Extend the wasatch front boundries.

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 19, 2012

This year i seen alot of rifle hunters hunting outside of there boundries up lonepeak, it would be nice if we could extend the archery only boundry from lone peak along the ridge to american fork road.
The dnr would not have to worry about the homeowners complaining about all the rifle hunters shooting towards there houses, wouldnt get any calls about hunters outside of there boundries, help expand the pressure from Achery hunters

travishunter3006 · Dec 19, 2012

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 19, 2012

with all the extra youth archery permits the dnr are selling they need some more archery only areas. IMO its too crowded as it is on the front, Quiet a few decent bucks are shot illegaly
by rifle hunters hunting out of there boundaries, Wouldnt it
be nice if sardine canyon (north of 1-80 up parleys along pioneer trail) was archery only? that little spot gets pounded by rifle hunters, someone should sell a huge chunk of chalk creek back to the state so rifle hunters have a place to hunt when buying unit 4-5-6 left over archery permits,

Towhee · Dec 21, 2012

What about those that have rifle hunted above Alpine thier entire lives? Its true that some rifle hunters are in archery only boundaries, but just as many if not more extended archers hunt outside the extended boundary above Alpine. If anything I would like to see the archery boundery pushed further north. Home owners are gonna piss and moan just as loud when a gut shot buck with an arrow stuck out his side goes running through their back yard.

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 21, 2012

Folks that have hunted above alpine still could,just with a bow.
And there hunt would last longer than a week. Plus there would be a clear boundry line with no confusion, Like said before the W.F. is pretty crowded as is, now that the DNR is selling abundace of extra archery permits, seems only fair to increase the W.F.Extended archery area to make up for increasing population, Rifle deer fatalities and injuries are far greater than archery deer fatalities.increasing boundry would help the deer population to a healthy objective. Its really not asking to much , it would help deer recover in that area from being over hunted during rifle season. its really a small area with so much potential, we hunters must put aside our selfishness for a brief moment for a greater good.

PleaseDear · Dec 21, 2012

Make the WF a draw unit with in the boundaries.

Ogden and then SLC for two draw only units.

Maybe add your extention as a 3rd draw only unit.

For get about the all/any with a drawn bow unit can hunt the WF---that is alot of hunters on the WF....

Robb

Towhee · Dec 22, 2012

Some people dont like hunting with a bow. The bucks would get slaughtered during the rut, and I still believe there are far more injuries from bows than rifles. And for some it is asking to much, especially for someone that has hunted the rifle hunt above alpine for the last forty years.

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 22, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 08:23PM (MST)[p] I like that idea Pleasedeer.

Towhee I see your point, there may be a slightly higher percentage of archers wounding and never recovering deer than rifle.but theres also 52000 rifle hunters and only 17000 archery hunters So 10 % of archery hunters is alot less than 10% of rifle hunters, Just sayin

Robiland · Dec 22, 2012

Towee,
I grew up hunting any bull elk my whole life on boulder mountain. Its not fair it a draw unit now. I can't hunt it now for big bulls. Not fair!!!

travishunter3006 · Dec 22, 2012

I think this thread is pointless...

El_Matador · Dec 23, 2012

What is the point of having the extended hunt north of I-80 anyway? I understand having the hunt south of I-80 where rifle hunting is not allowed, but up north those deer are already getting hunted pretty hard by rifle and muzz hunters. Is it to give all the extended hunters a place to hunt? If so, why restrict it to just the wasatch front? There are plenty of other areas open to rifle hunting that could be used as well/instead. I don't mind having the extended hunt boundary the way it is or even expanded, but I really think it should be its own unit and draw only.

c3 · Dec 24, 2012

The purpose of the extended hunts is to keep the critters up on the mtn rather than down in the neighborhoods. It doesn't matter where they get hunted in the fall, it's about where they go when the snow starts falling.

As for point of the mtn, if the water drains toward Alpine it's open to the rifle hunt. If it drains to the north it's archery only. There's not much of a gray area there and very few people are capible of climbing up high enough to get to the spots where it might be in contention anyway.

If we make the extended hunt a draw only we don't get the desired effect and the critters come to live down with us. Once they get a taste for your lovely tulips they never go back up

Cheers,
Pete

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 24, 2012

Theres obviously a grey area when ya see rifle hunters horse back on the west face, quiet a few hunters hunting out of there boundries, you would be suprised at how many of us make the climb rifle or archery,
Alpine has a problem with critters coming down to winter with residents that just proves my point why we need to extend the boundry for archers, The dnr issued alot more archery permits for next year the w.f. is already overloaded, making it a draw unit makes sence.

El_Matador · Dec 24, 2012

>The purpose of the extended hunts
>is to keep the critters
>up on the mtn rather
>than down in the neighborhoods.

Anybody else care to weigh in on this? I appreciate the input but I don't believe that chasing the deer all over the mountain is a good method to keep them on that mountain. Seems like the pressure would drive more of them into the neighborhoods, not keep them out.

PleaseDear · Dec 24, 2012

Not sure I understand ya on this Pete...

"If we make the extended hunt a draw only we don't get the desired effect"

How would making the WF a draw only specific unit (s) not get a desired effect??

Robb

treedagain · Dec 25, 2012

i think this quote from MULESKINNER says really whats on his mind

"Quiet a few decent bucks are shot illegaly
by rifle hunters hunting out of there boundaries"

i think the fact/allegation that "decent bucks" are being killed is his main concern.

How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait

c3 · Dec 25, 2012

Merry Christmas Robb,

The way I see it, the only reason to make it a draw unit is to limit the number of hunters. By reducing the number of hunters on the front, we wouldn't be keeping the critters up on the mountain where they stay out of the neighborhoods.

I suppose they could make the units unlimited quota, but then what's the purpose of making them draw only?

Cheers,
Pete

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 26, 2012

>i think this quote from MULESKINNER
>says really whats on his
>mind
>
>"Quiet a few decent bucks are
>shot illegaly
>by rifle hunters hunting out of
>there boundaries"
>
>i think the fact/allegation that "decent
>bucks" are being killed is
>his main concern.
>
>
>How to start an argument online:
>
>1. Express an opinion
>2. Wait

Whats your point? Im not the only one who has called the DNR on rifle hunters hunting out of there boundries, illegal shooting deer should be a concern of everyone.
Ya I admit it I would like to see more opportunity for archers in utah, call me selfish!

Packout · Dec 26, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-12 AT 02:01PM (MST)[p]I would not like to see the extended boundary moved further south. The Front from I80 south to the Salt Lake county line is archery only because of the firearm restrictions put in place by Salt Lake County. I guess if one special interest group wants to ruin it for all the other hunters then this type of idea could be put in place.

The extended North of I80 was put in place because the private lands/ranches at higher elevations harbor some deer during the regular hunts and allowing the late archery hunt provides some opportunity. South of Salt Lake County there is very little high elevation private lands so that herd gets hunted by archers, ml, rifle. Additional archery opportunity could be detrimental to the herd.

Extended archery on the Front is not there to control deer numbers. Autos and Mother Nature do that. It is in place to provide opportunity where regular season uses are limited. Above Alpine, up AF canyon, back up into Mineral Basin is not limited in any fashion compared to the restrictions in Salt Lake County and North.

If people are poaching then that needs to be addressed. Punishing the guy who has hunted Box Elder Peak with his ML or rifle is not a viable solution.

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 26, 2012

Additional archery opportunity could be detrimental to the herd.

Extended archery on the Front is not there to control deer numbers. Autos and Mother Nature do that

WHAT?? LMAO!! Please explain how additional archery opportunity
could be detrimental to the herd up lone peak and above alpine? I could see if archers shot every doe in sight, but thats not the case. over 5000 archery hunters have been hunting the W.F. for over 15 years. Even with the growing archery population the front still provides a number of trophy bucks with healthy deer herds.
The slc front did not produce the volume of trophy deer back when it was hunted with rifle,muzzy or have as healthy herds.
Theres a number of reasons the W.F continues to provide trophy bucks but the main reason.... is its ARCHERY ONLY.
hunters do help control deer numbers on the front, even if its not there for that reason lol!
Sorry I guess i need this spelled out for me please Explaine how rifle hunters up boxelder will be punished for enlarging the W.F Ex archery boundries to alpine??

c3 · Dec 26, 2012

>The Front from
>I80 south to the Salt
>Lake county line is archery
>only because of the firearm
>restrictions put in place by
>Salt Lake County.

This is not true. There are no firearms restrictions in Salt Lake County. They (10.64.01) was repealed in Jan 2010. The whole county is open to hunting with firearms and governed under state law. Before that firearms use was only allowed "in the pursuit of game" outside of gun ranges.

There are still many firearms hunts allowed in the central Wasatch south of I80 and north of point of the mountain. I can coyote, and bird hunt 600 feet behind the homes anywhere along the front with firearms.

Just as a further clarifier, the extended hunts original purpose, while also allowing considerable opportunity is to keep critters out of the residential areas as much as possible.

The words used in the Elk Management Plan are "Utilize extended archery any bull hunting to address depredation/public safety issues..."

Cheers,
Pete

Packout · Dec 26, 2012

You are correct-- If you make that area Archery Only then it won't hurt the herd. If you add an archery extension onto the area the additional hunting pressure could be detrimental to the herd. That would be the same as adding an extended hunt on every public land unit in the state.

I thought the proposal in this thread was to make it Archery Only to AF Canyon. How does that not hurt the rifle/ml hunter in the area? You are not taking into account why the Front (Salt Lake County regulations) was created and the extended (private lands). Utah County never had weapons restrictions (are you wanting weapons restrictions to have it be an archery area).

If you are just looking to enlarge the extended-- How would extending the archery hunt while allowing rifle hunts stop the "problem" of guys hunting the Front?

And if you think archery buck hunters help control the population of deer on the Front then you are sorely mistaken. You are right though-- that the Front produces large antlered bucks because it is archery only. I see no need to displace one type of hunter to give it to another hunter.

You said -- "The dnr would not have to worry about the homeowners complaining about all the rifle hunters shooting towards there houses" I'd like to see all these complaints and investigations. Talk about inciting a fire to push an agenda.

Pete-- So prior to 2010, there were weapon restrictions in SL County? The Front was created in the early 1990s to deal with the weapons issues and continues now because that is the norm. No changing it back to gun now, not by me anyway. I just dislike seeing others trying to change something which only benefits their agenda.

c3 · Dec 26, 2012

Mike, the firearms restrictions in Salt Lake County were only on target shooting. Hunting has always been allowed in the county. There were some conflicts in the wording between the state law and the county law and thus the reason it was take out of the county ordinances. I don't know the exact wording that was in dispute as it has now been completely removed from the county ordinace record. It was there in 2010, but struck through to show that it had been revoked.

I believe part of the reason was so that the DWR could create restrictions within the county that have nothing to do with state or county ordinances. This same time period is when the Emmigration Oaks firearms restrictions began, not by coincidence.

I'll have to agree that creating additional archery only areas with extended seasons would be great for my own selfish reasons.

For others who's dads took them up AF canyon or up behind Alpine and now are taking their kids up there for some of their first hunts, this would prove to be a painful pill to swallow.

Adding extended hunts are not so simple and surely not without trepidation on someones part.

Cheers,
Pete

muleyskinwatcher · Dec 27, 2012

LOL! You Theres been a misunderstanding I meant archery only, as I thought you meant additional as in additional archery only region, MY bad. I agree archery with muzzy and rifle would be devastating. Dont Archery hunters help keep herds from reaching there carrying capacity on the front? Or is the deer herds that far below there carrying capacity it does not matter? So deer harvested by archers has a different effect than the a deer hit by a car? LOL! Im not sure I understand what you mean? I understand winter and preditors are important for thinning out the weak and old.
Some Archery hunters harvest does as well as bucks in case you forgot.
If theres change theres an agenda! and some will benifit and some wont,

Packout · Dec 27, 2012

Looking at your posts on this thread, the reasons you want to make the area archery only is to protect the bucks, grow bigger antlers, and allow only archers to use the resource from the SL/UT County line to AF Canyon. This will stop a handful of rifle/ml hunters from bouncing over onto the SL County side of the line and give archers more deer to hunt, while protecting the residents of the valley from guns. I just don't see how that is a benefit to anyone except an archer. I also know the rhetoric you have used (guns are dangerous -- hunters are shooting at your house -- archers can save us from rifle toting red-necks) is damaging.

I tend to believe the biologists when they talk about archers not controlling deer numbers. Archers killing a few buck deer are not controlling the growth of the herd. The reason you want to make the UT county side Archery Only is to protect and hunt bucks-- not doe. I don't like the idea and it would actually benefit me as my family owns an orchard in this proposed area.

Pete-- Good post. I know when I had my moose tag in 2007, I couldn't hunt with a rifle in most areas of the Front. I have enjoyed archery hunting the Front for almost 20 years, but I'd hate to see this idea go through and impact hundreds of people who safely hunt Alpine/AFCanyon with other weapons.