CR RAC MEETING

slamdunk

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
10,824
As far as RAC's go, I'd have to say this was the most informative one I have attended.

There were approximately 40 people in the audience and representatives from both the MDF & SFW in attendance along with general public sportsmen.
I do not believe there was anyone representing lion or bear hunters, nor cattleman/ranchers.
If there were, they didn't voice anything.

Some of the things we've discussed here on MM were brought up by a few people, such as "advanced technology" and baiting.

The RAC quickly shot down any tech talk "at this time" but did agree it needs to be discussed.

"Baiting" is most definitely on the table and with fire all over it, but was agreed upon that they
push it back for deeper discussions within the various committees and big game working groups due to the complexity of it all.

The biggest hitter for the night was "Points Creep".
It is far worse than I had even fathomed and the residual effects of people turning back in their tags is down right disgusting at best.

The RAC voted unanimously to support the Divisions proposals to start forcing our top tier applicants to start burning their points.

If you surrender your permit in less than 30 days of your hunt starting date, you lose all your points, but retain your waiting period.
There will be certain exceptions of course like military, medical reasons, etc, etc, but if you draw an LE tag and decide to turn it in because your trail camera's aren't finding you trophy animals of your liking, that's just too bad.

The other thing the Division proposes is to combine the dedicated hunter and general season permits into one group and will no longer be able to apply for both.
This process will also help boost and spread the odds of drawing those tags.

Ok, your turn....
 
Thanks for the info Slamdunk.

Wish I could've attended but was working late. I was glad to see some of those proposals and glad they're being addressed.

Sounds like some have been gaming the system for a while.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-19 AT 08:41PM (MST)[p]Maybe would could get the high point holders through the system if we went to a 75% to 25% ratio instead of 50/50 ratio, just a thought, might help some.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-19 AT 08:27PM (MST)[p]Maybe we could get the high point holders through the system faster if we went to a 75/25 ratio instead of 50/50 just a thought that might help some. I would sure like it.
 
50/50 is the best split. Wyoming has the 75/25 split and I hate it. That only benefits those who entered the system at ground level.

Colorado has no random, so I crossed that state off my list.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-19
>AT 08:41?PM (MST)
>
>Maybe would could get the high
>point holders through the system
>if we went to a
>75% to 25% ratio instead
>of 50/50 ratio, just
>a thought, might help some.
>


I'd be all in favor of a 75/25 split as well...move the folks who have waited the longest through the system more quickly! The fact that there are half the tags going to random draw applicants today is over-generous. Just my $.02.
 
I'm gonna be honest. The fact that we are worried about point creep ahead of the fact that we have no deer is sad. It just goes to show that ?sportsman? are still more concerned with the tag in their pocket than the actual resource.
 
>I'm gonna be honest. The
>fact that we are worried
>about point creep ahead of
>the fact that we have
>no deer is sad.
>It just goes to show
>that ?sportsman? are still more
>concerned with the tag in
>their pocket than the actual
>resource.


I agree.
Hopefully the other Region RAC meeting's will hit on that harder than the CR did.

It was brought up, but the chairman seemed to push aside the more complicated issues to be discussed later.
 
No points=no creep.

I am dedicated and I agree on combination.

The turn in game has been a joke forever. If you put in for an LE unit you intended to hunt it. Short of the few exceptions no one argues, there shouldn't be a turn back. It ain't 1980. You can do the research before the draws, and if you draw a pile of conductors, that's your problem not the guy who gets " the call" the day before.

When CWMU and "org" tags get cut, I'm with muley, it's time for us.

But no one should get cut to maintain commercial hunting or guide clientele.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
I agree with muley 73 and you others. Can we please do something to increase the numbers and the buck to doe ratio, my goodness it is beyond sad! I do not understand why they would not want to increase the population and the buck-to-doe ratio. Yes I know you would lose Revenue so up the prices for hell sakes, we are all in favor of that if we can just have a better deer herd. Is it really that hard?
 
>Just think how bad point creep
>will hurt when there's not
>a deer left in Utah....
>

I Agree Tikka!

So Few now that make it Past age 3 that it's a JOKE!

And I Quote:

We Only Got a 100 Deer left in the Unit but BY GAWD Our Buck to Doe Ratio is what We wanna see,We got 10 or 12 MOTL Bucks Still Sucking on their Mothers!











I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
Check your PM Tikka!








I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
>How can we support a 7
>year deer management plan that
>continues to spit out deer
>numbers that are so far
>off it is not even
>believable.


Personally I believe 7 year plans leave way too much margin for errors.
 
>>How can we support a 7
>>year deer management plan that
>>continues to spit out deer
>>numbers that are so far
>>off it is not even
>>believable.
>
>
>Personally I believe 7 year plans
>leave way too much margin
>for errors.

I have said this for years and I will say it again. we need to have a mandatory report just like the LE tags. It can be a simple 3-5 questions or even few more. Those can be asked to give a feedback on what they have seen as far as the hunters perspective as herd quality.

ask about number of days hunted. size of buck. General location of the harvest like North South East or West to give an idea of where the greatest harvest is taken place and maybe find out why. Anyways, there are several things that will help.

But to have an actual count of harvest will help a ton instead of formulas that says we think we harvested 28% success rate with our 20/100 buck doe ratio. If we were to have a 50% success rate VS a 20% then see why? If they were all about 30%, monitor that and that should be the deciding factor of how many tags we should give out. Just my ideas.

Carry on!
 
I would agree with mandatory reporting....if the DWR actually used the info to manage.

We currently have mandatory reporting on all LE tags and we still see mismanagement on those units.

It has to be a complete culture change in how we manager our deer herds. For too long the focus has been on ?opportunity? and not focused on the true health of the herd. Having a tag has been more important than the resource. The division has always rode the line close because they can fall back on ?the average hunter? that just wants to hunt. There have been groups and individuals that saw this coming years ago. They pushed for unit management and antler restriction, they asked for tag cuts and unit closers, they pushed for more predator control, and more voice to stand against the agriculture groups that wanted higher harvest and depredation. Those sportsman were called out and accused is claiming the sky was falling, lazy hunters, trophy hunters...etc, ect, ect.

And now here we sit with 1/4 of the deer we use to have. And what still spend more focus on point creep and turning tags back in, and draw process instead of the actual resource and facing that fact that we must make drastic adjustments to how our resource is managed.
Ironically all those ?average joes? seem to be quiet this year. What happened? Did the numbers finally fall enough for them to be unable to argue their agenda???
We reap what we sow!!! PATHETIC!!!!
 
I want to question when they do their winter counts.
Obviously they do it before bucks shed, but I believe the actual time deer mortality occurs is in the earliest parts of spring when they are the weakest.

100 deer in December in an alfalfa field will be probably more like 65 in late February, early March.
 
The population numbers they have come up with are so far inflated it is terrible. If we continue to get tag numbers off these population counts nothing will change. We have all watched it continue to drop while they report the numbers are much better than ever
 
>The population numbers they have come
>up with are so far
>inflated it is terrible.
>If we continue to get
>tag numbers off these population
>counts nothing will change.
>We have all watched it
>continue to drop while they
>report the numbers are much
>better than ever

And I've Called BS on their Number Counts for years!

Now the SFW is Blaming Lions for Most of the Problem,I've Called BS on that as Well!

There Will NEVER be enough Change to Bring it back!

What a Shame!

When 2 Points become Big Most TARDS will still be Bragging:I Filled My Tag!

WAFJ!









I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
There's more DEER in my neighborhood than ever before. More in the swamp than I can remember.

An old guy, Lumpy used to say it all the time, count only huntable deer.

But. As usual the same BS. We can limit to 8 point or better, it won't produce a single fawn next spring.

You do not, nor will you ever create a bigger herd by managing bucks. So all the point restrictions are 100% aimed at trophy hunting.

You grow a herd by having more does. And by having quality food for those does.

There should be zero doe tags. No deer eats enough to justify deprecation tags. That's just a give away to "appease" ranchers.

If there are no deer, you can have 500,000 tags. Just be expensive camping permits.

You can have a 75/100 buck to doe ratio, but if you only got 100 deer, who cares?





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>There's more DEER in my neighborhood
>than ever before. More
>in the swamp than I
>can remember.
>
>An old guy, Lumpy used to
>say it all the time,
>count only huntable deer.
>
>But. As usual the same
>BS. We can limit
>to 8 point or better,
>it won't produce a single
>fawn next spring.
>
>You do not, nor will you
>ever create a bigger herd
>by managing bucks. So
>all the point restrictions are
>100% aimed at trophy hunting.
>
>
>You grow a herd by having
>more does. And by
>having quality food for those
>does.
>
>There should be zero doe tags.
> No deer eats enough
>to justify deprecation tags.
>That's just a give away
>to "appease" ranchers.
>
>If there are no deer, you
>can have 500,000 tags.
>Just be expensive camping permits.
>
>
>You can have a 75/100 buck
>to doe ratio, but if
>you only got 100 deer,
>who cares?
>
>
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

DAMN Hoss!

It's Sinkin in!:D









I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
Riddle me this hoss, if you have 3000 does and 500 bucks in the box elder unit, do you honestly believe every doe is being breed in her first cycle? Hell is every doe getting breed period with those counts? I doubt it....


Let's say it takes a buck to get around to breeding does in early to mid December that's putting fawns on the ground late June to mid July... that's not much time to put on weight for fall/winter...
= little fawn recruitment
 
>Riddle me this hoss, if you
>have 3000 does and 500
>bucks in the box elder
>unit, do you honestly believe
>every doe is being breed
>in her first cycle? Hell
>is every doe getting breed
>period with those counts? I
>doubt it....
>
>
>Let's say it takes a buck
>to get around to breeding
>does in early to mid
>December that's putting fawns on
>the ground late June to
>mid July... that's not much
>time to put on weight
>for fall/winter...
>= little fawn recruitment

Hey Tikka!

We've been seeing Fawns in October that still have their Spots!

Them Fawns Ain't nothin but Coyote Bait!

Ya!

Let's Pressure the Deer Herd just a little more!













I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
There are many theories on what is causing the crash of our mule deer in recent years.
Regardless of what the DNR is reporting, 90% of us are strongly disagreeing with their reports.

Today's "Robo Hunters" are definitely killing more effectively, there's absolutely zero doubt about that.
But they (we) are not the cause for declining deer numbers, we are just a more efficient at what we have been doing for the last 20 year's or so.

Baiting is not the problem.
It is not responsible for huge declines in deer numbers.
Less than 5% of hunters are baiting
But, it is something that needs to be heavily discussed for other reasons.

We are not loosing "bucks", we are losing "deer".
We have GOT to stop killing does, period.

I just spent a solid week on the Paunsaugunt helping on a cactus buck hunt and after seeing what I saw and having long drawn out discussions with ranchers, hunters and wildlife officials, I have narrowed down my own personal thoughts and theories on what may be causing the decline in our Mule Deer numbers on the central and northern units.

Deer numbers in the Paunsaugunt are ridiculously healthy, almost like a plague.... they are literally everywhere, including right in town sitting on front lawns in 70? November weather.

Here is my assessment.
Granted the Paunsaugunt is a Premium LE, but there are hundreds of tags pounding them on the Utah side, and late season Arizona..
Because it is a premium unit that takes an average of 15 years to draw, hunters are far more selective and choose to harvest mature bucks. Of course there will an occasional younger buck(s) harvested by struggling hunters, but 90% are very selective without an imposing APR rule on trophy buck hunts.

I believe the differentiating factors in the higher numbers on that unit is:
#1 zero winter kill.
#2 excellent and excessive habitat, both natural and rehabilitation projects.
#3 Does galore! (superior fawn recruitments).
#4 Safer winter migration routes (fencing, tunnels and bridges).
#5 Voluntary selective harvest of bucks (superior ratios).
BTW, the Paunsaugunt is completely full of predators, coyotes and lions.

I totally understand the Paunsaugunt is a whole other beast and is a comparison of apples to oranges, but the differences are extremely obvious.
Aside from the warm southern climate, we can strive to mimic a few things that can help improve our central and northern herd numbers.
 
?Antler restrictions? was used to advocate for herd health.

Wow.

Yeah, because the health of the herd is directly impacted by the size of the antlers...

(Said no biologist ever)

Trophy hunting is not what everyone wants. There are opportunities for that if that's what you want. Get in line, it's called limited entry.
 
I bought into the koolaide when I was on the RAC about the idea that having a antler restrictions wouldn't help[ the herd, that does will be the answer. But we have been doing this strategy for 20 + years and its not working.
What would it hurt to try the opposite than what the DWR have been saying for years.
The DWR is afraid that if we try something different and it works then most the crap coming out of there mouth is crap.
Try it for 5 years, you don't have to cut tags, it just making it 4 point or better. 4 point on one side.
Or lets keep doing the same crap we have been doing.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-19 AT 08:28AM (MST)[p]Vanilla,
I can put a stack of biologist in front of you that will tell you that.

Last fall I spent some time with the head deer biologist from Texas. He?s had so much success with the whitetails they moved him to a project over mule deer. His results have been good enough that the Mule Deer Working group has gone to him. He responds to me on the best way to create a strong robust healthy herd..Antler Restriction.

You are one of the average joes that the DWR uses to leverage the status quo. And no real change in management practice. It's hunters that hold back our herds and you're one of them.
 
The Changes needed would be so Drastic You'd have 90% of the PISSCUTTER Pounders BAWLING like no other!

Too F'N Bad!

It's Way Past Time for Major Change!








I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
I've been asking for Mature Buck Numbers for Years!

They can count total Deer Numbers & Lie to us every year!

The Number of Mature Bucks Post Hunts.During Rut is a F'N JOKE!

Pre Hunt/Pre Rut is a F'N JOKE!

Just when You Think they can't add any More Hunts/Tags they Damn Well find a way!

It's Called Caring about one F'N Thing:$$$!










I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
I will be at the southern rac to talk about what you guys have said. Hope you can be there also to help in numbers and voice. We all know it is the numbers they produce that is killing the deer herd. We know the real numbers would cause them to implement all kinds of restrictions and they don't want to do that.
 
I for one would gladly forfeit deer hunting opportunities in my home state if tags on our GS units were drastically cut for a few years to allow a rebound.

My PM inbox is getting pounded from many of you supporting changes, even drastic changes in order to rebuild our herds to what the DWR is claiming.

I am even hearing chatter about general public sportsmen doing their own counts to challenge the DNR.

I spoke to a gentleman last night who has hunted Beaver with his family his entire life.
He told me he spoke with a biologist on that very unit who openly admitted they only did winter counts on the west side of I-15 last year.
THIS HAS GOT TO STOP IMMEDIATELY IF TRUE!

We need REAL counts, not spot checks and models!!

We have GOT to stand up and be listened to!
It made me sick seeing people stand up during the "public comments", get limited to 3 minutes and shot down by the RAC chair....it's not right!
This is exactly why I stopped going to RAC's years ago, and they haven't changed.
 
Why can't we create a grid system and use our dedicated hunters to go out and make actual counts? The hunters are the ones that are passionate about the units they hunt in. The Beaver unit does not have enough deer to even justify keeping open
 
>Why can't we create a grid
>system and use our dedicated
>hunters to go out and
>make actual counts? The
>hunters are the ones that
>are passionate about the units
>they hunt in. The
>Beaver unit does not have
>enough deer to even justify
>keeping open

I like the idea, but I am afraid the Division would call it "Bias".
 
>?Antler restrictions? was used to advocate
>for herd health.
>
>Wow.
>
>Yeah, because the health of the
>herd is directly impacted by
>the size of the antlers...
>
>
>(Said no biologist ever)
>
>Trophy hunting is not what everyone
>wants. There are opportunities for
>that if that's what you
>want. Get in line, it's
>called limited entry.


You missed his point completely. Antler restrictions increase buck to doe ratio ensuring that all does are bred first cycle when they come into heat. This increases fawn recruitment which is the #1 goal if you are trying to build a deer herd. ALL biologists would agree with that.

In fact trophy hunting can actually suffer in antler restricted units because bucks with bad genetics get old and can't be killed because of the rules. Antler restrictions do however let a larger percentage of bucks get older, which increases buck to doe ratios and decreases inbreeding by yearling deer. Antler restrictions ARE discussed by biologists for herd health for this very reason.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-19 AT 05:23PM (MST)[p]The only way an APR can be successful is if you also implement management tags to harvest those older bucks that don't meet up to "trophy" standards.

Killing management bucks does absolutely nothing to prevent a bad gene.

They simply add opportunity and are used as a cull tool to manage buck/doe ratios.
 
We had a guy from Texas that hunted with us for several years on a CWMU. He owned and operated a ranch in Texas where he and a biologist work to improve the quality of the deer on his ranch. They manage it 1 buck per 2 does. He says that by doing this has improved the amount of fawns they see each year. Ends up with twins and triplets all the time. Not a high fence either. He shakes his head every time he came to Utah to hunt elk...laughs at the lake of deer, says it's an easy fix, more bucks is his solution as well. But then again we will buy the Utah koolaid approach
 
It is all about salesmanship. And to be honest you guy's salesmanship sucks!
You have maybe 9 or 10 guys on this thread claiming to represent 90,000 Utah hunters.
Even if you could get all the members of this board (9000+) to agree on the 3 most important fixes for our herd good luck getting them implemented.
Go ahead and reduce tags if that helps the herd but realize that everyone that is eliminated may be a loss to support your ideas.
I don't have any suggestions to help our herd. But I can say you need the support of a lot more people than what is on this board.
 
By doing antler restrictions you don't have to cut tags and you help with the chronic waste disease which they claim is more prevalent in older class deer. At least we would be shooting less bucks. It is one step in a positive direction
 
Might be stupid but I like the idea of making people sit out a year who shoot a buck. Like no point building, no applying. That way meat hunters can still shoot a small buck if they so choose but it means they won't be doing so for at least 1 if not 2 more years.This would also help with point creep. There is no solution that won't piss someone off.
 
>>?Antler restrictions? was used to advocate
>>for herd health.
>>
>>Wow.
>>
>>Yeah, because the health of the
>>herd is directly impacted by
>>the size of the antlers...
>>
>>
>>(Said no biologist ever)
>>
>>Trophy hunting is not what everyone
>>wants. There are opportunities for
>>that if that's what you
>>want. Get in line, it's
>>called limited entry.
>
>
>You missed his point completely. Antler
>restrictions increase buck to doe
>ratio ensuring that all does
>are bred first cycle when
>they come into heat. This
>increases fawn recruitment which is
>the #1 goal if you
>are trying to build a
>deer herd. ALL biologists would
>agree with that.
>
>In fact trophy hunting can actually
>suffer in antler restricted units
>because bucks with bad genetics
>get old and can't be
>killed because of the rules.
>Antler restrictions do however let
>a larger percentage of bucks
>get older, which increases buck
>to doe ratios and decreases
>inbreeding by yearling deer. Antler
>restrictions ARE discussed by biologists
>for herd health for this
>very reason.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are ultimately claiming that more younger bucks should be allowed to live longer in order to do the breeding in order to increase the populations of the mule deer herds. Is that correct? If so, can you show us some studies or data that bears that out? In fact, I'll open that challenge up to ANYONE on this thread. And I don't mean telling us what somebody in Texas has told you.
 
All these are just ideas and arm chair biologists suggestions, yes.

But....hitting on what EFA stated, not all mature bucks will get harvest. There is absolutely zero possibility that hunters will harvest ALL the older mature breeder bucks.

Like I stated in an earlier post about the spike elk harvest rates after the hunting seasons are over, more than 10% survive and carry over.
Same thing would be the case with mature buck deer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-17-19 AT 04:59PM (MST)[p]?Point creep? huh. That was the main focus of the meeting? What a freakin joke. Bunch of selfish sob?s. Deer herds tanking, and you dumb chits are sniveling about point creep. Unreal.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-17-19
>AT 04:59?PM (MST)
>
>?Point creep? huh. That was the
>main focus of the meeting?
>What a freakin joke. Bunch
>of selfish sob?s. Deer herds
>tanking, and you dumb chits
>are sniveling about point creep.
>Unreal.

Exactly!!
 
I'm not trying to sell anything. I'm telling you convince me.
I'm not your problem. It has been many years since I last killed a deer. By choice not for lack of opportunity.

And yes, I am taking one of those coveted tags every year. So maybe you guys can follow the example. Just say no to shooting deer. Good hell if everybody on this forum didn't shoot a deer it would save at least 3000 bucks on an average.
 
>I'm not trying to sell anything.
>I'm telling you convince me.
>
> I'm not your problem. It
>has been many years since
>I last killed a deer.
>By choice not for lack
>of opportunity.
>
>And yes, I am taking one
>of those coveted tags every
>year. So maybe you guys
>can follow the example. Just
>say no to shooting deer.
>Good hell if everybody on
>this forum didn't shoot a
>deer it would save at
>least 3000 bucks on an
>average.

I've killed exactly 4 deer since 2000, and that's not because I couldn't pull the trigger it's because I didn't want to... so I think I've done my part ...
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-17-19 AT 08:16PM (MST)[p]Lee,
Not someone form Texas. It's was actually the states head biologist.

Again one of the guys giving the DWR leverage for poor management. These guys are one of the reasons we are in our current deer situation. I'm sure I'll get labeled as a dik, but I honesty don't care. Sportsman like Lee have had a huge roll in the culture that have put opportunity over herd health and growth. That's a fact.

Tikka,
Spot on! I've shot two 2 mule deer that past two years. Both on LE tags. That doubled my total in the past 12 years. One of the others was actually a wounded buck that put down and tagged.

Antler restriction is a way to try and appease the tag in your pocket guys while still trying to help to the herd until it's back to a healthy balance.
 
Both! It's about a healthy robust herd.

Here?s one other way of asking that question...is point creep more prevalent on LE tags or on antlerless tags??? I'd say the numbers speak for themselves.
 
>Is hunting about Meat or Antlers?
>Asking for a friend.


Should be an Option for Both!

But Since The TARDville Herd has been Turned in to No Concern other than Producing BIG Money it's FUBARED!

FUBAR =

F'D!

UP!

BEYOND!

A!

REPAIR!

The True Sportsmen/Hunters of this State has seen it Happening for many Decades!

But The POOR Management Really Shined this year!






I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-17-19
>AT 04:59?PM (MST)
>
>?Point creep? huh. That was the
>main focus of the meeting?
>What a freakin joke. Bunch
>of selfish sob?s. Deer herds
>tanking, and you dumb chits
>are sniveling about point creep.
>Unreal.


The "dum chits" don't recognize the problem........we the people do.

But until "we the people" can actually prove them wrong, herd numbers won't even be looked at, which is why point creep was on the top of their list.
 
Slam,
It's been proven. They know. They just don't care and they use the excuse of representing guys like elkfromabove and vanilla. It's those sportsmen and the divisions culture that have put us in this situation. There are many factors but those two are the most controllable and they have hurt the resource not helped it.
 
Remember everyone has a right to there opinion. All of this talk is just opinions no real scientific facts have been shared.
We difently have alot of armchair biologists on this site.
Just something everyone needs to remember Utah has and still is in 20 plus year drought and because we have been in such a extreme drought there is needs to both reduce numbers of animals on units and protect animals on units.
 
>Slam,
>It's been proven. They know.
> They just don't care
>and they use the excuse
>of representing guys like elkfromabove
>and vanilla. It's those
>sportsmen and the divisions culture
>that have put us in
>this situation. There are
>many factors but those two
>are the most controllable and
>they have hurt the resource
>not helped it.


Muley....I know you are right, I just hate to admit our DNR are really lying to manipulate the numbers.

"Fake News" ?
 
>Might be stupid but I like
>the idea of making people
>sit out a year who
>shoot a buck. Like no
>point building, no applying. That
>way meat hunters can still
>shoot a small buck if
>they so choose but it
>means they won't be doing
>so for at least 1
>if not 2 more years.This
>would also help with point
>creep. There is no solution
>that won't piss someone off.
>

If you went this route, there's gonna be a lot of bucks killed every year that will never have a cut tag placed on their antlers. There?s already guys shooting multiple deer a year in the DH program. Try telling a guy he has to sit out of the draw the following year if he kills a buck. That chit ain?t gonna fly. Kinda like shed antler seasons, it?ll only hurt the honest guys
@screaminseagull
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-18-19 AT 10:20AM (MST)[p]>>Might be stupid but I like
>>the idea of making people
>>sit out a year who
>>shoot a buck. Like no
>>point building, no applying. That
>>way meat hunters can still
>>shoot a small buck if
>>they so choose but it
>>means they won't be doing
>>so for at least 1
>>if not 2 more years.This
>>would also help with point
>>creep. There is no solution
>>that won't piss someone off.
>>
>
>If you went this route, there's
>gonna be a lot of
>bucks killed every year that
>will never have a cut
>tag placed on their antlers.
>There?s already guys shooting multiple
>deer a year in the
>DH program. Try telling a
>guy he has to sit
>out of the draw the
>following year if he kills
>a buck. That chit ain?t
>gonna fly. Kinda like shed
>antler seasons, it?ll only hurt
>the honest guys
>@screaminseagull

100% agreed....won't work with DH
 
Again how about splitting the units evenly. Make some units ?meat? units. Draw every year and unlimited tags. And makes others at 30-35 buck to doe or 4 point or better. With some management tags. But you have to decide in 15 year blocks. Are you in or do you just want a tag every year.
 
Any and all changes should be temporary fixes to get the numbers back up to 500k.....maintain if necessary or as needed.

The #1 goal is grow and sustain.
 
>Slam,
>And trust they will maintain?
>I think you have to
>lock them in


Agreed 100%.

Barring any natural catastrophes like disease or winter kill, a plan needs to be implemented and stuck to until goals are met, period
 
>Again how about splitting the units
>evenly. Make some units
>?meat? units. Draw every
>year and unlimited tags. And
>makes others at 30-35 buck
>to doe or 4 point
>or better. With some
>management tags. But you
>have to decide in 15
>year blocks. Are you in
>or do you just want
>a tag every year.

So. My 13yr old is a greedy turd because he wants a tag every year. But 500 conservation tags and 1/4 of the state in CWMU so they can buy tags every year is not.

Heres an idea. How about we shut down commercial hunting in Utah until the herds recover. I mean their success rates on "quality" bucks is double or triple that of average folks.

Last I checked citizens of state oen the deer, not LLC's.

I'm open to anything. But i saw this scheme before. ,cut tags, save the herd"


That saving costs us 500+ tags and millions yo a special interest.

Oh, and the herd ain't saved



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>>Again how about splitting the units
>>evenly. Make some units
>>?meat? units. Draw every
>>year and unlimited tags. And
>>makes others at 30-35 buck
>>to doe or 4 point
>>or better. With some
>>management tags. But you
>>have to decide in 15
>>year blocks. Are you in
>>or do you just want
>>a tag every year.
>
>So. My 13yr old is
>a greedy turd because he
>wants a tag every year.
> But 500 conservation tags
>and 1/4 of the state
>in CWMU so they can
>buy tags every year is
>not.
>
>Heres an idea. How about
>we shut down commercial hunting
>in Utah until the herds
>recover. I mean their
>success rates on "quality" bucks
>is double or triple that
>of average folks.
>
>Last I checked citizens of state
>oen the deer, not LLC's.
>
>
>I'm open to anything. But
>i saw this scheme before.
> ,cut tags, save the
>herd"
>
>
>That saving costs us 500+ tags
>and millions yo a special
>interest.
>
>Oh, and the herd ain't saved

What's even a worse loss of revenue than 500 GS tags, is the 4000 LE and OIL tags that could not be re allocated.

6000 tags were turned in, only 2000 could be re allocated.....4000 lost tags and 4000 point creep.
 
>>>?Antler restrictions? was used to advocate
>>>for herd health.
>>>
>>>Wow.
>>>
>>>Yeah, because the health of the
>>>herd is directly impacted by
>>>the size of the antlers...
>>>
>>>
>>>(Said no biologist ever)
>>>
>>>Trophy hunting is not what everyone
>>>wants. There are opportunities for
>>>that if that's what you
>>>want. Get in line, it's
>>>called limited entry.
>>
>>
>>You missed his point completely. Antler
>>restrictions increase buck to doe
>>ratio ensuring that all does
>>are bred first cycle when
>>they come into heat. This
>>increases fawn recruitment which is
>>the #1 goal if you
>>are trying to build a
>>deer herd. ALL biologists would
>>agree with that.
>>
>>In fact trophy hunting can actually
>>suffer in antler restricted units
>>because bucks with bad genetics
>>get old and can't be
>>killed because of the rules.
>>Antler restrictions do however let
>>a larger percentage of bucks
>>get older, which increases buck
>>to doe ratios and decreases
>>inbreeding by yearling deer. Antler
>>restrictions ARE discussed by biologists
>>for herd health for this
>>very reason.
>
>If I'm reading this correctly, you
>are ultimately claiming that more
>younger bucks should be allowed
>to live longer in order
>to do the breeding in
>order to increase the populations
>of the mule deer herds.
>Is that correct? If so,
>can you show us some
>studies or data that bears
>that out? In fact, I'll
>open that challenge up to
>ANYONE on this thread. And
>I don't mean telling us
>what somebody in Texas has
>told you.

I think you got your close-minded glasses on and missed the point once again.

I stated two things are bad for fawn recruitment and deer populations:

1. Buck to doe ratios low enough that they prevent all the does from breeding first cycle. This creates fawns dropping at later dates and your fawn recruitment gets worse and worse. This is a proven fact, ask any biologist and they will agree.

2. Inbreeding. It doesn't matter the species, consistent inbreeding is bad and when buck to doe ratios and deer population numbers get really low, inbreeding is more prevalent. This creates fawns that can't survive winters, decreasing your fawn recruitment. Another proven fact, ask any biologist, they will agree.

When you have a herd of animals and you are trying to increase the population, you need your annual fawn recruitment to exceed your population's annual deaths. Simple really.

There can be a hundred and one different reasons why fawn recruitment might not be as high as you would like it to be, but in situations like those mentioned above, antler restrictions ARE considered by biologists as valid options for combating those issues with fawn recruitment. Antler restrictions create more bucks as a percentage of the overall deer population which combats those two things mentioned above. If you do not have issues like the two mentioned above (Ex. All does are getting bred first cycle, inbreeding isn't happening) then antler restrictions will not help. Go ahead and ask your local biologist if you want. I don't need to do your research for you. I've done my homework, you can do yours.

One of the important things that antler restrictions accomplish is lowering harvest success percentages, while still providing the exact same amount of opportunity as the tag did before. It's a way of playing the politics and appeasing the opportunity hunters as well as biologically increasing deer herds.

I never said antler restrictions were the answer to Utah's deer herd decline. I was merely explaining how antler restrictions can be and have been used to help deer populations. In the end I think they could help (and so why not do it), but there are a lot of factors that need to be addressed most importantly decreasing habitat degradation (especially winter habitat), stopping all doe harvest, and decreasing deer-vehicle collisions.
 
Hoss,
Are your reading skills that clouded by your personal self induced rage?

I clearly stated that half the state would be unlimited! Sign your 13 year old up and hunt hunt hunt every single year. If that's what important above all else then do it. Nothing to do with CWMU or Auction tags, LE, nothing. Half the units unlimited just have to apply for the unit and lock yourself into that type of management. Opportunity!!! Every year!
 
>
>If you went this route, there's
>gonna be a lot of
>bucks killed every year that
>will never have a cut
>tag placed on their antlers.
>There?s already guys shooting multiple
>deer a year in the
>DH program. Try telling a
>guy he has to sit
>out of the draw the
>following year if he kills
>a buck. That chit ain?t
>gonna fly. Kinda like shed
>antler seasons, it?ll only hurt
>the honest guys
>@screaminseagull

As much as it pains me to say, I think you are right.
 
>
>What's even a worse loss of
>revenue than 500 GS tags,
>is the 4000 LE and
>OIL tags that could not
>be re allocated.
>
>6000 tags were turned in, only
>2000 could be re allocated.....4000
>lost tags and 4000 point
>creep.


pardon my ignorance but I am not following..... 6000 LE/OIL tags were turned in this last year?????
 
I am afraid I agree with ElkA. There is absolutely no hope that the DWR will quit lying about the mule deer numbers in Utah, and there is no hope, no chance at all that mule deer hunting in Utah will improve significantly in our lifetimes.

I don't think the DWR necessarily believe that they are lying about deer numbers. In reality, they are just indulging in a whole lot of fantasy and wishful thinking, the way the always do.
 
They know! Multiple biologists have commented on the fact that the numbers they bring to the table are changed or ignored. That tells me they know.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-18-19 AT 09:13PM (MST)[p]How many of you guys out there that is calling for tag cuts for the general deer are lifetime license holders?
So you want everyone in this state to only be able to hunt maybe once out 5 years or maybe 7 years but you that are a lifetime license holders will have a permit every year.
Sounds like a good idea too me!

I will agree the DWR needs some better deer counts but some of you chicken littles need to tell the truth too. When there is claims on this site that the Beaver unit needs to be shut down because the deer are in that much trouble on that unit I know that is BS. I have recently talked to three different guys that hunted complet total different areas on the Beaver unit and all three guys told me the unit is difently down but all three had opportunity too tag out on a mature buck. Two of the guys said they chose not too wanted to hunt longer and see what they could come up with and one missed the biggest buck he has ever had an opportunity to shoot.
Now I am no expert about the Beaver
For all of last winter all we heard was how bad the Book Clifs is and there is a famous photo floating around on this site of the last mature buck left on the Books but by way of photos on this site and others there sure has been some pretty good bucks taken on the Books this year.
I am not saying things do not need to be done but I really would prefer to listen to some sound biologist facts not a bunch of lifetime license holders.
 
I'm not a lifetime license holder either.

Currently listening to our biologist is the equivalent of listening to the impeachment key witnesses. They don't really know how many deer there are and they don't know if the herd is really healthy. But they have heard rumors of several mature bucks being shot on units.

I can say this with 100% certainty. There are multiple sportsmen on each deer unit in the state that spend many more days out observing the deer in each unit than the biologist for that unit. They have done it for decades in my instances. Also fact, we have gone from 800k plus to under 300k deer. Habitat is NOT the biggest factor. There are multiple factors that we could control and chose not to. Last fact the tag in a pocket every year guys are a big part of the problem and have been for the past 30 years.

When I throw out the option of splitting the state it's crickets. Because all of the tag in their pocket guys know deep down that to do that would mean they wouldn't be hunting any mature deer. And they really do want to hunt mature deer that's why LE applications out number antelrless. The problem is they want both. They just hide behind the ?what about the kids? and ?lifetime tag holders? instead of owning up to their own greed. I'm not asking for trophy bucks and I never have I ask for a balanced healthy herd and it gets demonized as being a lazy trophy hunters. Well I'll tell you this lazy trophy hunters support management that creates a healthier long term herd than the tag in pocket crowd. Take a look at the public lands compared to the private lands on any species in any state. If public land hunters want strong healthy herds to continue to be vaible they have to lean to mangage themselves better.
 
I'm not a lifetime license holder, I love to hunt deer as much as anyone and I want major tag cuts to many units. Utah can support so many more deer than what they currently are. I haven't been around as long as some of you guys have, but just in the last 5-7 years, I have noticed significant decreases in both total buck numbers and deer numbers in general, on 3 units I spend a lot of time in each year. This shouldn't be the case when there are more efforts taking place now than there ever has been, to increase deer numbers state wide.


@screaminseagull
 
>Hoss,
>Are your reading skills that clouded
>by your personal self induced
>rage?
>
>I clearly stated that half the
>state would be unlimited!
>Sign your 13 year old
>up and hunt hunt hunt
>every single year. If
>that's what important above all
>else then do it.
>Nothing to do with CWMU
>or Auction tags, LE, nothing.
> Half the units unlimited
>just have to apply for
>the unit and lock yourself
>into that type of management.
> Opportunity!!! Every year!


Im great with that BUT

1-You sign up in long term times. DH currently make 3 yr commitment.

Take average point total across all LE deer, and that's your commitment time. 10years?

2-No buy around. No CWMU, Gov tag, conservation tags, no end runs.

Love to see all the deep pockets and guides that lose guaranteed every year LE hunting.

3- state is split directly down middle from top to bottom, not east to west. Then we can see how the LE and trophy hunt system works on ground that doesn't have habitat.

I'm great with the idea then. But get real, the second WLH, Moss, Deseret, etc don't have a way to buy around the system there ain't a chance ib he'll. Let's not forget WHO sits on the WB, it ain't us "oppurtunity" guys.

The point system, and tag numbers are in place to appease the general public so they will look the other way on the commercial hunting.

You cut general tags, dudes will demand the same of the other side.

Points are just a feel good. A "look, someday you too can hunt LE like the 500+, and CWMU guys do, so sit down and remain quiet"

Our current system is 100% about money. But not to the DWR. If you think so your an idiot. Look who ACTUALLY profits, and it ain't hard to see what's up.

What's the guide fee on 1 AI tag? That's a he'll of a lot of General buck deer tags to equal that.

Our WB is run by a special interest group. The same one that was going to save the deer. Same one that pushes for all the "cons" tags. Same one that opened AI. Same one that cut 150,000 tags.

But, it's obviously the DWR fault. They appoint the WB. They take Herby hunting.

Obviously it's some $40k LE that's the problem.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
I'm not a life timer, and I love M73's idea of state splitting, or at least make a few units with restrictions and leave the others as is, minus doe killing until numbers are reached.

As I've mentioned before, these restrictions are only bandaids to help heal and reach our objectives.

In the mean time, we work on "supporting projects" to help get us there.
 
Ineresting artical by Todd Black.
Here is why mature bucks are so important to our deer heard health.

content://media/external/file/37655

4aec49a65c565954.jpg
 
>
>Ineresting artical by Todd Black.
>Here is why mature bucks are
>so important to our deer
>heard health.
>
>content://media/external/file/37655
>
>
4aec49a65c565954.jpg



Goofy, can you resend that link?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19 AT 10:05AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19 AT 10:03?AM (MST)

I did a little research on my own and this is what I found...

1992 they said we had 350,000 deer

1992 we had 228,747 hunters afield

1992 there was 56,533 bucks harvested

1992 and there was 13,132 does harvested



now jump ahead ten years

2002 they say we had roughly 275,000 deer

2002 we only had 102,718 hunters afield

2002 there was 24,363 bucks harvested

2002 there was 3,145 doe's harvested



now jump ahead 10 more years

2012 they said we roughly had 280,000 deer

2012 we had 79,066 hunters afield

2012 there was 27,700 bucks harvested

2012 there was 1,711 Doe's harvested



Now jump to 2017 which that is as far as it goes on the DWR website

2017 there was 360,000 deer

2017 there was 84,741 hunter afield

2017 there was 29,926 bucks harvested

2017 there was 3,775 doe's harvested


So there are a few thing that I see in all this


we have lost 144,006 hunters from 1992-2017 and we have more deer in 2017 than in 1992 so they need to really go out and do there jobs and get accurate counts or at least semi close.

we should have bucks to kill all over this state now Especially with that many less hunters they claim.

As you can tell from 2002-2017 the technology is catching up slowly
the buck harvest is slowly going up

What it all boils down to is there needs to be mandatory harvest survey on everything in order to get accurate numbers not only on deer but Elk as well.

you guys can find all this on the DWR web sight under Annual reports
 
Simple fix: on even years only 3 point or better can be shot. On odd numbered years, only 3 point or less can be taken.
 
Change the opening day to Wednesday on all the deer hunts. Units with below buck to doe numbers have shorter seasons, on all hunts. Mandatory harvest reporting. All tags are returned to the division, after the hunter reports of the harvest or not. I also like Bedawgs idea above.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19
>AT 10:05?AM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19
>AT 10:03?AM (MST)
>
>I did a little research on
>my own and this is
>what I found...
>
>1992 they said we had 350,000
>deer
>
>1992 we had 228,747 hunters afield
>
>
>1992 there was 56,533 bucks harvested
>
>
>1992 and there was 13,132 does
>harvested
>
>
>
>now jump ahead ten years
>
>2002 they say we had roughly
>275,000 deer
>
>2002 we only had 102,718 hunters
>afield
>
>2002 there was 24,363 bucks harvested
>
>
>2002 there was 3,145 doe's harvested
>
>
>
>
>now jump ahead 10 more years
>
>
>2012 they said we roughly had
>280,000 deer
>
>2012 we had 79,066 hunters afield
>
>
>2012 there was 27,700 bucks harvested
>
>
>2012 there was 1,711 Doe's harvested
>
>
>
>
>Now jump to 2017 which that
>is as far as it
>goes on the DWR website
>
>
>2017 there was 360,000 deer
>
>2017 there was 84,741 hunter afield
>
>
>2017 there was 29,926 bucks harvested
>
>
>2017 there was 3,775 doe's harvested
>
>
>
>So there are a few thing
>that I see in all
>this
>
>
>we have lost 144,006 hunters from
>1992-2017 and we have more
>deer in 2017 than in
>1992 so they need to
>really go out and do
>there jobs and get accurate
>counts or at least semi
>close.
>
> we should have bucks to
>kill all over this state
>now Especially with that many
>less hunters they claim.
>
>As you can tell from 2002-2017
>the technology is catching up
>slowly
>the buck harvest is slowly going
>up
>
>What it all boils down to
>is there needs to be
>mandatory harvest survey on everything
>in order to get accurate
>numbers not only on deer
>but Elk as well.
>
>you guys can find all this
>on the DWR web sight
>under Annual reports
>

Excellent sleuthing!

And I agree and have suggested the same thing.....mandatory reporting on all tags.
 
can say this with 100% certainty. There are multiple sportsmen on each deer unit in the state that spend many more days out observing the deer in each unit than the biologist for that unit. They have done it for decades in my instances. Also fact, we have gone from 800k plus to under 300k deer. Habitat is NOT the biggest factor. There are multiple factors that we could control and chose not to. Last fact the tag in a pocket every year guys are a big part of the problem and have been for the past 30 years.





This might be the dumbest post you've ever made.

Would you like a look at population numbers in the state? Annual housing starts? New road construction? Explosion in juniper growth? Dying Aspen? Beetle kill acreage?

ANY of those taken on the last 30 yrs show just how stupid your take is.

I was alive 30yrs ago. Go look at precipitation stats in the late 80's early 90's. As was posted there were 150,000 dudes, WITH A TAG IN THEIR POCKET, WHO HUNTED STATE WIDE, WITH EVERY WEAPON, INCLUDING MUZZY HUNTS IN NOVEMBER.

Your a broken record that played 30 years ago.

Less tags =more deer. Over and over, and over, and over.

But there is ZERO data that shows your correct. NONE. We lost 2/3 of the deer hunters we had 30 years ago. And there is barely an increase in population of deer.

THE NUMBER 1 PRODUCER OF DEER is A DOE. The doe requires good habitat, and the best feed to birth, and raise a fawn.

There is ZERO that a buck does 50 weeks of the year to increase deer herds. In fact, they are competitors on the range for resources.

YOU are arguing for "quality" bucks, meaning large antlers.

I live at the entrance to AI. That herd has some of the largest and highest concentrations of "quality" bucks in Utah.

If you were right, the island would be overun with deer.

It's not. Because the does are the limiter of herd, and regardless of how many 30" 4x4 bucks are out there, they don't give birth.

Habitat is the #1 driver of herd size and health. There is no close second.

And only a blind idiot can look at 2019 Utah, and try to compare it to 1989 Utah in habitat.





From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19 AT 04:15PM (MST)[p]I like hog idea I would like to see the season time frame change or shorter season, let's try some ideas that can keep hunters hunting.
bedawg idea is a good one that is called thinking outside of the box it would be interesting to see what would happen dump bucks into the system and then the next year let them grow to mature age.
I am afraid the DWR would not approve, they would say it would be too hard to manage hunters they would use the old 3 point or beater complaint saying too many people would shoot with out knowing the size or forgot what point classification was that year.
But I would like to see that idea suggested.
 
Muley you make my head hurt.

There has got to be a cattle rancher or sheepman in here.

If you have a pasture full of huge, virile, Texas long horns, do you grow your herd? How about sheep. If your herd is all big, bucks, how's that work?

Here's a hint. Livestock producers KILL OFF females that are dry because they eat resources and don't grow the herd.

Somehow simple biology 101, or ag 101 seems to escape you.

What were your odds in high school when you went to a sausage fest?

And your not even honest.

WHAT DECIMATED THE HERDS IN THE 80'S? It wasn't cats, coyote, or 250,000 hunters. It was a string of absolutely brutal winters that washed out Spanish fork canyon, created a river down SLC and filled GSL so full we started pumping into the desert.

Then just as they started to show glimpses, the winter got them again in the early 90's.

Hunters did not, cut 500,000 deer by "having a tag in there pocket".

Just as $fw and the junk science they sold, and you repeat didn't save them.

The ONLY thing you might point to is the population of hunters that were concentrated because as $fw was saving the deer herd they were closing up huge swaths of hunting land to CWMU and LE units.

Want to compare numbers to 1989 on that one?

While other states worked on Block Management, Utah worked on closing access.

And that BS got sold to us by the "quality" deer crowd.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss,
I didn't say to cut any tags in fact the solution I suggested added more tags. I also never stated anything about quality. I stated a healthier herd.

Given your past take on things having you disagree is not a bad thing. You are one of the individuals that will not be a part of the solution there is no doubt about that. You are not a problem solver you are a victim and complainer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19 AT 07:30PM (MST)[p]>Hoss,
>I didn't say to cut any
>tags in fact the solution
>I suggested added more tags.
> I also never stated
>anything about quality. I
>stated a healthier herd.
>
>Given your past take on things
>having you disagree is not
>a bad thing. You
>are one of the individuals
>that will not be a
>part of the solution there
>is no doubt about that.
> You are not a
>problem solver you are a
>victim and complainer.


No. I just have a memory, and pay attention. You haven't discussed anything that was sold us 30 years ago.

If ONLY we had less tags there will be more DEER.

PROVEN WRONG.

If only there were more "quality" hunts there would be more DEER

PROVEN WRONG.

The DWR just lies for money and doesn't listen.

ALMOST WORD FOR WORD THE SALES JOB PEAY DID 30 YEARS AGO.


So, what is the reality.

1. Mule deer are shitty competitors, and their preferred winter range is also the quickest to be swallowed up with home development.

2. 90k hunters concentrated into smaller areas via CWMU and LE make those areas overhunted.

3. The "Golden Age" of mule deer was an artificial time. Deer hunting was shut down previous. Habitat conditions were ideal due to chaining, etc. Unprecedented predator eradication took place. No elk. No I-15. No urban sprawl. NONE of which will happen now.


So. Like I said I agree. Cut the state in half. North to south. Let the "trophy guys have half of Monte. Half of the Wasatch front. Half of St George.

The data was put out in a previous post, you ignore it. The data from AI you ignore.

The data from the Henry's you want to ignore.

The facts from 30 years ago you skip.

Your constant narrative is 30 years ago there were 800,000 deer. Now there isn't. Better cut tags. But we DID THAT. If that worked, UTAH would be deer nirvana.


What we did was cut 150,000 tags, THEN CONCENTRATE the remaining 90k in a small area so a TINY few could kill "quality deer".

Funny how we had "quality" deer with basically NO restriction, but now we don't with all the "quality producing " restrictions.

But, do what you do best. Pay ZERO attention to data, proven science, history. It's that damn General tag holder who doesn't kill many deer that is to blame.


There are tech issues. Obviously habitat issues. But there is not, nor will there ever be a single fawn born to a "quality" buck. Biology 101. Sex ed 101.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19 AT 07:57PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-19 AT 07:55?PM (MST)

Hoss I wont argue with you on cutting tags it is not always the best answer for over all deer numbers and it pays hell on getting the youth out to hunt. But your argument about CWMU is not just. Most of the CWMU that are in place today have always been off limits to general hunting guys. They are private property and the CWMU program began before Don Pay and SFW. Not too mention in the grand scheme of hunting acres CWMU are a small fraction of hunting acres.
This debate about higher deer numbers really has nothing to do with your public vs private and Mike Lee obsession.
But hoss I will give you credit you stay on point.
 
Hoss,
Most of the 150k dropped out on there own. The mismanagement is older than 30 years and it's always been tilted toward opportunity over herd health so yes you have seen 30 years of failure. I don't care what half of the state is given or taken. It should be a mix in each region.

Your #2 reality point was interesting. 90k hunters in an area too small so it's over hunted...true. I agree. So if its over hunted then what is your solution?

Antler restriction was successful in balancing the herds age class, ie creating a more healthy natural balanced herd. And it's not hard to enforce. The DWR has no problem with management hunt enforcement or spike elk enforcement.

From Mona to Cedar City the winter range has changed very very little yet the numbers are gone. So no it's not disappearing winter range in those areas.

You?re right that cutting tags isn't the only solution. There are many viable solutions without cutting tags but guys like you will cry about those too. You?ll cry and the DWR will use your cries to justifiy doing nothing. They will worry about point creep. I have come to the validated conclusion the biggest enemy of the mule deer in the state of Utah is the crying Sportsman that refuse to even allow solution based management for fear of missing out on a tag or two over the next 5 years .
 
Continuous & Overlapped Hunts from Mid-August through January & Sometimes February!

GEEZUS!

Let's Hunt Em to F'N Death!

Just When You Think They can't add more Hunts in anywhere Watch TF Out!

This State will Grow Quality Elk & Deer Herds almost Statewide when Managed Properly!

And NO I Don't Mean Managed for the Almighty F'N Dollar!








I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
I will agree with you on that Bess too many hunts for too many months.
There is no reason the muzzy elk hunt is not at the same time as the muzzy deer. And all these cow hunts starting in early November ending some time after the new year is a joke.
 
>Hoss,
>Most of the 150k dropped out
>on there own. The
>mismanagement is older than 30
>years and it's always been
>tilted toward opportunity over herd
>health so yes you have
>seen 30 years of failure.
> I don't care what
>half of the state is
>given or taken. It
>should be a mix in
>each region.
>
>Your #2 reality point was interesting.
> 90k hunters in an
>area too small so it's
>over hunted...true. I agree.
> So if its over
>hunted then what is your
>solution?
>
>Antler restriction was successful in balancing
>the herds age class, ie
>creating a more healthy natural
>balanced herd. And it's
>not hard to enforce.
>The DWR has no problem
>with management hunt enforcement or
>spike elk enforcement.
>
>From Mona to Cedar City the
>winter range has changed very
>very little yet the numbers
>are gone. So no it's
>not disappearing winter range in
>those areas.
>
>You?re right that cutting tags isn't
>the only solution. There are
>many viable solutions without cutting
>tags but guys like you
>will cry about those too.
> You?ll cry and the
>DWR will use your cries
>to justifiy doing nothing.
>They will worry about point
>creep. I have come
>to the validated conclusion the
>biggest enemy of the mule
>deer in the state of
>Utah is the crying Sportsman
>that refuse to even allow
>solution based management for fear
>of missing out on a
>tag or two over the
>next 5 years .


Ok. Now we are getting somewhere.

Take Monte. Or Chalk Creek. Years ago a lot of dudes hunted it, either via permission, or United sportsman. That's gone now. Now CWMU units sell guaranteed tags yearly, and control their seasons as to suck in animals escaping pressure. Which they can because they have a huge timeframe.

So. End CWMU. Landowners can sell all the trespass fees they want, but the season's are the same as everywhere else. The lack of guaranteed tags and liberal seasons WILL keep prices down making it more likely to attract guys.

Along those lines. Trespass "permits" can only be sold FROM THE LAND OWNER to a TAG HOLDER. Guides can guide. But end the incentive to tie up land or tags by guides to feed their clientele. Let guides compete on their ability and price, not State sanctioned availability of tags and liberal seasons.

Incentivize walk in access, especially to landlocked public.

Double tag fees both elk and deer to compensate.

2. November archery season.

Archery has lowest odds, so suck more guys into it by making season first 2 weeks of November. Pre rut deer are the draw, low archery odds, hunted deer and chance of limiting weather push odds down. Opportunity is increased.

3. End buy around. Zero conservation tags. Zero CWMU tags. You apply for EITHER. GS, or LE, not both. Again. Self limiting vs cut tags.



But your insane if you think Mona to Cedar hasn't changed.

They added I-15.

The deer I used to hunt migrated off west Sanpete down into Fayette then onto the desert. The freeway stopped that. Nephi is exploding. Ephraim is too. Same with Richfield. The last time they chained West side of Sanpete I was a kid. Juniper sucks up the water. Sage is suffering.

The Manti is crowded. But because so much was shut down to LE in central and se. Guys didn't quit, they moved, manti, nebo, fishlake took the hunters the surrounding LE units, and CWMU displaced.

I'd be fine with antler restrictions.

But we are facing massive declines in participation. You cut tags we lose the kids that don't have resources to chase. We already cut access which hurt the kids without resources to travel. We have a horrific point scheme which unbelievably discriminates against kids. And by kids I mean under 30.

You can't continue a system that pushes more and more out, to favor a TINY group of either deep pockets or gray hair max point holders.

OR. Your just left with the European Model, which in short means you sacrificed hunting for inches.

Government(DWR) should have ONLY 3 goals.

1. Expand access.

2. Equal playing field for all.

3. Grow herds.

Anything beyond that is creating special classes for special interests.










From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Antler restrictions might work if we went to 3 point or better for Adults and let the youth shoot whatever besides doe's that will keep it regulated a little

As far as DWR and people saying there will be deer shot and left because it wasn't a 3 point we Kind of have antler restriction in place How many people shoot spikes that wasn't legal also how many people mess up and shoot the wrong management bucks it's something to think about.
 
>Antler restrictions might work if we
>went to 3 point or
>better for Adults and let
>the youth shoot whatever besides
>doe's that will keep it
>regulated a little
>
>As far as DWR and people
>saying there will be deer
>shot and left because it
>wasn't a 3 point we
>Kind of have antler restriction
>in place How many people
>shoot spikes that wasn't legal
>also how many people mess
>up and shoot the wrong
>management bucks it's something to
>think about.


I remember the first year Manti went spike only. There were a lot of antlers bulls shot. As time went on less and less.

I got long winded last night.

My point to Miley is Utah is 60% public land. Add to that private that would/could be hunted if trespass fees were the thing.

Utah got played. We weren't paying attention weren't savy enough at the time.

You can limit pressure by expanding access. The push that lead to LE/CWMU expansion wasn't done by average dudes, it was done for business interests. But it shut down huge swaths of ground.

You can have 90k hunters if you open up Utah to hunting.

The mistake we made wasn't tag numbers. Wasn't antler restrictions. We allowed business to concentrate hunters onto smaller areas so they could run businesses off of the very Wildlife the public owns.

More access= fewer hunters per acre=more "quality" bucks per acre.

The change in management needs to be opening more ground, not supporting a 2 tier system that closes it.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Take away the the cwmu and there 3 month season, and their value would drop dramatically. That would mean that they might lower cost and allow more hunters.
 
I never understood the theory on an APR that some 2 points get shot by mistake and we lose them to waste.

What would that percentage be, like 5% at most?

Take away the APR and that number skyrockets to a guesstimate of 40% of our younger crop getting taken out because they are now legal.
 

Similar threads

C
Feeling salty
Replies
78
Views
2k
Packout
P
Wapitiwilly
Moose
Replies
16
Views
1k
hawkbill
hawkbill
WannaB
Mountain Idiots
Replies
38
Views
2k
2lumpy
2lumpy

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

attachment..jpg
IMG_3516.jpeg
FCD1C3C9-BD86-4510-968B-F95B8EB67201.jpeg
IMG_6756.jpeg
6655F4C1-1974-4D0F-9068-6D63B8D5A43A.jpeg
IMG_1045.JPG
Back view .PNG
IMG_1747.png
20220906_162527.jpg
AF92AC1F-1C59-4DE1-BE45-E87577BB3D28.jpeg
1873E4DF-B4A7-436E-A6CF-888DEB090ECF.jpeg
bull 2.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