Tony,
I have had some time to look over your ideas and listen to your show and try to digest it all. I like what you've come up with better than SFW?s ideas?it is far less complicated. I don't believe that the state?s deer herds are as poorly managed as some seem to think. We have shown some pretty consistent growth after getting through the drought conditions that plagued us for so long. I have seen exceptional progress in the areas I hunt. I also believe we have to get the notion out of our head that we should be seeing a dozen 4 points a day during the hunt...it's a hunt after all. I think perhaps we have become a little jaded by the elk we see. After taking some time to think and gather my thoughts here they are:
1. I agree?every effort should be made to avoid cutting tags. If it must be done then it must be done, but only as a last resort.
2. As much as I dislike the idea of micromanaging the state from the perspective that it may hurt our current hunting tradition I believe that the advantages of doing so are worth the risk. The state is currently divided into 30 management units (more with subunits). It would not be a stretch to use these for hunting purposes as well. While I recognize that this is a hunter management tool and not a deer management tool I think it has merit (consider that almost all other western states do this). Simply put, the state can control who hunts when and where more easily and definitively this way.
Unit number & names
1 = Box Elder
2a = Cache, North Cache
2b = Cache, South Cache
3 = Ogden
4 = Morgan Rich
5 = East Canyon
6 = Chalk Creek
7 = Kamas
8a = North Slope, Summit
8b = North Slope, West Daggett
8c = North Slope, Three Corners
9a = South Slope, Yellowstone
9b = South Slope, Vernal
9c = South Slope, Diamond Mountain
9d = South Slope, Bonanza
10a = Book Cliffs, Bitter Creek
10b = Book Cliffs, Little Creek
10c = Book Cliffs, South
11a = Nine Mile, Anthro
11b = Nine Mile, Range Creek
12 = San Rafael
13a = La Sal, La Sal Mountains
13b = La Sal, Dolores Triangle
14a = San Juan, Abajo Mountains
14b = San Juan, Elk Ridge
15 = Henry Mountains 16a = Central Mountains, Nebo
16b, 16c = Central Mountains, Manti
17a-1 = Wasatch Mountains, Salt Lake
17a-2 = Wasatch Mountains, Heber
17a-3 = Wasatch Mountains, Timpanogos
17a-4 = Wasatch Mountains, Diamond Fork
17b, 17c = Wasatch Mtns, Currant Creek-Avintaquin
18a = Oquirrh-Stansbury, North
18b = Oquirrh-Stansbury, South
19a = West Desert, Deep Creeks
19b = West Desert, Vernon
19c = West Desert, North Tintic
20 = Southwest Desert
21a = Fillmore, Oak Creek
21b = Fillmore, Pahvant
22 = Beaver
23 = Monroe
24 = Mt. Dutton
25a = Plateau, Fishlake
25b = Plateau, Thousand Lakes
25c = Plateau, Boulder
26 = Kaiparowits
27 = Paunsaugunt
28 = Panguitch Lake
29 = Zion
30 = Pine Valley
3. Eliminate general season vs. limited entry permits; all deer permits would be lumped together in one draw (including CWMU?s). The state is already entirely limited entry based on tag quotas. My reasons for this will become clearer later on. A side effect of this would be the elimination of statewide archery. As a compromise change the permit percentages from 65% rifle 20% archery 15% muzzleloader to 50% rifle, 30% archery, and 20% muzzleloader. FYI, I am a rifle hunter. Subunits could also be combined into larger units for archery and the Wasatch front should continue to be available to all archers.
4. Predator control as needed. If fawn recruitment for an area is below acceptable levels then more predator control would make sense. My comments will be strictly related to deer. Elk management is an entirely different issue and would need to be dealt with separately.
5. Manage the large majority of the subunits for buck to doe ratios of 15:100 while managing a handful of units (current premium and LE units) for higher ratios with better trophy opportunities in mind.
6. I will address this in response to #9.
7. I have no problem setting aside tags for youth (under 18).
8. Create multiple rifle seasons for deer. A few areas like the Book Cliffs, Little Creek unit might make sense for an early rifle season as well because most of the deer migrate out prior to the current deer season. Again this is a hunter management tool, but will help to spread hunters out a little more.
9. Move to 100% preference point system with no points awarded to individuals who draw a tag regardless of what choice they draw. This will require some explanation. My belief is this?we do not currently require trophy hunters to be trophy hunters or opportunist to be opportunists. I believe SFW tried to address this in their proposal. I can currently apply for both the Henries deer tag (arguably the best mule deer tag in the world) and any general season tag in the state. I am not required to make a difficult and perhaps painful decision about what kind of hunter I am. With this change either I am committed to trophy hunting or opportunity, but not both. Maybe I can find a compromise unit somewhere in the middle, but I can't have my cake and eat it too. I believe this change would lower the number of applicants for both general and LE hunts.
10. All tags would be priced the same since there would no longer be an LE draw and a general draw.
11. No comment?Elk.
12. This is a tough issue?I have no solution under the current system.
13. No comment?Elk.
14. Yes for mandatory reporting, but I would leave tooth data as a random requirement due to cost.
15. I would make it a $5 habitat stamp with all proceeds directed toward habitat improvement for mule deer. The state could organize some coyote shoots and perhaps even make a little money in the process.
Just some thoughts.
