Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting

[Amy]

The Utah Wildlife Board meeting begins this morning at 9 a.m. If you're interested, you can watch it live on YouTube.

Here's a look at today's agenda.

Amy Canning
Communications Specialist
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

 

[desertpointbrian]

Sorry Amy no offense. But what a circus show this state is a joke

 

[fullthrottle]

Yep, pathetic. Until we get some representation from people that actually give a damn about the quality and longevity of our wildlife Utah will always be an under achiever.

 

[nebo12000]

Well, I guess I better say something-- while I don't always agree personally with the decisions of the RAC's or WB, I have to say that for the most part everyone on the boards care about wildlife. They care enough to tackle issues that are sometimes very difficult to know what's best. There are sometimes so many different views and opinions, that it is hard to find some middle ground where everyone can get something they want. To say it is a joke or to say that its a circus is certainly- in my opinion- kind of irrational. There certainly are examples of poor management but the process is hopefully making that less likely. The folks on those boards really care about wildlife and the future of hunting and conservation. We don't need to agree with everything but being respectful of people with different opinions is a personal thing.
If you don't agree with the way its being run and the way the system works, what would you suggest to change it? Believe me-- the individual sportsmans opinion is every bit as valuable to me in understanding all the angles of a particular subject, as the opinions and proposals of any organizations-- whether it be MDF, RMEF,Western Wildlife Coalition, SFW,UWC or the DNR.
If you think the system is broke, come up with a way to make it better.
Our RAC voted to not allow magnification on muzzys but 60% of the respondents on the survey wanted them-- The WB voted to allow them. So, if you don't want to use a magnified scope -- don't. I would be more concerned about someone being able to set up a shooting table on a ridge top with a .50 caliber rifle and shooting a deer at 1500-2000 yards across a canyon into the basins of Nebo. It will only take him a 2 1/2 to 3 hour hike to just to get to the deer. How you gonna feel if you're the hunter who walked for 3 hours in the cold and dark to get a 3-400 yard shot on the same deer only to hear the echo of a rifle shot and see it rolling down the shale rock. Unless the DWR puts some restrictions on large caliber rifles for hunting, its going to happen-- oh, it already is happening.

 

[Muley_73]

Nebo,
Believe me that I understand the dedication and time it takes to actively participate in the system. But after having attended many many RAC and WB meetings over the past 35 years I have to agree that the atmosphere was....let's say....a little disorganized yesterday.

The rifle hunt or any weapon hunt as it is called has always been set up to hunt with...well any legal weapon. Yes there are some advancements that have brought ethical questions to this hunt. I get that and I agree that we as Sportsmans should be concerned and fight to make sure they don't get completely out of hand. However the muzzy hunt is a completely different animal. It was fought for in the I beleive late 70s for a chance to hunt with primitive weapons. It was approved and set up to give more opportunity to those that wanted to challenge their skills with a weapon that was a much less effective killing tool. It worked and opportunity was given without hugely increasing the success rate. Now we have advance those "primitive" weapons to the point that they are arguably as effective as 50% of the rifles that where being used in the 70s any weapon hunts. I have zero problem with scopes on Muzzys. But if you are shooting an inline muzzy with the variable scope then you should be hunting the any weapon hunt along with those shooting rifles. It is no longer a muzzleloader in the spirit that the hunt was started for years ago. More effective weapns means increased success. Increases success means less bucks or Bulls. That will force tag cuts and loss of opportunity or revised plans and lower buck to doe ratios both of which I consider big losses. It's a wrong decision and we will pay for it. We're killing the golden goose in my opinion. I caught major major grief over pushing so hard for Option 2. In my opinion this decision by the state will cause far more damage and cost more tags to hunters down the road.

 

[Deerlove]

So Nebo how do we limit long range rifle hunting?? We just ADDED long range muzzy hunting. SUCKS

 

[nebo12000]

I have to agree with you on the primitive weapon thing. One of the reasons that our RAC voted against magnification was because the success rate may increase and have the ripple effect of having to lower permit numbers. That gap between "primitive weapons" and a rifle isn't very wide anymore. They are much like a single shot rifle in many cases. I am disappointed that the Division didn't propose that there be a cap on how large a caliber could be legal. There has been some discussion at the RAC and WB level but no proposal yet. What do you think would be reasonable to limit the caliber of a hunting weapon?

 

[Muley_73]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-15 AT 11:56AM (MST)[p]Nebo,
I really don't think the root of the issue is the caliber at all. It all lies in the optics and range finders. I'm shooting a 7mm LRM. It shots a 180 grain Hornady at 3050 fps. That's a pretty standard big game rifle load in my opinion. What makes it effective and deadly out to 1200 yards is the Nightforce 5.5-22X50 scope mounted on it and the BR2 rangefinder that's programmed to my guns ballistics. If people don't think that magnified optics added to Muzzys wont GREATLY increase a Muzzys effective range then they are not paying attention to the technologies. You want less effective on every single hunt.....archery, muzzy and rifle. Do away with range finders. That's the key to shooting any of the 3 effectively.

 

[fullthrottle]

They essentially opened up a early high country rifle hunt. Anyone with a rangefinder can shoot a inline, scoped muzzleloader accurately out to 300 yards without much effort. And a vast majority will be capable of shooting much further. I'm sure the area's I hunt are going to get hammered next year, particularly the bigger bucks. The long term effect of this decision will absolutely be felt. In terms of oppurtunity and quality. Very poor decision. Disappointed in the so called "sportsman" that voted for magnification. Puzzy's! With all the fancy guns, gear, optics, ect that we already have that mature age class that's less than impressive ought to really thrive. What's next a November general season? Sportsman, huh that's funny.

 

[Stonefly]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-15 AT 06:16PM (MST)[p]Here is a really radical idea. If allowing more efficient ( better killing) equipment would lead to higher success rates. ( I believe it will). And with more bucks killed lowering the Buck to doe ratio, (no brainer). Then WHEN fewer tags are available. (and that is whats going to happen). With more people wanting tags, and fewer available, How does supply and demand figure into this, and who would stand to gain from a situation like this...Lets pretend there might be imaginary entities that have a few tags for the animals, the masses, would like to hunt.. what would happen to the cost of the tags...better yet (for some) would a Pretend situation like this give imaginary entities power or more control over the masses ability to hunt... Pay to Play gents... that's where management like this will eventually lead. destroy the public resource, slowly, to inflate the value of the private resource. all the while gaining more and more power to make more rules, laws, and changes that benefit the "non public" interests along with their, salesmen and lobbyists... Told you it would be radical. Here is the most radical idea yet,. what if the state Utardia had a DWR that had NO special Interest A Holes making the rules, even more radical.. do things to improve wildlife that could be at the Expense of special interest (Many times ) NOT tokens for talking points.

I edited to say, remember if this Imaginary thing were to ever happen, as big as it sounds, it would be a baby step.....now which part am I talking about...