LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-09 AT 09:47AM (MST)[p]In prior years they had the LE and general points separate because there was enough supply for the demand, GENERALLY speaking, to where it was working. This was important to the Utah residents because of the hunting tradition that is woven into a large percentage of Utah families.
It seems to me that is why they have done a separate general point system. They were trying to appeal to that demographic, which was large. Now, that demographic is getting upset again because the demand is starting to outnumber the supply by an ever increasing amount. Why, you ask? Well, it's not NECESSARILY because the DWR has done such a good job in management. It could be but it could not be. That would be poor deductive reasoning. An absolute reason is because the human population is growing at a faster rate than the supply (deer) and thus the problem.
So, it may be time to adapt because the human/animal relationship has evolved. Combining the general and LE draws together MAY be a solution, although not the only solution. It probably deserves some looking in to, because one thing for sure is the situation HAS to get worse because ALL signs point to the human population continuing to grow at a faster rate than the deer.
Another solution that was mentioned is worth looking into, that being dividing the management areas into smaller units. I don't know the DWR's official reason as to why they are as large as they are now. Has anyone heard a representative speak on this? I always suspected that it had more to do with the Utah family hunting tradition demographic as well. They wanted to instill as little restriction as possible when "regions" were first instituted because of the human nature of resisting change. Before families had no restriction on permits and no restrictions on areas to hunt. Then they had a long season so they could go hunt with this part of the family here, then this part of the family there, etc. This was an awesome thing. My family is from Southern Utah so I grew up in that environment and am forever grateful for it because it gave me the passion I have today. However, from a scientific perspective, managing a smaller area can be more accurate and controlled because you can more easily manage the effects the areas' variables can have on the animals (ie control hunting pressures, predator effects, moisture/feed conditions, human infringement (development), etc. This CAN, if run competently and accurately improve not only huntable numbers but quality as well. This potentially requires more money to manage this way also so it is a complex problem but one that can be solved!
Unfortunately things, environments, habitats, socio-economical dynamics EVOLVE. This is why it is imperative that our state wildlife departments are proactive and evolve also. However being proactive is not enough. They need to be properly informed, have qualified persons to interpret that ACCURATE information, and then the integrity to make decisions that are best for both the Wildlife and the majority opinion of people it serves, not at the detriment of the wildlife. No state department is perfect and it is a work in progress but we should hold them accountable, I see nothing wrong with that. We no longer can just take for granted or assume that the people in charge at the top are acting in the best interests of the wildlife and/or the majority opinion of the people. The recent events in our world are proving that more and more each day!
P.S. Daxter, I like your active, creative thinking too! We need more of that at the top where it can make a difference!
