Central Region -Request for comments

N

nebo12000

Active Member
Messages
634
As a member of the Central Region RAC I would very much like to hear from hunters in regard to proposals for the improvement of deer hunting in the region. Please be specific about the area you would like have considered for implementing changes in. I have recieved suggestions for the Nebo area- management area 21A. It has been proposed that it be restricted to a 5 day hunt and limited to 2000 permits. Additionally,the buck/doe ratio stands at 12 bucks /100 does, the objective is 15. The proposal would include the language that if the unit does not reach the objective of 15 bucks /100 does within 2 years thta the tags be reduce by 10 %. If and when the buck/doe ratio increase to 17 bucks/100 does or higher that the tags be increased by 10%. If the unitever goes below 11 bucks/100 does the unit would be closed for a minimum of one year.
Please post your thoughts and suggestions.
Richard Hansen
 
It sounds like you are starting to micromanage the central region!?! I like it.

What about the dedicated hunters in the central region? How would they be able to access 21A?

I think 15 per 100 is low, I would also like the state to age classify those 15 per 100 and set a standard for that rather than just buck deer.

Thanks Chris

www.VIPoptics.com

"When You Deserve The Very Best"
 
I understand there is a proposal to change deer hunting from region base hunting to unit base hunting here in Utah. This would mean that instead of hunters having the option of hunting the entire region, they would be limited to a specific unit to hunt in all season. I think this is an approach that is too extreme.

I agree that deer management needs to be more specific than it currently is because some "would be units" definitely get over-hunted and buck and doe ratios are not acceptable. What I would like to see happen is this.

-Hunters still get to hunt an entire region.
-Units need to be introduced into those regions that can be given specific restrictions or guidelines that restrict the harvest of certain age class bucks. Enabling micromanagement of those units within a region. IE. At least one antler must have 3 points excluding eye guards (if any). Or 4 point bucks or larger only. Then each year after the post harvest herd counts come in, these guidelines can be adjusted appropriately as mentioned in the first post.

This style of management would not be as drastic as restricting hunters to one specific unit but would still allow units to recover from low buck-doe ratios.

Thoughts?
 
OK please don't slay me on this - it is just a thought.

As I was on the ML elk hunt with my Step Dad this year I was watching four good bulls on a hillside and it struck me how nice it is to see mature elk on the mountain (growing up I only saw one branch antlered bull ever). The spike only hunt with LE for big bulls has worked really well to increase the resource. Would a similar program work for deer in a few units? Allow 2 point or smaller deer for the general hunt and give LE tags for the mature bucks. I'd hate to see this for all areas but it would allow more deer to achieve their potential.
 
I don't hunt the area, but I always thought that it was interesting that we still are trying to set hunting regs based on what once may have worked - today is a different day and so to are the demands on our limited resources. Therefore, it will take different methods to get us to our goals. Today, politics are pervasive and the demands for outdoor activities including the non consumptive use of wildlife are almost out-paceing the supply in some areas. . .

I ask, why reduce hunter days, why not limit the harvest and broaden the opportunities for hunters to hunt? Why not allow some bow, some muzzy, some modern, some pistol and set the harvest based on what the habitat can support in terms of a healthy deer population in stead of just a B/D ratio?

I cant be specific about the unit and what is right for every herd, that's your job, that's why youre on the RAC, but I think there needs to be more hunting opportunities for the hunter who lives there and who does not have the deep pockets to buy his or her way into a tag every year. At the rate we now are going, only the rich kids who have wealthy parents will get the opportunity to harvest game regularly, from one year to the next.

I mean no disrespect, and I'll admit I dont know all that there is to know about the units there (most dont), but seems to me like you should limit the harvest to a biologically sound number, but dont reduce the hunter days. Reducing hunter days means you are stealing from Peter to pay Paul; your hunters are YOUR ONLY support, if you shut them out, they will manage to shut you down! It would be very very unwise to take away more and more opportunity and it would help to put one more foot in the grave of the publics open access to wild and free ranging animals in the west. . . I'm a non resident, so you can take what I say or leave it, but it's time to make sure that our young, middle class people have a chance to learn to hunt, not just have a chance at a hunt and a kill every 10 years, that's no way to raise a hunting community. . .

The common, average hunting public is your base, loose many more of us and we all loose the future of our great hunting heritage. I know some will say no way; some will say I'd rather have a chance at one monster mule deer buck every 7 years than I would a hunting experience every year. I dont agree with that policy and nor should it drive the management of our deer herds as it now does. MM is one place to check, but most, I'd say the majority of your hunting public, is NOT on monster muleys and does not subscribe to the "trophy" hunting standards. . . .

We need more opportunity, not less. Get creative with dates and times and weapons restrictions, make the game department and the hunter work a little harder, that's okay with me, I'd rather work harder at hunting than I would work harder and trying to get an opportunity to hunt while I sit around on my couch and get fat because I cant go deer hunting anymore. . . .
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-17-07 AT 04:36PM (MST)[p]Bump that from 15/100 to 20/100 or even 25/100 and make it state wide and then you'd have something. Please, no point restrictions, UNLESS it's for 3 point or LESS, and draw for limited any buck tags. Let some of the 4 points live!
 
Want to kill hunting? Employ Antler restrictions. Case in point, Elk in Utah.

From the DWR website:

"On Sept. 18, more than 3,800 any bull elk unit permits, and 3,900 spike bull only unit permits, were still available for the hunt."

Antler restrictions take the option out of the hunt. I think to myself every year, you know I should buy a spike elk tag and fill the freezer. Never done it yet.

My suggestion for deer (overall not just Nebo) - cut the tags by 1/4 - raise the price of a tag - no more 5 day hunt, back to 10 days everywhere.

But, may we not all forget, the state's goal with the deer hunt is population control . . . not tag control.
 
I support maintaining existing permit numbers but reducing the ability of permit holders to kill deer. I want to hunt every year (and have a decent chance at a mature deer)but not necessarily expect to kill a mature deer each time I have a tag. I propose the following action items to accomplish this:

#1) Reduce motor vehicle access. While i realize the DWR does not set vehicle route policy (the FS and BLM do), the DWR can set policy regarding how people hunt. Look into Idaho's motorized vehicle restriction program and implement something similar region wide. Also, please make it a violation of DWR policy (not just FS/BLM policy) to use a motor vehicle while hunting where it is not allowed. Confiscation of the motor vehicle would be a fair punishment.

#2) Maintain the archery season as is (practically unlimited tags, statewide).

3#) I like the idea of season date manipulation to reduce harvest. While shortening the rifle hunt 45% from 9 to 5 days does not result in a 45% reduction in harvest (i would estimate closer to 15-20% reduction in harvest), those 15% of bucks that survive instead of die the second weekend of the rifle hunt make a huge difference. I would not stop at just reducing the rifle season as well...a lot of deer die on the muzzleloader hunt too. I like tying the season lengths to buck-to-doe ratios as well. Perhaps a plan like this might be the best:

Less than 8 bucks/100 doe postseason: No hunt for the sub-unit the next year.
9-10 bucks/100 doe postseason: Muzzleloader hunt 5 days, no rifle hunt.
11-13 bucks/100 doe postseason: Muzzleloader hunt 5 days, rifle 3 days.
14-17 bucks/100 doe postseason: Muzzleloader hunt 9 days, rifle hunt 5 days (I would guess the 08 season would be under this plan).
18+ bucks/100 doe postseason: Muzzleloader hunt 9 days, rifle hunt 9 days.

#4: Prohibit aerial scouting year round. This practice is disgusting...now is the time for the DWR to put an end to it before more people think this is acceptable.

-RPinenut
 
pnut,

You make a great point....again. Without question, the biggest detriment to mule deer as I see it in the last 15 years, is ATV use and abuse. ATV's have caused more problems to deer than any modern bow, inline muzz, or 500+ yard rifle. Until someone pulls there head out of their butt and begins to limit these worthless things, enforce the current laws, and put tighter restrictions on their use, nothing will help short of eliminating a large portion of tags.

Nothing will ever happen though. No one admits to using them illegally and they are so common and popular. I had a guy tell me how his will go almost any where a horse will and he does not have to feed it. That is the mentallity Utards have with their ATV.
 
Richard,

I am glad to hear that you are now involved with the RAC. I know your heart is in it and that you truely do care about our deer heards, especially in Central Utah.
I'd like to voice my opinion on how I feel things should go in order to not only have more bucks but more mature bucks. A lot of what I will say isn't anything new, it really isn't any big secret how to get a better deer heard the key is getting enough people to support an idea and then have the leaders push it through. That is where we usually end up going in different directions. So I wish you all the luck in your efforts and I know that your someone who I believe can make a difference.
It doesn't matter what state your in or what unit your talking about. If it is a quality unit that has great bucks taken on a regular basis it will without a doubt have great, almost endless winter range. All the real good units have that quality. That is one area that will hold Nebo back some. The other thing that is a total must is that you have to see the bucks be able to get some age. At least five years in my opinion. People like to talk about genetics and how some places will never be good because they have been "shot out". That is total bull. To change genetics like that it would take thousands of years and several other factors to happen to see an area change its genetic patterns. All you have to do it let the animals get mature in order to see what they truely can become. There is no way that you can tell what a two or even a three year old buck will end up looking like when he is that young. Of course there will always be those few that may even at that age show more promise than others but I am sure you get my point.
So how do we get to the time when we have "several" units like the Henery's of Utah? What I would like to see is several mountain ranges with great potential be shut completely down for five years. Lets say in 2008 we shut down Nebo, the Boulder mountains, maybe Thousandlakes, everything around Manti, and lets say Vernon. Then everyone in the state knows that in 2012 these units will re-open and five more will close. Maybe the Pauns, Henerys, Bookcliffs, everything around Kamas, ect... The point is take five more units and REST them. The division could work out the boundries but by doing this people know in advance that in 2012 there is going to be five units that have at least an older class buck and five years from that you have a new and fresh Henerys that no doubt will be incredible. The idea is that we have no units that ever get hunted more than five years before they are rested and new units close, always predetermined in advance so that people will know when a certain unit is scheduled to re-open. People will still apply as always except many will just apply for a point so that they will have a better chance at getting thier tag when thier favorite unit is opened. By doing this the game department will have to bite the bullet for the first few years while things are building but in the end you will have by far the most incredible state for muleys and they will more than make up for it down the road dollar wise.
The henerys isn't the only place in Utah that can produce that quality of deer...I honestly believe that there are several places that would be better if given the chance to be completley shut down and started right.
One thing to keep in mind is that for the first couple of years the tags given out in these units might be held back slightly because the deer are so stupid when they haven't been hunted that they need a couple of seasons to wise up a bit.
Utah has tons of quality space for deer to grow old in and be hunted. With this rotation system we just won't have one or maybe two great areas that everone dreams of hunting. We will have several areas that produce great bucks but it will take that first step, that first five years to get the ball rolling. If you look at it from the long term perspective it is hard for me to see any other way to go. There might be other ways to modify this plan somewhat but the key is to have several units completely closed and when they open close several others and always have units resting and waiting to be hunted and rotated.
 
Here is an idea that I gave to NEBO about 4 months ago and to other Sportsman's Groups. It is mice to see Pinenut has thought along the same lines. It is an idea, a safety net approach which could help maintain the current system. I am against further fragmenting of Regions. We already have sub-units within the Regions. Also, only 3 Limited Entry units in Utah have a higher buck doe ratio than 25 per 100. Colorado is "so awesome", yet they include FAWNS in their buck ratios and the Colorado unit I will hunt this year has a mature buck ratio of 2 per 100, yes Co 2 per 100.

-Keep the 15-20 bucks per 100 doe (post season) objective. But manage for the middle ground 17-19, not the low end.
-Keep the 9 day season when the region has a buck-doe ratio of 17+.
-If a region is at 15-16 bucks per 100 doe, institute a 5 day season region wide.
-If a region is below 15 bucks per 100 doe institute a 10% or more cut in tags and make the region a 3 day season.
-All decreases in days afield or tag reductions should remain in place 1 year after the region has recovered to the 17-19 buck objective.
-If a region falls below 10 bucks per 100 doe, the region will be closed until the buck doe ratio rises above 10.
-If a region is at 20+ bucks per 100 doe then tag increases of 10% should be instituted on a year to year basis.
-SUBUNITS within Regions may also be manipulated by shortening seasons to 5 or 3 days.
-All Weapon types will participate in reduced opportunity when a herd is below or under objective.
-Rifle and Muzzleloader will be restricted to 5 or 3 day hunts, while archery hunts will be restricted to 14 or 10 day hunts respectively.
-All tags (rifle, archery, muzzleloader and Dedicated hunters) will be restricted to their Region of choice for all hunts (archery, rifle muzzleloader), except for the Uintah and Wasatch Extended archery hunts which will remain open to all archery tag holders.
-Mandatory check-in of harvested bucks. (This is already done in many states, where sheriffs also aid in documenting harvest counts.)

-The Northern Region:
-Split the Northern Region along I-15, keeping the remaining region boundaries for each unit.
-A study should be done to assess the pressure on both public and private lands.
-There should be 2 types of tags for both Northern Regions: This will allow for a reduction in hunting pressure on public lands herds.
-1 Public lands draw tags which may be used on both public and private lands. (Allowing their use on private lands will take pressure off of public land herds.)
-2 Private lands draw tags which may ONLY be used on privately held lands, not in CWMUs. These tags would not be valid for Public Lands.
-Private lands tags will be nontransferable and may be obtained by anyone. It would be strongly recommended to obtain permission to hunt private lands prior to applying for such tags.
-Both Public and Private Lands tags would be given thru the regular drawing.

Long read, but some thoughts
-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
 
We need to be more like Colorado. We need to draw for sub units to make sure we spread the preasure evenly over the region. It's time we went away from "General Season" and just included every sub unit into the LE draw. This would allow every area of the state to be managed to at least 20+ bucks per hundred post hunt counts.
We also need to teach our DWR how to enforce the law. The ATV thing need a serious look. I can hunt the same area for a month and not see a conservation officer or anyone from the forest service. You don't see that in Colorado or Wyoming.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-07 AT 04:27PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-07 AT 04:24?PM (MST)

Thanks for the comments. Packout, the proposal we are curently working came alot out of what you proposed a while ago. In order for anything to get changed there will have to be alot of support. If the majority of hunters are willing to sacrifice some opportunity- whether it is number of days to hunt or tag restrictions etc., we can and will be able to increase the quality and quantity of deer. The current population objective for Nebo 21A is 22600, the last published count-2005- was 17075. The DCI ( desired habitat index) is rated as "acceptable". According to info. from game manager there is room for growth, most of it would have to occur south of Santaquin. The 3 year ave.for buck/doe ratio is 11 bucks/100 does, current ratio is 12/100. 32% of bucks are 3 point or larger, 2007 estimate for fawns is 58/100 does. there are currently no doe permits except for agriculural land near Levan (75 permits)

What are your thoughts if tags were limited to 1000 for the unit. How should they be alotted? It has been suggested that 45% go to any weapon (rifle)w/ 5 day hunt, 20% to archery w/ 14
day season, muzzleloader 20% w/ 7 day season, Dedicated Hunters would get 15% of tags.
This is just a start, I would like to hear your suggestions. I'm not trying to take opportunity away, but I do believe that quality has an important part in the equation that keeps us hunting and bringing in the youth. I believe that nature intended for big mature deer to be a very important part of the health and vitality of the species. I think Valerius Geist makes that very plain in his writings. Again, thanks for your help. Talk to your hunting friends and lets get something positive accomplished.
 
nebo,

It is great to see someone involved and trying to do something. You are a better man than me.

I still did not hear you say a word about ATV's? Do you see the problem here? They push farther and deeper every year. These worthless machines need to be reigned in...A BUNCH!

Also, opportunity needs to be taken away to get some quick results. It is just how it is. We have been stagnant for years now. I hear a lot about habitat, yet the Wasatch Front along Salt Lake has the best and biggest bucks. So while habitat is important, it has way too much emphasis.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-07 AT 05:11PM (MST)[p]I agree about the ATVs and cutting tags. I don't know what can be done but the last time I bought a general season tag (1999), there were ATVs everywhere chasing 2-points all over the mountain, I guess they were trying to run them to death.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-19-07 AT 02:40PM (MST)[p]I need to clarify one thing- the management unit I'm talking about is 16a. I mistakenly said 21a. Anyway, I had a good meeting and discussion with the regional game manager this morning. It was very informative and helpful. The whole discussion came down to just what are hunters willing to have or not have, to accomplish better quality - i.e. higher buck doe ratios on the Nebo. The big game manager is not supportive of less tag numbers because he wants to be able to hunt with his family every year. I have heard that from others and is a legitimate point. However, I believe that, just like the reality that deer hunting will never be like it was in the 70's, in order to have the quality that seem to be the overwhelming desire of MOST of the hunters I have talked to, we will all have to sacrifice opportunity to be able to hunt our favorite and traditional places.
It seems that in order for this basic proposal to get off the ground we will have to cut at least 1000 tags for the ENTIRE Central Region. It would limit 16A (Nebo) to 1000 tags. It appears that approximately 4000 tag holders hunt the Nebo over the course of the entire hunt, opening day tag holders number by best guess 1500 to 2500.
Personally, I am willing to limit my opportunity to hunt the Nebo every year. The question is, do a majority of hunters feel the same ? The reason for the decrease in overall tags for the Central Region would be--(according to the big game manager) to not cause more pressure on the rest of the Region and theoritically cause a decrease in the buck/doe ratios in other areas because of over harvest by more hunters, the SNOWBALL effect. The question remains the same- Do we want higher quality hunting ( more bucks) when we do have the chance to hunt, or do we stay with the staus quo?
As the hunting in the state continues to evolve I believe that young hunters will be drawn in as much by an opportunity to hunt in quality areas every couple of years as by knowing that they could hunt anytime anywhere they want-- just my opinion. I believe that most young hunters are turned off more by not seeing bucks to hunt than by not being able to hunt their traditional family areas every year. If they don't see bucks, whose fault is it ? Lots of times the DWR is blamed, but it is certainly not always because of management practices. I believe that quality hunting is knowing that mature bucks (4 yrs old+) are available in sufficient numbers that because we know they are there, creates enthusiasm and anticipation and the hunting for them is as rewarding as if we are able to actually harvest one.
So, what do MOST of us want? You need to make your voice heard. One of the earlier posts by Old Tracks had an idea to close areas on a rotation basis- great idea. But, the DWR would never support it as presently directed. There are no easy answers here, but we can all help achieve better quality if we want to.
Also, in regards to ATV use -- almost all of the Nebo north of Nephi canyon is closed to ATV use, south of Nephi to Gunnison it is open. I would like to see a ban on the use of ATV's on the entire unit during hunting seasons before 10:00 am and after 8:00 pm each day. The only exception would be game retrieval after 8:00 pm. I would like to see the ban by the Unitah Nat'l Forest on ATV use to retrieve downed game be lifted. I know there will be those that say it would be hard to enforce but I believe most hunters would help report violations. It wouldn't hurt the forest service folks to get out and help monitor compliance.
Thanks
 
I bet if you got 3/4 of the motor vehicle routes closed on the Nebo unit you would achieve the same or maybe even better mature deer numbers (and therefore achieve increased opportunity for hunters to take mature deer) as you would by the drastic reductions in opportunity you are pushing so hard.

I would much rather have to walk two or three miles into an area and hunt it EVERY YEAR and know there are mature deer around than I would want to be able to drive an ATV into the area and know there are mature deer around the but only be able to hunt it EVERY THIRD YEAR.

Do you believe reducing ATV access is a great solution to the problem you have on this unit? Why have you not commented on the numerous suggestions regarding this issue on this thread yet? Work to keep permit numbers the same but reduce motor vehicle access please.

-RPinenut
 
Pinenut, thanks for the input. North Nebo is already ATV "free". The Forest Service and the BLM are the ones that make the rules whether or not ATV's can be used in a particular area-- not the RAC or DWR. I've tried to respond in a general way to most of the posts. The main idea of the proposal started months ago, and yes, on a personal level I very much like the idea of increasing the quality ( buck numbers) of the hunt. The overwhelming majority of hunters like the idea of restricting in some manner, hunting on the Nebo with the intent of increasing buck numbers. Your points are as legitimate as any an are due consideration in any proposal. If you want ATV use restricted call Doug Jones, the regional forest manager at the Spanish Fork office and voice your concerns and see if you can get some restrictions in place.I am all in favor of appropriate ATV restrictions, especially during hunting seasons. Canada has restrictions on all motor vehicles used for hunting. They have time and place restrictions on their use. I would like to see a combined effort by DWR, FS and BLM to restrict use of ATV's during hunting seasons but allow their use for downed game.
Thanks
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-19-07 AT 06:14PM (MST)[p]Nebo- Sorry I havn't got back to you. I have been out chasing moose. Anyway, I do not agree with making the Nebo a limited entry area, which is what your first post would do. The Nebo is a heavily hunted unit, which WAS successfully restored by the simple 5 day hunt. Another man and I stood at the RAC and got the 5 day hunt passed. It was a success and did increase the buck numbers. In 3 years buck ratios went from 7 per 100 to over 16. Simply reducing the days afield will allow more bucks to survive and hunters to still be able to hunt.

ATV restrictions on lower grounds can be manipulated by you and the RAC process on certain areas. Spencer Fork would benefit GREATLY by eliminating ATV access as well as other DWR lands within the unit. These closures should/could occur on the rifle hunts as that is when they are used by more deer. Just a thought.

Small units, such as Colorado are not always the answer. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico have all gone small and their deer herds are not growing. The Big Game Coordinator has a very good grasp on smaller units. You should talk to him and listen to what he has to say.

I can say that we own a ranch on the Nebo and I have hunted the Nebo my whole life. There are many ways to help the Nebo, but cutting hunter opportunity is not the best solution. In my opinion.

-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
 
Nebo,

I had the opportunity to hunt limited entry ML elk down south this fall. The Central mountains are my back door but I spent 9 yrs waiting to draw this particular unit. One of the reasons I wanted this unit (other than the bull quality) was the absence of roads down every canyon, unlike the central mountains, and the opportunity to get away from motor vehicles and hunt. Now this unit has roads, it isn't ROADLESS, but most of them end at the FS boundery and turn into foot trails. I hiked my feet off everyday of the hunt and didn't run into a single truck/ATV in any of the canyons I hiked into. Especially after hunting this unit I believe that this factor is a big reason for the number and great quality of elk on that mountain. Unrestricted ATV access decreases the number and quality of animals on our mountains!!

I enjoy ATV's in the mountains every year just like most people in this state so I don't want to see my priveledge of riding them go away.... NOR do I want to loose my ability to drive from camp to my hunting area BUT I am definately in favor of regulations that limit the amount of area one can drive an ATV through.

CO mandates that if you are on an ATV your weapons MUST be completely empty of rounds to include the magazine and cased (I can't remember if locked is a requirement). This law or a version of it may be something that the DWR can implement here in Utah.

?Here?s to the hero's that GET-R-Done!!?
 
Thought you would like to know that the DWR is recommending that the entire state be changed to a 9 day hunt. They say that their data shows that there is a higher success ratio on 5 day hunt units than on 9 day hunt units. The Central Region is the only region that currently falls below the objective of 15 bucks/100 does, and they believe it will reach that objective next year.
What do you think ? After your deer hunting this season, is the Central Region good enough ?
 
"What do you think ? After your deer hunting this season, is the Central Region good enough ?"

To answer this question, I say a NO to the point that I can't say NO enough!!!!!!!

I spent Saturday and Monday out in the central region. My experience has been the same for the past 6 years hunting the central region. We pushed hard, hiked far, got away from the roads, went where no one else goes and in the storm and after the storm with hardly and tracks.

We are done hunting deer in Utah outside the limited entry tags. (I have 6 points in limited entry, but I'm sure the system won't grant me a tag for 10 more years.) We are not even going to finish this season out. I saw my first unicorn buck yesterday. I can take a hint. (after 6 years) We will be putting our efforts into other states where mature game can be found.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-23-07 AT 02:59PM (MST)[p]190 muley hunter: Sorry it didn't go better for you. I know there are some success stories out there, but , I'm afraid that unless we can get more voices involved the Central Region will end up status quo. The DWR personel that are making the recomendations for the Central Region think that all is well. They are very content with being close to 15 bucks/100 does. ( its currently at 12/100 does) They are not very much concerned with changing anything.
By the way they are proposing to do away with the Thousand Lakes LE unit for deer and making it a general season hunt. According to the DWR folks it just hasn't been able to get to the 25 bucks / 100 doe level they were trying for. It just doesn't seem to be able to produce well enough.
I'm about to the point of carving out small areas that perhaps we can create very small LE areas for deer. I believe that after a few years they could be producing high numbers of buck/doe ratios and that all of the adjacent area around them would also see an increase in more and larger bucks. I believe that as buck numbers increase and reach a certain saturation point, that it causes an outward migration of bucks to surrounding areas. According to some of the information I have read, larger bucks are territorial to an extent and a high concentration of bucks creates an enviroment that may result in bucks going to adjacent areas to set up their own "range".
Still need to hear from everyone who has an observation to share.
 
American hunter is a vanishing breed

By Oren Dorell
USA TODAY
Tuesday, Oct23, 2007

States worry decline could cripple funding of conservancy programs

States that rely on tens of millions of dollars in hunting license fees annually to pay for environmental conservation are trying to boost a population they had never thought of protecting: the endangered American hunter.

The number of hunters has slid from a peak of 19.1 million in 1975 to 12.5 million last year, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

With that drop has come worries that states won't be able to pay for the rising costs of conservation efforts and acquisition of open space.

States generated $724 million last year through hunting licenses and fees for wildlife management and conservation; taxes on guns and ammunition added another $267 million, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Sportsmen pay the bills, especially east of the Mississippi," says Rob Sexton, vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, a hunters advocacy group in Columbus, Ohio. "A vast majority of the public land where people go for walks, wildlife viewing or mountain biking, the vast majority is bought by sportsmen."

To stem the loss, states have been altering hunting laws to get people into the woods.

Since 2004, 18 states have changed their laws to loosen restrictions on when children can hunt with parents, and to allow novice adult hunters to try hunting without a license, Sexton says. The effort has shown signs of working, Sexton says: The states have seen an additional 35,000 people apply for hunting licenses since 2004.

The decrease in hunters appears to be a result of modern living, says Nicholas Throckmorton, Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman. He says fewer Americans hunt because they are spending more time on work and organized sports for their children. Most Americans now live farther from wildlife areas than in the past, says Throckmorton, whose agency conducts a national survey of Americans' outdoor activities every five years.

Officials are changing state laws because they are "trying to tear down the barrier for recruitment of new hunters," Throckmorton says.

Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Responsive Management, a research firm focusing on outdoor recreation, says the modest increase in the hunter population has been good news. He says the vanishing hunters are "a long-term concern."

"At some point, there's going to be less dollars if current trends continue," Duda says. "Is it a good thing for fewer and fewer people to be funding all wildlife conservation ? protecting national resources enjoyed by 97% of the people?"

Among steps being taken:

?Kentucky allows new hunters to hunt for a year with a legal hunter before taking a hunter-safety course. Since July, 1,159 new permits have been issued.

?Oregon has a Mentored Youth Hunter Program that allows unlicensed children ages 9 to 13 to receive one-on-one hunting experience and training.

?Arizona implemented an online hunter-safety course that can be completed in three hours, instead of the standard 16. Big game, such as deer, are reserved for hunters 10 and up.

Thad Musser, 33, who bought a deer-hunting bow at B&B Archery Pro Shop in Manassas, Va., last week, says changing the hunting age in Virginia, now 12, would not lure more hunters; they'd merely start younger. His 4-year-old nephew wants to hunt now and will still want to in seven years, he says.

Larry Ralph, 16, of Gainesville, Va., who started hunting at 13, says it was the rite of passage ? his father "passed on the 30-30 (rifle) to me" ? that spurred his interest. "I guess the younger the better."

More hunters also help states save money on certain expenditures, such as those linked to damage by foragers that are too plentiful, such as the Canada goose and whitetail deer.

"Rather than paying professional hunters to cull the herd, sportsmen would be happy to pay a fee to do it themselves," Sexton says.

Some say the focus on hunter retention is not the way to go.

"The number of people who hunt has declined in recent decades, and the number of people who enjoy wildlife in other ways, like wildlife watching or bird-watching, continues to expand," says Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. "Efforts to reverse these trends are futile."

Rachel Brittin, spokeswoman for the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, says hunters are a great source of revenue, but they can't do it alone.

U.S. wildlife is threatened by more issues than ever: increasing urbanization, invasive species, climate change and new diseases. States receive $1.5 billion a year but need an additional $1 billion annually to accomplish goals, Brittin says.

Efforts to raise enough elsewhere have failed, says Dave Chadwick of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Lawmakers came up with a plan to buy land with $350 million a year in offshore oil and gas revenue, he says. Environmental groups squawked about taking money from the oil and gas industry, and property rights advocates balked at the land acquisitions, Chadwick says. The effort died in 2000.



"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
Nebo,

I hunted the SE region this year so I don't have any first hand info on the central unit.

I do have a good friend that hunts the central unit exclusively and once again his party had a good year. They killed two bucks that scored over 170 and his boy killed a decent 3 point that would make any teenager happy.

I live in Sanpete so the central is close to me. In the past 3-5 years I have seen some nice bucks killed on the central and usually hear about buck sightings throughout the summer. This year was a very slow year in that regard.

If you were to develop small LE units on the central you might want to look at parts of the Sanpitch mountains. IMO there is a lot of country on that mountain that would grow big deer if the pressure was reduced. The only hang-up would be problems caused by all the private property


?Here?s to the hero's that Get-R-Done!!?
 
If anything is going to get changed or modified for deer hunting in the Central Region I need to have you show up at the RAC meeting in November. It will all depend on what the hunting public wants. The DWR folks are pretty much satisfied with the current situation. Do you want more bucks, bigger bucks---? It can be accomplished if we can get enough voices.
 
I'll be there at the RAC meeting Nebo. Can you tell us for sure what the date, time and place will be?

I appreciate your efforts. I think we'll get there, it's just going to take some time and effort. I'm glad that you're willing to stand up and work for all of us to help make these changes happen.

NvrEnuf
 
I would love to see the entire region set up in different sub-units limiting the amount of hunters in a certain area thus limiting pressure on the deer herds allowing for hopefully better quality and numbers. The other thing I would REALLY like to see happen is to stop opening up roads to areas that are normally closed all year long... if the road has been closed for the entire year but then re-opened for the rifle hunt the defeats the purpose of the road closures... I believe that would increase the numbers because it would keep hunter numbers down because of tougher access... I can't tell you how dissapointing it was to scout an area where I knew the roads were closed only to see dozens of cars driving up them on the opening morning.. ruined the area
 
I haven't really said much on this situtation, but i have hunted the nebo unit for probably the last ten years and have gotten to know the unit very well i would think, and there are still some great bucks and genetics found in the region. i think that there is still some ok winter range found in the south, and south eastern parts of this unit. I agree that there are too many atv problems in this region though. I have seen motorcycles 3/4 of the way up horse trails, and up trails that are supposed to be closed during the hunts. So i do think that could be monitored better, but i understand that our F&G is so far understaffed that part of the year it happens. There are too many people hunting in this unit, i think that with a tag reduction i would be willing to instead of hunting there every year, or other year, i would be willing to only go hunting there every 3-5 years for the opportunity at seeing more mature bucks on this unit.

What Date is the meeting on? and where?? And does it really make a difference for hunters to show up and express our concerns or have the decisions already been made but the uppers in the f&g concerning the buck numbers and what they are going to do for the future of our mule deer?
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-07 AT 02:04PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-07 AT 01:59?PM (MST)

Central RAC meetinmg wiil take place---

NOVEMBER 13, 6:30 PM
SPRINGVILLE JR HIGH SCHOOL
165 SO. 700 EAST
SPRINGVILLE UTAH

Because of most of the comments made to me here, by e-mail and hunters have I talked to in their camps this year both the elk and deer management mangement plan need to be changed particulary on the Nebo.

Keeping roads normally closed during the year need to closed during the hunt also.

What do you think about the idea of restricting the Nebo (16A) to a certain number of permits ? Perhaps 1000 ? Or what about carving out an area starting at Santaquin Canyon road and I-15, south to Nephi, east on Nephi Canyon road to Nebo Loop road, northerly on this road to Santaquin Canyon road northwesterly down this road to I-15 ( point of beginning). Limit this area to 50 rifle tags, 50 archery tags, 50 muzzleloader tags. Dedicated hunters who draw out would count as 1 tagholder in each hunt. That would remain in place until the sub-unit reaches 20 bucks /100 does, then the tag numbers would be increased to 70/70/70.
These are just suggested numbers to use as a starting point. I would like apply this type of scenario to the whole management unit (16A) but I'm afraid that some DWR mangers would fight it big time. Their arguments against would be legitimate in a biological framework, but this scenario would fall within ( in my thinking ) of a continued healthy resource management perspective that would not be in any way, detrimental to the health of the herds. What this would really do is require the hunting public to sacrifice some opportunity. I do believe that the areas around this would see an increase in bucks and does over several years because of the outward migration once the sub unit is populated with extra bucks.

I know this type of proposal is a bold step for this area, primarily because of its location in regards to the populated Wasatch Front. However, if the DWR proposal to change the Plateau-Thousand Lakes LE unit to general season hunting is approved, maybe creating a liberal LE unit on the Nebo could be beneficial to us. This may be limiting opportunity on Nebo, but opening up the Thousand Lakes to general season would more than make up for any loss of opportunity for hunting on a state wide basis.

Let me know your thoughts regarding this.
The DWR has the responsibility to make sure the herds are healthy and biologically sound.
We--as hunters and tag purchasers-- have the right and responsibility to help create the type of "quality" we want that can remain within the boundaries of biologically appropriate herd sizes.
Thanks!
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
715
nfh
nfh
M
JCR, statistics, counts, objectives and harvest reports
Replies
33
Views
2k
mightyhunter
M
Robiland
Very good podcast.
2
Replies
135
Views
3k
Vanilla
Vanilla

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Big Buck
IMG_20240415_132756.jpg
IMG_5100 copy.jpg
7397A04F-2B93-47EB-AFD9-EE9AA3FB7260.jpeg
A8009010-6EBB-4D26-B5F6-1FE2B0F31AAB.jpeg
424F57D3-332A-4B69-A1A9-140563393B55.jpeg
IMG_20191010_163839_612.jpg
20211115_140752.jpg
Resized_20211120_083144.jpeg
Nice Buck
leroy group elk.jpg
ABD086C5-4D34-41F7-AAEA-12E28C546772.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom