!

I Don't Have The Exact Numbers Of 2 Points That Were Wasted & Neither Does Anybody-Else But At Least 48 Wasted Per 100 Legal Takes Is SICKENING!

So I'll Add One More For HELL-F'N-RIGHT:

If The DWR Starts Another APR Unit Or APR Units here's The Consequences:

Very First F'N Offense:

On Wasting An Illegal Animal/High Grading!

100,000.00 Fine!

Confiscation Of All Rigs Involved!

Side X Sides!

Truck That Pulled Them To The Unit!

ATV's!

Camp Trailers & I Don't F'N Care If You Paid 150K For It!

Any & All Weapons Involved!

Your Knives & I Don't Care If 1/2 Of Them Are HATFIELDS!

All AMMO!

All Optics!

All Range Finders!

Banned For Life From Ever Hunting Again & That's A BAN In All 50 States!

Remember:

That's The Consequences For The First Offense!

If We Can't Put This In Effect?

SCRAP The APR Units!
 
johnnycake said:
And you prefer that over legal kills as long as the total number killed illegally is less than the total number killed legally. Yep, I've understood that part of your position too.

It's still despicable.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about DEAD BUCKS".

Waste happens.

I don't condone it, don't tell me I do.

Are you insinuating every two point shot on an APR was blatantly killed and wasted?

This entire freaking thread has been about "mistakenly killed two points", has it not??
 
slamdunk said:
I'm talking about DEAD BUCKS".

Waste happens.

I don't condone it, don't tell me I do.

Are you insinuating every two point shot on an APR was blatantly killed and wasted?

This entire freaking thread has been about "mistakenly killed two points", has it not??
Click to expand...
"Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested."

You not only condone it, you prefer it to legal harvest as long as it results in fewer total young deer killed.

And no, I clarified with examples why your equivocation of "wasted" and "illegally shot" was not correct.
 
johnnycake said:
"Personally I'd rather know 5% were being wasted rather than 80% harvested."

You not only condone it, you prefer it to legal harvest as long as it results in fewer total young deer killed.

And no, I clarified with examples why your equivocation of "wasted" and "illegally shot" was not correct.
Click to expand...
You're really grasping at nothing here.
 
slamdunk said:
I would never "condone waste", ever.

Waste is going to happen regardless.
Just look at the literally dozens of social media posts of people losing game, it's a miracle we have as many animals to hunt as we do, and we only hear or read about 1/2% of them.

I apologize if my words came out confusing, I simply stated I'd rather take 5% loss than 80% loss.
Click to expand...
As I said, I do not think you condone waste. In your statement the change from "waste" to "loss" shows this. There is a major difference between "loss" and "waste". I will not accept that any amount of waste is ok, nor should anyone write it off as a foregone conclusion. Wounding loss happens to EVERYONE that hunts for any significant amount of time. Waste is completely avoidable as it is a choice. Shooting a two point (whether by mistake or on purpose) and leaving it to rot is WASTE. That is what I believe has ruffled the feathers here. The original statement implied you would be happier with 5% waste (choice) over 80% legal harvest. Again, after letting it simmer for a bit, I believe that you didn't mean it that way, the semantics just got tangled.
 
Back to the recommendations.. what do you all think of the little tid bit about only being able to apply for either GS or DH, not both, but still keeping the points separate?

I think it is a step in the right direction, however, I think they would be better off if they took it a tiny step further and made DH an option in the General Season Draw rather than having two sets of points for the same species on the same units. Seems it would be cleaner if they just said DH is a general season option (archery, muzzleloader, early ALW, regular ALW, and DH) and keep them all in the same point pool.
 
Simpleton said:
As I said, I do not think you condone waste. In your statement the change from "waste" to "loss" shows this. There is a major difference between "loss" and "waste". I will not accept that any amount of waste is ok, nor should anyone write it off as a foregone conclusion. Wounding loss happens to EVERYONE that hunts for any significant amount of time. Waste is completely avoidable as it is a choice. Shooting a two point (whether by mistake or on purpose) and leaving it to rot is WASTE. That is what I believe has ruffled the feathers here. The original statement implied you would be happier with 5% waste (choice) over 80% legal harvest. Again, after letting it simmer for a bit, I believe that you didn't mean it that way, the semantics just got tangled.
Click to expand...
You are correct that I used a poor adjective in my description, thank you for being adult enough to understand the point regardless.
Much respect, Sir 🙏
 
slamdunk said:
You are correct that I used a poor adjective in my description, thank you for being adult enough to understand the point regardless.
Much respect, Sir 🙏
Click to expand...
So then let's be really crystal clear. Here's the hypothetical:

Scenario A. APRs in the unit, 4pt or greater. Unit has 100 sublegal bucks the day before the hunt. During the hunt 5 sublegal bucks are shot and left in the sage. Miraculously, zero other wounding loss occurs.

Scenario B. No APRs, same number of bucks under 4pts. 80 bucks smaller than 4pts are legally harvested and taken home. Again, miraculously, zero other wounding loss occurs.

So slammy, which scenario do you prefer?
 
slamdunk said:
You are correct that I used a poor adjective in my description, thank you for being adult enough to understand the point regardless.
Much respect, Sir 🙏
Click to expand...

So you admit your own words weren’t twisted now, that is good. The fault was on YOU, not those that called out your complete BS comment.

I’ll wait for the the apology for your immature personal attacks now…

To be clear, I would 100% rather have 80% of 2 points taken legally by happy and satisfied hunters than have 5% of opportunities taken from them.

You want easy to find older class age bucks? There is limited entry for that. I think it’s completely despicable for anyone to be trying to further limit Utah hunters from hunting deer do they can have their own little wonderland. People always get on these boards and say how we have to “stick together as hunters.” I want nothing to do with the class of “sportsman” that is willing to stab other hunters in the back to try and benefit themselves. That’s what I see happening here with these proposals.

And the DWR ought to be ashamed of themselves on this one.
 
elkassassin said:
Well!

Nobody Ever Believed Me On How Bad The Number Of Wasted 2 Points In The BOOK CLIFFS Was!

But As Soon As The DWR Posted It Everybody Believed It!

I Don't Have The Exact Numbers Of 2 Points That Were Wasted & Neither Does Anybody-Else But At Least 48 Wasted Per 100 Legal Takes Is SICKENING!

So I'll Add One More For HELL-F'N-RIGHT:

If The DWR Starts Another APR Unit Or APR Units here's The Consequences:

Very First F'N Offense:

On Wasting An Illegal Animal/High Grading!

100,000.00 Fine!

Confiscation Of All Rigs Involved!

Side X Sides!

Truck That Pulled Them To The Unit!

ATV's!

Camp Trailers & I Don't F'N Care If You Paid 150K For It!

Any & All Weapons Involved!

Your Knives & I Don't Care If 1/2 Of Them Are HATFIELDS!

All AMMO!

All Optics!

All Range Finders!

Banned For Life From Ever Hunting Again & That's A BAN In All 50 States!

Remember:

That's The Consequences For The First Offense!

If We Can't Put This In Effect?

SCRAP The APR Units!
Click to expand...
Hey Bess, I'm all for MUCH higher fines fir ALL wildlife violations, they are waaaaaay to light on fines!

Quick question and food for thought.....

Bookcliffs late 80's to mid 90's, open unit with an APR and the state issued 230k deer permits statewide, Books were an extremely very crowded unit.
How were the buck numbers and quality back then?

Personally i remember those days well and it was crawling with deer and bucks of every age class.
I'd love to have those days back.

Henry's.....same scenario.

People saying APR's don't work, but how's the buck population on the Books now being an LE and yet with no APR in place?

Henry's......same scenario, far less people hunting both units today due to LE.

Food for thought....

The proposed APR on Pine Valley and others are units with limited tags, it's not an "open unit" anymore like the Books were back then.

The difference very well may be with the limited tags versus and open APR unit.
Far less "wasted mistakes" on yearlings with limited tags, right?
Not too mention less mature bucks being taken as well.

Thoughts?
 
Vanilla said:
So you admit your own words weren’t twisted now, that is good. The fault was on YOU, not those that called out your complete BS comment.

I’ll wait for the the apology for your immature personal attacks now…

To be clear, I would 100% rather have 80% of 2 points taken legally by happy and satisfied hunters than have 5% of opportunities taken from them.

You want easy to find older class age bucks? There is limited entry for that. I think it’s completely despicable for anyone to be trying to further limit Utah hunters from hunting deer do they can have their own little wonderland. People always get on these boards and say how we have to “stick together as hunters.” I want nothing to do with the class of “sportsman” that is willing to stab other hunters in the back to try and benefit themselves. That’s what I see happening here with these proposals.

And the DWR ought to be ashamed of themselves on this one.
Click to expand...
"I apologize for my misuse of words", but I'm not feeling an ounce of guilt that you or Johnnycake couldn't figure out what others easily could.

And let me remind you of something.

You say you won't let another group speak for you?

Yes you will........they are called the "Wildlife Board".

And one other thing-

For the record, the MDF member on the mule deer committee voted against the proposal.
So there ya go......a certain "group" did speak for you after all.
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
And let me remind you of something.

You say you won't let another group speak for you?

Yes you will........they are called the "Wildlife Board".
Click to expand...
Now there's an absurd misunderstanding of somebody's words.


Now how about it, do you prefer Scenario A or B in my hypothetical?
 
johnnycake said:
Now there's an absurd misunderstanding of somebody's words.


Now how about it, do you prefer Scenario A or B in my hypothetical?
Click to expand...
Once again, your inability to comprehend simplicity shines bright.

I'll simplify it for you.

Wildlife Board:
A group of like minded individuals making decisions for Utah's public hunting enthusiasts.
 
slamdunk said:
Once again, your inability to comprehend simplicity shines bright.

I'll simplify it for you.

Wildlife Board:
A group of like minded individuals making decisions for Utah's public hunting enthusiasts.
Click to expand...
Keep dodging (yet another way you and Tri are getting more and more similar). Scenario A or B?
 
hossblur said:
You've yet to answer one yet.

You don't HAVE to buy them for a rifle either
Click to expand...

That’s incorrect Hossy. And bessy apparently can educate you on this topic of equipment as he has already illustrated where you’re wrong, I don’t need to pile on.

You’re trying to compare apples to zucchinis here, and it’s incoherent and just objectively way off base.

No, hunting the cache with a basic rifle setup for the last 40 years and now not even owning a legal firearm to continue hunting a general deer hunt isn’t even close to having the season move dates or you deciding to throw a magnification scope on your muzzy 4-5 years ago and now having to take it back off.

Bad analogy. Very bad, actually. But your heels are dug in and you don’t have a ton of solid ground to stand on here. It’s okay if you buy that this will “increase opportunity” like the DWR is dishonestly selling, but you’ll be wrong in the end.
 
slamdunk said:
"I apologize for my misuse of words", but I'm not feeling an ounce of guilt that you or Johnnycake couldn't figure out what others easily could.
Click to expand...

Takes a little backbone to be willing to apologize when one has a temper tantrum even when they were in the wrong. I guess I gave more credit than was deserved.
 
johnnycake said:
So then let's be really crystal clear. Here's the hypothetical:

Scenario A. APRs in the unit, 4pt or greater. Unit has 100 sublegal bucks the day before the hunt. During the hunt 5 sublegal bucks are shot and left in the sage. Miraculously, zero other wounding loss occurs.

Scenario B. No APRs, same number of bucks under 4pts. 80 bucks smaller than 4pts are legally harvested and taken home. Again, miraculously, zero other wounding loss occurs.

So slammy, which scenario do you prefer?
Click to expand...
@slamdunk ya just gonna keep dodging, laughing, and prevaricating, or are ya gonna say which you prefer? Scenario A or B?
 
johnnycake said:
@slamdunk ya just gonna keep dodging, laughing, and prevaricating, or are ya gonna say which you prefer? Scenario A or B?
Click to expand...
Give it up Cupcake, I owe you nothing, never did, never will.

There's nothing to dodge here, you're just too dumb to comprehend what's being said by multiple people.

Why don't you change ypur narrative into something that offers your personal insights........my guess is you don't have any.
 
slamdunk said:
Give it up Cupcake, I owe you nothing, never did, never will.

There's nothing to dodge here, you're just too dumb to comprehend what's being said by multiple people.

Why don't you change ypur narrative into something that offers your personal insights........my guess is you don't have any.
Click to expand...
I have, and provided multiple sources of authority to back up why APRs are detrimental to mule deer herd management. You have yet to offer anything other than personal anecdote to back up your opinion, a preference for poaching and waste as long as fewer total young deer are killed than if they were legal to hunt, and ad hominem attacks.

If there's nothing to dodge, then come out and say which you prefer, Scenario A (5% of young bucks killed illegally and left to rot) or Scenario B (80% of young bucks killed legally and turned into burger, jerky, etc)? Or is it that there's nothing to dodge because your post #269 clearly stated that you'd rather Scenario A?

1000006629.jpg
 
Here's the reality, folks.

This is a "discussion forum", nothing more.

There isn’t a single person in this discussion that has any pull, power, influence or otherwise to alter the proposals in here.

Everyone is pointing fingers like someone here is out to destroy your personal hunting heritage, simply because they have their own views.
Rest assured that is just not the case, no boogeyman in here, I promise.

As we all know, if we want to be heard, get involved in some manner, you're not getting heard in here by anyone who matters.

Banter, debate, challenge, argue or cry.......your (our) energy is being wasted.
 
johnnycake said:
I have, and provided multiple sources of authority to back up why APRs are detrimental to mule deer herd management. You have yet to offer anything other than personal anecdote to back up your opinion, a preference for poaching and waste as long as fewer total young deer are killed than if they were legal to hunt, and ad hominem attacks.

If there's nothing to dodge, then come out and say which you prefer, Scenario A (5% of young bucks killed illegally and left to rot) or Scenario B (80% of young bucks killed legally and turned into burger, jerky, etc)? Or is it that there's nothing to dodge because your post #269 clearly stated that you'd rather Scenario A?

View attachment 162247
Click to expand...
You really need to find something else to waste your time on.
 
He can’t answer it if he wants to be honest because it exposes that he meant what he said the first time.

It’s okay, it’s already out there.

And no, I’m not on board with pushing people out of hunting just to benefit myself.
 
So here's what's being stated very loudly here, without all the BS bantering.

No APR's
No Weapon Restrictions
No Tag Cuts

But we're not happy about our current hunting situations across the state and it continues to decline annually.

Now what?


Here's my .02-
Toss out all proposals aimed at improving the age class for bucks, and just spend our time, money and resources on figuring out how to save the Does and grow the overall herds back up to an acceptable level for everyone.
 
Last edited:
My big gripe is that there are people that don't want me or others to harvest a deer in hopes that it will make it easier for them to harvest a deer at some point. That is exactly what APR does.

The other thing is that it has been proven that young bucks die at a greater number than other age class of deer. so, we are literally wasting deer by not harvesting them when they are 1.5 years old. A good number of them don't make 2.5 years old.

It seems more and more we want to take control and make people do what we believe is right, rather than letting them make their own choice.
 
Reflection of past and possible going forward:

Buy/ inherit a rifle with a 4x weaver on it. $
Hunt for years, kill deer

Get a trigger job and float the barrel to increase accuracy: $. Kill more deer

Buy a 3x9 Leupold: $$. Kill more deer

Experiment with new brands of different ammo to see what is most accurate: $$. Kill more deer

But a second rifle with 4x12 scope $$$. Experiment with more ammo. kill more deer

Buy a 5x25 turret scope $$$. Kill some more deer

And finally: buy open sight: $. Kill more deer.

Yes there are still a few guys still shooting 4x weavers, but you can’t tell me that the cost of an open sight (maybe cost of 2-3 boxes of shells) is going to keep anyone from opportunity.
 
slamdunk said:
So here's what's being stated very loudly here, without all the BS bantering.

No APR's
No Weapon Restrictions
No Tag Cuts

But we're not happy about our current hunting situations across the state and it continues to decline annually.

Now what?
Click to expand...
We can all agree this is a social change, not biologically backed. So, let's address the social side and call it what it is.

Make all deer tags come from the same point pool. Vanilla is correct in stating that HAMS exist, so do Limited Entry, so do opportunity type general hunts. You can quite literally abide by the 3 NOs above and put the ball back in the court of each hunter without reducing opportunity.

The current system allows hunters to have their cake and eat it too. Hunt frequently in their backyard and still push the point pool higher for what is essentially a OIL deer tag. If someone wants to wait 15 years between deer tags, good for them. As for me, I would choose to hunt as often as I can.

At least that way if someone is upset they can look in the mirror at the choices they made, not something they've been forced into.
 
Here is my reasoning for liking the idea of an APR.

Using the Books Cliffs isn't even close to the situation on the Pine Valley or any other current unit, here's why.

The Books was an open unit during that time, no quoata on hunting tags.
The state issued 230k tags back then as compared to 64k today.
The Books were extremely popular and it literally had thousands of hunters annually.
With that, we had high success rates on mature bucks and high waste on yearlings (48/100).

Pine Valley for example has a relatively low deer population and limited quotas on deer tags people must draw to hunt.

A completely different set of circumstances, and i would highly doubt a 48/100 type of waste to kill ratio would happen in today's world.
 
We Can't Do This Tikka!

The 1080 Would Kill The Coyotes!

The Raven That Eats All The Sage Chicken Eggs Would Tip Over Cuzz he Chewed On The 1080 Induced Coyote!

The Magpie Who Is HELL On Small Game Birds & Eggs Would Chew On The 1080 Induced Coyote As Well & He'd Go TEATS Up!

The Perty Turkey Buzzard Would Get A Taste & He'd Go Belly Up!

Oh We Can't Have This.........................!



Tikka said:
Enough pissing around and arguing… You want to fix things.., 1080
Click to expand...
 
johnnycake said:
And that's where I think some of the discussion in this thread gets muddled. Most of the proposals are people management with little goal of modifying the herd numbers or structure. But APR is both a people management strategy and one that modifies herd numbers and structure. And again and again, the result is not what APR advocates claim the goal that is supposed to be attained.
No long term improvement in buck ratios, either no long term improvement in "mature" buck ratios or decreases with greater than or equal to 4pts in ID being the exception for mature 3pts (full disclosure I haven't dug into ID and what's behind the table here, but not tracking compliance raises more than a few questions). But get this: decrease in total harvest but no total population increase from APRs...
Those certainly seem like negative biological outcomes.
View attachment 162144
Click to expand...
Great post. Kills me the quote from a manager in earlier post “don’t know unless you try”….
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

D7CEE65C-E3B8-4404-858E-C42DD3B147ED.jpeg
1.jpg
1009141959c.jpg
front.JPG
IMG_4082.jpeg
1704251511445.jpeg
44A8AE99-2499-470B-BA4C-0DDB94D8137E.jpeg
Bob1.png
IMG_2732.jpeg
New Mexico.JPG
received_2268695313305118.jpeg
tmj2.jpg
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