Wildlife board decision won?t help deer herds

T

TheElitehornhunter

Guest
LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-10 AT 10:05PM (MST)[p]http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/50872971-117/deer-wildlife-board-mule.html.csp#

This is a good read and it explains a lot.
 
>blah,blah,blah.

Sorry, Brutus, I forgot, it's above your reading level.
 
hoytme,
Well that seemed like a doom and gloom article to me. I don't think we should give up and just expect the herd to never rebound. Do you? I think I have already made this point to you on another forum but I say it again.

If nothing else comes out of Option 2 at least there are more sportsmen screaming now. If cutting 13,000 tags can rally the troops to get involved and show some passion that in it's self is a step in the right direction! More hunters are paying attention now and coming to the table with more ideas. Those ideas can be more easily implemented on the new 29 unit system.

If option 1 or 3 or status quo would have passed, how much involvement would there be. How many new ideas would have come out to ensure everybody gets a tag? I'll bet not much. I'll bet alot of average sportsmen would have said, wow that was close and gone back to whatever they were doing before. Which was nothing to benifit deer for the most part! Now you have guys on both sides of the issue trying to make this thing better and work!

If option 2 would have failed, how many guys do you have looking at a group like the one you are trying to put together? A group that I might not agree with on every aspect, but a group that is concerned about wildlife none the less. I am sure good ideas will come out of that group and from this site and others. Ideas that may have never been expressed if we stuck to the status quo.

Some say that the Mule Deer Committee was do things to help. Well I am sure they are, those ideas can still be used in a 29 unit system. How many hunters even knew there was a Mule Deer Committee before Option 2 was presented? How many would have know ever know or cared? MANY sportsmen out there would have never said a thing until the herd WAS A LOST CAUSE. Look at the pheasant hunting in Utah as an example! I feel the outcome can be positive if we utilize Option 2 and all of the GOOD that has come out of it, instead of focusing on the negative!

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
1st of all the reason weve lost pheasant hunters is cause theres no pheasants. Is that what you want for mule deer. Key phrase is, if habitat is not a limiting factor predator control will build the deer herd. Then the DWR director pretty much says we are not ever getting numbers back. Thats not who I want in charge of Utahs deer herd! Did anyone listen to the actuall wildlife board meeting when the board made it a point to key in on predator issues and highway mortality and also continue with habitat projects. I still didnt hear wear managing deer in smaller units is going to hurt mule deer herds. Its like the umteenth different article from up north thats sighting someone's opinion on the matter and some take it as gospel. Remember opt #1 or #3 didnt do anything for deer numbers either. Bottom line if we cant come up with some way to signifgantly bring down coyote numbers we wont be able to use any of the habitat acres that people have spent millions on.

Man ELITE how old are you? serious
 
Brutus my friend seriously!! seem's you can dish the ##### out but can't take it back!! This is just not about the 29 units passing through the board. OH and by the way I didn't just listen to the wildlife board meeting I was there. By the way I still didn't hear were 29 units and cutting out 13'000 tags was going to help our herds without alot of other very important key factors being implemented into the plan. Who do you want in charge of utah's deer herd's SFW ? This is about the umteenth time time Ive heard you spouting off about someones opinion from up NORTH isn't it are we all note in tittled to an opinion? Remember option 2 will do nothing if it is not implemented correctly. Bottom line if we can't come up with something to promote the overall growth of our deer herds we won't be able to use any of the habitat acres that people have spent millions on. Nor will the vast majority be able to hunt anymore.

Brutus hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Nothing new. Just another article rehashing the same reasons
for the decline of deer in the West.
However, the true purpose of this article is to unite and lead
the opposition in rejecting the UDWR proposed cuts in deer tags
and the brake up of the 5 general deer regions. This is IMO the
crux of this debate and how sportsmen in Utah stand to gain or
not.

ELDORADO
 
The huge population of deer in the West back in the 50's 60's and early 70's were because of the use of 1080 poison by ranchers, farmers, gov't trappers for predator control. All you have to do is look at the graphs and numbers and see the decline. Obviously, habitat has been lost in some areas, but in areas that it isn't a big factor the deer population is still declining. The reason is obvious.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-10 AT 10:27AM (MST)[p]Grazing ( loss of browse more grass ) Access ( how many ATV's did we have back in the 70's ) Habitat ( when I was a kid there wasn't squat west of Redwood Road in the 90th south area ) Elk ( enough said there right CAT ) and yep predators play a role.

Add all of the above things which we CAN CONTROL in with Drought and Severe Winters which we can't control and the answer is????


CUT BUCK HUNTER NUMBERS!!!





2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
What really sucks is even if the herd recovers to 400,000 deer or more the tags that are being cut will never come back. People will keep giving up on hunting as they are now. I have quite a few friends that I have hunted with that won't hunt anymore.

Even after the facts are even more obvious that cutting hunters out does not benefit the herd the way its perceived to.

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
It's a good thing No Ut is going back to a nine day hunt that three day hunt was a blast. (sarcasm) When is the DWR going to make a decision and STICK with it for more than a year or two?
 
The DWR will make a decision and stick with it when there is a competent Wildlife Board and a lobbyist stops threatening them with budget cuts if they don't do what he says.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
+100 fishon, its about time everyone quits blaming the DWR because they are not the ones calling the shots.
 
>+100 fishon, its about time everyone
>quits blaming the DWR because
>they are not the ones
>calling the shots.

A-FREAKING-MEN!
 
Cody,
I don't see the article as 'doom and gloom', but rather some honesty and reality. We will NEVER see deer numbers like we had in the late 50's to mid 70's. The habitat won't allow it, far too many highways, fractured habitat from development, year round human activity, browse/grasses that are not deer friendly, elk for that to be anything more than a pipe dream. I also don't know who you are talking about in regards to "give up". We should do all we can to increase carrying capacity, but we have to be realistic at the same time.

Justifying what was passed because it will get more sportsmen involved is akin to celebrating Obama being president because it has woken people up. The end does NOT justify the means, IMHO.

Comparing the demise of pheasants with the deer herd is comparing peanuts to pumpkins. For starters, pheasants aren't even native to this part of the world.

The two biggest complaints I have with what was passed is:
1)The lost hunters, both existing and future hunter numbers have been dealt a serious blow if this goes through. Once we lose these hunters we likely will never get them back, and we NEED as many hunters as we can get. Intentionally pushing people away from hunting is both near-sighted and foolish. We MUST get better at recruiting new hunters and better at retaining existing hunters, what happened does the exact opposite.
2)How this became policy is deeply troubling to me and THOUSANDS of other Utah hunters. When special interest groups, in this case ONE group, usurp the will of the majority and ignore science and past results, we are in deep trouble. When the Wildlife Board has their decision already printed BEFORE the public has been given the chance to voice their views, we have problems. When the Board IGNORES the very deer management plan they themselves passed less than two years prior, and has a member of said Board state he/they can do whatever they want, we have serious problems. When the PRESIDENT of the ONLY special interest group supporting what was passed walks up and hands over a check for $391,000.00 and then tries to justify it by saying he had a plane to catch, even though there were several members of his group present than could have handed the check over when it was appropriate like during the part of the meeting where conservation permits were discussed instead of during the discussion of mule deer management, we have at the very least the appearance of votes being bought.
 
>+100 fishon,it's about time everyone
>quits blaming the DWR because
>they are not the ones
>calling the shots.
 
I'm sick of the doom and gloom statements such as "13,000 Lost Hunters".

The decision equates to lost hunter opportunity, and frankly we are losing a poor quality opportunity. Hopefully the changes better the quality of our hunts.

Keep in mind some units will be easier to draw. It will take a few years to determine any real changes to increased quality,tag availabilty, and lost hunters.

We will need to check the # of applications to determine if we have lost hunters.
 
RE: Wildlife board decision won�t help deer herds

who says tthose 13000 tags wont come back? where is it written in stone? i think a lot of people are willing to go a year or two without hunting if the deer herds improve.

i dont get what you guys want? you wanna leave things the way they are? why? because you want to hunt , you dont care about the deer herds
 
RE: Wildlife board decision won�t help deer herds

Are their still pheasants in Utah? I have'nt seen a pheasant in 2 years or more!!
 
Ox,
some of us can find mature bucks on a yearly basis in a general unit. Is it easy ? hell no its not! Its a year round process, scouting, shooting , staying in shape, etc. The general season hunt is what i live for every year because I know I will find a good buck somewhere. (somewhere doesn't mean sitting on my 4 wheeler or in my truck for you otion #2 supporters) So for you guys that are not willin to do what it takes to get it done on a reagular basis to take my opportunity away for no other reason than make finding a descent buck EASIER! Hell ya I'm pissed! And I don't think I'm the only one.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-10 AT 02:48PM (MST)[p]How elitist is that?, he hunts super hard on a year round basis to find a good buck, and thats the way its supposed to be?. Beat the mature buck population down so low that it takes an elite hunter to find one, and then say thats the way it should be. Amazing how things have gone down hill over the years, to heck with the young people, or those with limited time and money, to heck with the deer herds, and how many mature bucks that are alive. And they say those that want a healthy, more balanced deer herd are elitist?. I think Cache tells the true story behind all this twisted retoric. at least he is honest
 
+1 Fishon. People need to realize that the DWR calls NONE of the shots for our wildlife...it's all the politically motivated wildlife board...what a joke.

copple2
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-10 AT 03:43PM (MST)[p]



>Ox,
> some of us can find
>mature bucks on a yearly
>basis in a general unit.
>Is it easy ? hell
>no its not! Its a
>year round process, scouting, shooting
>, staying in shape, etc.
>The general season hunt is
>what i live for every
>year because I know I
>will find a good buck
>somewhere. (somewhere doesn't mean sitting
>on my 4 wheeler or
>in my truck for you
>otion #2 supporters) So for
>you guys that are not
>willin to do what it
>takes to get it done
>on a reagular basis to
>take my opportunity away for
>no other reason than make
>finding a descent buck EASIER!
>Hell ya I'm pissed! And
>I don't think I'm the
>only one.

first off i dont road hunt!! and i dont hunt off four wheelers!!, i hike and i hike, i glass and i glass. i spend every spare second that i can lookig for deer, i spend every dime i can looking for deer which is not much currently due to the economy ..but i still get out when i can, as a result i find great bucks every year on the hunts too. but it seems the last few years its getting less and less and harder and harder. should it be easy ? no i dont think it should, but i think the herds numbers are struggling and something needs doing. i muffed a few opportunities on some great bucks this year.so not killing one was my fault completley this year..so finding the bucks is not the problem for me, im saying in general it seems deer numbers are down. im not talking buck quality im talking bucks in general and all around deer numbers. if it continues like this its gonna get worse and worse.
i think you guys are blowing this out of proportion. your making it seem like its the le elk hunt. no one says its gonna b 13000 tags forever gone, they will and can come back. you CANT just turn your head to the problem because your finding good bucks every year, it wont last forever.
 
It is easy to say that Option 2 guys are lazy and only care about inches. It amazes me that people really believe the herd is in good shape!

I spend a ton of time on the mnt. In fact I spend more time on parts of the CACHE then anybody I know. I also spend alot of time down south. They are both hurting for deer. Does that mean I don't see big bucks every year? Nope I seem to do ok every year. But the big picture is the numbers are in trouble. Setting out some years does not piss me off it makes me SAD that we have let it get to this point. It makes me sad that kids may miss years because we have let it slide to this point. IT MAKES ME SAD THAT SOME SPORTSMEN WOULD HUNT OUR DEER INTO THE GROUND, RATHER THAN RUN THE RISK OF NOT HUNTING EVERY YEAR.

Here is a thought, over 70% of hunters that draw a tag this year should also draw a tag in 2012? That is unless we have an increase in applications. That would mean we are gaining hunters not losing them, right? You don't have to have a deer tag in your pocket to be a hunter, right? If 13,000 tags are cut and the current numbers of hunters maintains, everybody should still get a tag at least every 6 or 7 years out of 10.

Now please tell me what is more tragic, sticking to the status qou and dwindle our herds because hunters can still hike in and find bucks or possibly setting out a year every few years. Now if the odds get worse then that would tell me more hunters are applying for tags. That would mean that we are gaining hunters, not losing them? If thats the case years may have been missed in the region system?

Well I'm sure that some believe 13,000 is just the start of the cuts. I personally do not. I believe if we come together and apply some of the ideas that are coming up now with the 29 units system we can prevent more lost oppurtunity.

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
"Here is a thought, over 70% of hunters that draw a tag this year should also draw a tag in 2012? That is unless we have an increase in applications. That would mean we are gaining hunters not losing them, right? You don't have to have a deer tag in your pocket to be a hunter, right? If 13,000 tags are cut and the current numbers of hunters maintains, everybody should still get a tag at least every 6 or 7 years out of 10."

How do you expect people to stay interested in hunting if they only draw a tag every 6 or 7 years?
 
Elite,
Please reread my post, then please reread your post. Then let me know if it still makes sense? I think you might have misread it and thus made a puzzling comment?

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
>Elite,
>Please reread my post, then please
>reread your post. Then
>let me know if it
>still makes sense? I
>think you might have misread
>it and thus made a
>puzzling comment?
>
>Step 1 is always the hardest!
>

I guess I caught a little of Brutus's syndrome.
 
In the north the #1 deciding factor on how our herd carries from year to year is altimatley how many of our fawns make it through their first year. I do believe we have a coyote problem but mother nature without a doubt is #1! How much snow are we going to get? how long will it last, and how cold is it going to be through those critical few months.
I cant comprehend the mind set of thinking that every buck in the whole damn county could be killed if someone wanted to kill them. I dont know where you guys are hunting but the mature deer that live in my neck of the woods are well earned trophys regardless of what they score. They have plenty of dark timber to escape even the most savy hunter.It is the chalenge that gets my goat.I have no problem harvesting mature deer for the shear fact that i usually look over many up and coming bucks before finally deciding to take one. I would be willing to make you otion #2 fans a wager. The wager would be this. Take the winter of 2007 and hit us with it two years in a row.Now lets say some people got their way and the general season was shut completly down for those two years. Absolutly zero bucks were shot with any weapons. Then looked at the number of bucks left after no hunting and two horrible winters back to back.I WOULD BET THE FARM THAT THERE WOULD BE LESS BUCKS THAN WHAT YOU STARTED WITH! Buck only hunting has little to no effect on the health of the herd. Dont tell me that i and others like me would shoot mule into exstintion is crazy. By the way if there was ever any talk about option #2 benifiting the overall health of the heard I wouldn't be typing this right now. Killing bucks is so far down on the list of things needed to help our deer. Untill you guys stop believing everything the SFW says we will have a never ending battle on threads like this!.
By the way I'm very suprised how many of you enable your persoanl information on this site yet never have enough to say. Man Up! post your info or give it up!
 
elite where are you geting every 6 or 7 years! sounds like your making some pretty huge assumptions! very few states that have micro managment have that long of waiting periods for general season tags. you can get tags in nm colo wy montana much more often than every 6-7 years! that is a far fetched statement to say 6-7 years for 13000 tag cuts. evesn as non residents many units in new mex colo you can draw every couple years and odds are even better for residents in many units.
i think you guys are blowing eveything out of proportion. you guys act like these tags wont come back. i can guarantee the dwr will want there money and want to get tags back asap so when the herds improve so will tag numbers.

there are many many hunts people can do if they dont get a deer tag. there is always the spike elk ,open bull, bird hunting ,turkeys varmints etc.
 
>elite where are you geting every
>6 or 7 years! sounds
>like your making some pretty
>huge assumptions! very few states
>that have micro managment have
>that long of waiting periods
>for general season tags. you
>can get tags in nm
>colo wy montana much more
>often than every 6-7
>years! that is a
>far fetched statement to say
>6-7 years for 13000 tag
>cuts. evesn as non residents
>many units in new mex
>colo you can draw every
>couple years and odds are
>even better for residents in
>many units.
>i think you guys are blowing
>eveything out of proportion. you
>guys act like these tags
>wont come back. i can
>guarantee the dwr will want
>there money and want to
>get tags back asap so
>when the herds improve so
>will tag numbers.
>
>there are many many hunts people
>can do if they dont
>get a deer tag. there
>is always the spike elk
>,open bull, bird hunting ,turkeys
>varmints etc.

I never said it would take 6-7 years to draw a tag. I thought that is what Muley_73 was trying to say. People don't draw the southern Unit every year and with fewer tags then it will increasing the amount of time to draw a Southern tag
 
cache what is your solution? your whining about people trying to help the herd yet you give no ideas of your own.
sounds like you want to leave everything alone and do nothing. i agree one of the biggest factors is mother nature. but there are things we can do to help. but all assumptions a aside what do you suggest we do?
 
I also believe that with Option 2 then the success rate will stay the same, and we will kill as many bucks with fewer hunters because with fewer hunters in the field then hunters are usually more successful.
 
Cache,
I agree 100% that the biggest factor on the Cache is the weather. It is one of the reasons I support Option 2. Other units that I spend alot of time on are not as effected by the weather. This is why I believe that each unit being managed completely will help the deer in each unit. Focus can be put on what hurts the deer on that unit.

Each unit is unique in the entire state. This is why statewide or region wide hunting is not the best solution for our deer herds any longer.

I sure hope you were not refering to me on taking ownership of comments. If you are then I guess you really are new to this site or don't pay much attention>

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Clarification

Regardless how many permits are cut, there will be NO INCREASE of permits on a unit until that unit passes 25 bucks per 100 doe's.

That is the plan that was passed with option 2 and that is not me making it up. Units will be managed for a MINIMUM of 18 bucks per 100 doe's and not increase more tags unless a unit goes ABOVE 25 bucks per 100 doe's.

So any tag cut will never be returned under the current management plan of option 2.

I asked and got that clarified at the Wildlife Board meeting. Go ahead and check the minutes.

Now you might understand why I am against ALL tag cuts.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Tony
This is very true what you say about the tag cut's I was at the wildlife board meeting and heard this first hand my self.
 
Here is the deal everyone everyone agree's we need to do something to build up our deer herd a bit right?
So we get three options thrown at us to choose from which in turn it is clearly stated time and time again do nothing to grow more deer its no more than a social issue on how to hunt deer in Utah.

So on Dec 2, option 2 gets passed threw the wildlife board with a tag cut of 13,000 ?

29 units with (flexibility) 13,ooo tag cuts with an objective of 18 bucks per 100 does in each unit and the question is asked will any of 13,ooo tags ever be reinstated and it is said only if or when a unit reach's 25 or more bucks per 100 does.

Option 2 does not go into affect until 2012. My question is this were and the hell do they come up with the 13,000 tag cuts on Dec 2 2010 when we are no were close to being to an accurate 2011 post season count.

Now for my other question ? How the hell are they even going to come close to accurate tag numbers allocated through the 29 units When in fact there only gathering field data and head counts off of approximately 7 or so of the units now. And when asked at the wildlife board meeting how they count deer it is said we don't we estimate numbers from harvest data. Ok there is no mandatory harvest data required by general season deer hunters in Utah how could this be remotely accurate?

Onto the next issue it was said that we are currently at about carrying capacity with our deer herd. Which I don't believe to be so in alot of units. So honestly please tell me how cutting out 13,000 hunters and raising the buck to doe ratio from around 15 to 18 bucks per 100 does is going to promote the overall growth of our deer herd. The answer is it don't do a thing to promote the growth of are overall herd numbers. When in fact all it dose is manage hunters.

Will tag cuts promote the overall growth of our future deer herd I ask ? This is my opinion no it dose not it tells me that by raising objective buck to doe ratio's from around 15 to 18 or so bucks per 100 does. That it will create in fact no more deer however it will create a blindfold so fewer hunters will see more bucks afield while hunting. When in reality the overall heard size will not grow. OPPORTUNITY WILL NOT GROW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also when you want to grow a trophy class unit what are a few obvious steps that you would take? I would say first off cut tags. Second I would say limit area to hunt wright. Then I would say raise buck to doe ratios. Then of course limit weapon of choice. Then comes along season date's oh what don't forget available days afield to hunt. If that don't work more tag cuts. Is there anything wrong with that? No there is not in a few units to create 100% success of a quality 170+ inch buck for those who so desire. But to do this to the entire state and take away everyone else's opportunity this is a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then you gotta think how will they make up all the lost revenue from tag cuts which in fact will cause lost federal funding to. So you got to figure increase the cost of a permit that don't cut it. Wait let me guess more conservation tags right no one will notice. wait I forgot they need more CO officers to patrol all those boundary's right and to make sure all those big bucks don't get poached I'll bet I know more conservation tags that will create more revenue right. Oh darn forgot to figure in more biologist to help count those 29 units right. You now the guys that we pay to do this but can't cause there hands are tied behind there backs so they don't piss the wrong politically influencing groups off and loose there job.


( JUST SAYIN THINK ABOUT IT SERIOUSLY WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS KIND OF BS!! WILL FIX OUR DEER HERDS!!!!
 
fishon, The DWR said it would never reinstate tags ever? BS!!!
There are units out there that are only 2-4 bucks/ 100 does shy of 25/100 and the way the DWR counts they could make that number up in one year easy.

sidehill, you pretty much just laid out why option 2 wont make a difference unless the other issues affecting mule deer are addressed. In the board meeting Anis did say that 29 units will help in more accurate hunt surveys and collecting data did he not?

You nailed it when you said they are'nt currently classifying deer on all 29 units. This should force them to do so right. No one is saying that 13000 less tags and smaller units alone is the fix but I and many more think that its better than keeping the status quo.

No matter what side of the fence your on everyone wants the issues facing mule deer to be addressed and mule deer numbers to increase. The DWR should have been consentrating on this all along and they havent been. No matter opt 1,2,3,4,5 they should be doing more for predator/coyote control to promote lower fawn mortality rates. It doesnt to me matter how much money and DH hours the DWR has at their disclosure cause they havent proven they can put it where it needs to go.

29 units wont do it alone no one ever said it would.
 
Why would the different options require different tag cuts?

I feel the options were proposed by the DWR in such a way to sway opinions/decisions.
They were banking on hunters/board members being afraid of the higher tag cuts. Options 1 and 3 would require less work for the DWR.

The last time I checked all 3 options had the same amount of huntable area. So again why the different tag cuts?

Option 2 is the best scenario for more than 1 reason, however it is not the complete answer to the problems at hand. Other strategies must be implemented to address the whole picture.

29 seperately managed units is definitely a start.
 
Brutus
Fishon is not sayin that the DWR will never reinstate tags again!
I believe however he is saying the obvious that given there management strategy of 18 bucks per 100 does and trying to manage that to 25or more bucks per 100 does on a general season unit it will be a cold day in hell before they ever legitimately reinstate tags back into the public pool think about it!

Brutus you are correct Anis did say 29 units will help in more accurate hunt surveys and collecting data. So Brutus tell me this without mandatory harvest data on all deer tags in the state starting for 2011. Without more biological actual field data being gathered from 2010 and 2011. Without more actual head counts being done throughout all the 29 units both pre and post season. Without the actual resources necessary to do this and also the loss in revenue which in part is actually needed to get the right resources what is going to change?

I am sorry but I do not buy this. I'm not for closing my eye's either as to our dwindling herds or our messed up system in which is used to create this sort of mess.

I feel that the DWR hands have been tied for quit some time now it seems to me that ultimate major decisions affecting our deer herds should be made by the biologist we pay. Not by the wildlife board that is so politically influenced by others for there own personal agendas.

I think given a fair shake the DWR could get the job done without all the other influence's.

Also I think that option 2 gives way to much power to special intrust groups!

What I am trying to say is if we are going to fix our deer herds we need to look at the whole pie not just small piece's. Look were all the great changes of 1994 got us today without the proper decision's being made!
 
"any tag cut will never be returned under the current management plan of option 2" that says what it says.
 
YOu will see no tag increase until a unit goes above 25 bucks per 100 doe's. That is what I said. Don't take things out of context.

Go get the minutes of the board meeting Brutus and hear the question I asked the DWR and the answer I got.

ANd where are all these mysterious units with nearly 25 bucks per 100 doe's?

By the sound of most of you on here there is not a unit anywhere close to that number unless it is the pauns, Henry's, Books or Vernon.

And Brutus, do you really believe you Southern Boys and the SFW will not fight to the death against raising tags on a unit the surpasses 25 bucks per 100 doe's? I have seen it before with elk and it will be that way with deer.

You will be just like the wolf lovers are with what they said. "300 wolves in the 3 states would be great and then we can de-list them". How has that promised worked out?

If A unit ever hits 25 bucks per 100 doe's you boys will be threatening the DWR and everyone else bodily harm if they add tags. I know this and so do you.

I know for a fact that any tags cut will never come back. History shows that.

Brutus, don't try to deny what I said. You and most of you Southern boy's want half the hunters and lots of bucks and you will never support a tag increase.

Don't lie about your intentions just own up to them and people will respect you more.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Tony,
I can promise you that if units go over 25 buck per hundred doe, I'll be on the same side as you! I really do not believe the deer units will be treated like the elk units. Some yes and that's fine, but others should be managed for more opportunity. Again a much easier task with micro managed herds. But maybe I just feel that way cause I've lived in Cache Valley for 16 years now. You never know what those crazy southern boys are going to do!

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Tony, I don't think your talking about the elk hunting here in Utah are you? From what I see the age class has dropped and the number of tags have gone up. It seems to be working like this. Objective reached tags go up. Just curious. The cut in tags is sad to see but in the same note that is 13000 less 2 points that will survive. ha ha. I really believe where I live the buck to doe ratio is so bad that not all the doe are being rutted. Something needed to be done. The current direction the state was headed wasn't good. Glad to see the change.

P.S. Just a thought in the 1950s - the 1970s hunting I hear was great here in Utah. 1 thing most people forget is that there wasn't a whole lot of hunting going on for many of those years...

1940's World War 2
1950's Korean War
1960s and 1970s Vietnam War

Just food for thought.

Boone
 
Fishon, I dont need your respect nor want it!

I heard your ? and the answer and your responce in this forum was we will never see those tags again! Thats why its total bs! Your speculating and putting these doom and gloom predictions that us "southern boys" will never allow tag increases if 25/100 is met. THAT ISNT UP FOR DEBATE! This is part of the management plan and this is what the southern rac voted for. So why wouldnt I go along with more tags if units legitimatly have more than 25/100? Dont cram your predictions and speculations down our throat. These are you sentiments not ours! If you cant read the buck/doe ratios your self to figure out that some units are 2-4 bucks shy of 25/100(according to DWR) thats your problem.

I never lie about my intentions! Really, a wolf lover? Are you talking about not stopping until you've destroyed or killed off all huntable resource's so their will nothing left to hunt ie "land carp" and buck hunting every year? Sounds like you've got first hand knowledge?
 
Fishon said-The DWR will make a decision and stick with it when there is a competent Wildlife Board and a lobbyist stops threatening them with budget cuts if they don't do what he says.
Tony Abbott

What lobbyist threatened them and when did it happen ? Pretty serious accusation, can you back it up with names and dates ?
 
This is getting good. What I really like is Tony is starting to throw a tantrum. Pulling numbers and ideas out of his rear end that have no glue to stick. Tony if you want us to buy what you are selling you need to stop being so hypothetical. Don't worry if we are lucky he will get on here in a couple of days and apologize for acting like a crazed lunatic.

Fishon you can get on here and say we wont get our tags back once we hit the 25/100 buck to doe ratio. You can say that the DWR are a bunch of fools and that the SFW and its associates are a bunch of dorks.

I for one am not afraid to put my trust in the DWR. I don't think they have done the best job in the past. But I am Always willing to give them another chance.

I am not a huge SFW fan but they have done some remarkable things for habitat in Utah. Nobody can deny that. Yes it does cost me a few tags every year. Do I agree with that. NO, but I don't know anyone that works for free.

It is amazing that we can all agree that we have a serious deer problem on our hands in Utah. However when an idea is passed by the majority of two councels the idea is then deemed stupid. We will never get the tags back. Blah Blah Blah.

Tony if I remember the Wildlife board meeting correctly you went on and on about your daughters hunt in Arizona. How she was so excited/nervous to shoot a two point. She was so excited she couldn't even hold the gun steady. Seemed to me you were a pretty proud father that day. DID YOU PULL THE TRIGGER? What I am saying is that you don't always have to have a tag or pull the trigger to have a hunt of the lifetime.

Best hunt of my life was on a 5 point or better elk tag that my grandfather that has suffered both a stroke and a heart attack pulled the trigger on a 275 5 point with 22 grandkids and greatgrandkids watching. Guess what there was only one tag but we will all remember that hunt for the rest of his life.
 
Oh so now we are arguing the Old Don Peay Standard of "Grow a bigger pie so we can all have a slice" Right??

Tony is absolutely right... These tags ARE GONE AND WILL NEVER COME BACK.

Just like with Elk once we hit the targets set by the Tag Pimps they simply raise the bar to keep the tags locked up.

I saw them do it in the Elk Committee, I saw them do it when they added the MYTHICAL age class management to the Henry's hunt
and I guarantee you are going to see it happen with our deer.

This is a General Season hunt guy's... Not the Fricken Henry's LE Hunt.




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
WW,
If you are using elk as an example, well then lets not forget the 5000 elk tags that were added last year! Nope they never add tags, NEVER. I am pretty sure they give more LE tags now then they did 10 years ago. Nope they never add tags ,NEVER!


Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Richard

I have heard it with my own ears as have several others and would testify to that in a court of law.

Is that enough info for you?

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Hooner "whoever you are"

You just made my point. This is not about me or my ability to hunt in Utah, this is about my kids and your kids. That was the whole point to the story I told at the wildlife board.

Cutting the tags won't prevent me from hunting deer but it will prevent thousands of kids from hunting deer in Utah.

I am not fighting for MY hunting opportunity and for me to PULL the trigger in Utah I am fighting for those that cant fight for themselves.



Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-10 AT 08:48PM (MST)[p]They did FINALLY add tags after years of fighting it and hundreds if not thousands of lost opportunities gone away while they raised age class and said we need more data before we can increase tags.

This is a fact that I know 1st hand because I was still involved when this fight was going on.

We lost hundreds of bulls to old age while people fought raising permits because certain people believe there should be 400" bulls in every canyon.

Count the amount of units (Limited entry and now general season) in Utah and tell me how many of those units are at or above 25 bucks per 100 doe's. There are now 29 GS units and I believe 9 limited entry units for a total of 38 units. Keep in mind Thousand Lakes is no longer a limited entry unit, it will just be part of a general unit.

Now add up all the permits for those units that are at or above 25 bucks per 100 doe's and you will get the rough amount of how many permits Utah can have if they are to be at 25 bucks per 100 doe's.

It comes up to roughly 30,000 buck tags a year General season and limited entry. Which would mean a buck tag roughly every 4-6 years at best.

Is that what you guys want?

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
You just don't get it, do you fishon? not all kids are on TV shows, not all kids have big time hunters for parents. Kids need a little quality in their adventures, and thats something thats sorely lacking in the modern Utah general deer hunts, at least for the majority. One good quality hunt, and many kids will stay hunters, three poor quality hunts, and many will become nonhunters.
 
Jeff

Kids need a tag in their pocket or they will do something other than hunt.

I am not a big time hunter any more than you are.

So what is your point, my kid was on 1 TV show and shot a 20" 4x4 when he turned 12?

I could take any kid on any unit in this state and kill a 20" 4x4 and so could you.

I get it and always have. I see where this is heading because I do get it. We will have less than 30,000 buck deer permits in this state if it is managed for 25 bucks per 100 does.

No ones kids will hunt than.



Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Man fishon I thought it was 18/100? quit the BS scare tactics! 30,000 tags? I hope you keep talking out your @ss cause it makes it that much easier to blow your opinion off as delutional.
 
Hey Brutus, get off the sauce and follow the comments.

There will be no tag increase considered unless a unit goes above 25 bucks per 100 doe's. 18 is a MINIMUM, IS that clear enough for you?

And for Utah to reach 25 bucks per 100 doe's statewide you will only be able to have about 30,000 buck tags.

Those are not my numbers, those are biological numbers and facts.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-10 AT 09:38PM (MST)[p]FYI Jeff

My sons 1st buck was a New Mexico tag he drew at age 11 and it was a 1 antlered 3 point that most of you would call a piss cutter.

He then moved up to that monster 20" 4x4 you were referring to in unit c that he drew, then 2 years later he drew the youth tag for 102 in Wyoming and shot a crabby 26" 3x4.

And guess what? The experience he talks about most was the 1 antlered 3 point, HIS 1ST BUCK and 1st year hunting.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-10 AT 10:22PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-10 AT 10:21?PM (MST)

Tony,
For a person that is all fired up changing the world one post at a time you sure don't make a lot of sense some times. Where were you the last 5, 10, 15 years. All of a sudden this option 2 passes and you get all crazy about your believes and how you would do things to change the deer herd.

The deer herd is declining. There is no disputing that. Your big push is that your scared that the younger generations will not get involved in hunting. We are going to loose recruitment numbers if we cut 13,000 tags. WHATEVER.

Deer hunting is not the only resourse we have to get our young people in the oudoors. We have elk, antelope, bear, cougar, multiple fishing lakes, water fowl, etc. Get off the lossed opportunity kick.

I don't really remember the little two points that my dad shot when he would take me hunting.( And there were a lot) However I can give you a play by play of the hunt that my dad took me on when he shot the first 3 X 4 that I was able to put my hands on. I was ten years old. My brother and I thought dad was king of the world that day.

You can go on and on how the sky is falling and how we are loosing are ability to hunt, they are going to cut our tags to 30,000, Blah, Blah, Blah. It's getting sad. You are really going to get on this site and tell people that they are could possible maybe in the future cut tags to 30,000. COME ON. You are smarter thatn that. That would be impossible. How many people would have to lose their jobs to make up for the lost revenue. Seriously buddy think before you post. Not all of us our your cronies that will eat up every word you spill without calling BS.
 
Hooner asks,"Where were you (Tony) 5-10 years ago?" Answer: Working for SFW and MDF.
Maybe his real agenda is revenge, by turning people away from his ex employers under the cover of "lost youth opportunity".

Just sayin.
 
Or, maybe he has finally seen the light and sees the damage being done in the quest for conservation permit funds. Maybe he has seen the corruption that has crept in to the groups that make policy based on how much they will get from auctioning permits instead of what is best for the animals first and ALL hunters second, and inches LAST.

One question I have, for all you that claim to be the unselfish ones, the ones that support the state doing away with a MINIMUM of 13,000 permits: Why don't you just get a permit and not kill a deer for 5 years? This would 'save' more bucks, while also keeping the revenue up so the DWR has the funds to do all these counts you are calling for.

Just saying.................how bout it?

"Manage wildlife WITH hunters, not FOR hunters."
 
Tony,
Since Nunya threw out the years of employment that you spent with SFW and MDF I am hoping that you will have a response for him and also answer my question while you are at it.

Last time I ran into you you were working for the MDF and one of your main responsabilities was the allocation of the Conservation Tags. If you are so worried about the hunter opportunity in Utah how do you justify the involvment you had with the Conservation Tags? I know that conservation tags are a huge debate and honestly I don't know what side of the fence I am on.

However you get on this site and go on and on about opportunity but where was that a few years ago when you were paying bills by working with Conservation Tags. You want to talk about something that takes opportunity away from the average joe hunter. There is NO DOUBT wether good or bad that Conservation Tags take opportunity away from the average joe hunter.
 
hoytme,
We have shown as hunters over the past 35 years that we do not self monitor. That is one of main reasons I believe that Option 2 was a step in the right direction.


Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Tony- I would imagine that the majority of kids going out on general season hunts in Utah don't go out of state,and the truth is, Utah general season deer hunts suck for the most part, mostly because its crowded, and sorely lacking of bucks. I feel sorry for kids when it comes to deer hunting, mostly because I had it a heck of a lot better . Kids do have elk hunting I never had, and even if its antlerless elk, its pretty exciting. Things have changed, not much you can do about it, so why keep pounding the antlered segment of the struggling mule deer herds so hard?
 
"Things have changed, not much you can do about it,"

WANNA BET???? This has just begun.


2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
To answer your question Bart. I havent killed a deer in Utah for my self since 2002. And have only hunted deer in Utah twice since 2002.

Now, are you really the spokes person against corruption and greed Bart? Just sayin....
 
Fishon, TAGS WONT DECREASE UNTIL BUCKS DROP UNDER 18/100!!! That plain enough for ya. Last time I checked tags werent starting out at 30,000. I truly dont know how you function in society believing your own lies. That is 100% what your preaching is lies plain and simple

30,000 tags really, really??? No wonder you bounced around from sfw to mdf, your far more delutional than they ever thought of being! Keep it up your blowin up your own argument with lies. NOBODY LIKES A LIER! 30,000 tags for GS units is a lie!!!
 
30,000 permits is where we are heading if we are to not increase tags until a unit has more than 25 bucks per 100 doe's.

And to answer your conservation permit question,

I fought EVERYDAY I was with SFW and MDF against even MORE tags. YEs you heard right. People wanted more conservation permits than there currently are and I did not allow it to happen.

So that is what I was doing. I leveled the playing field between SFW and MDf when I went to MDF and took $600,000 worth of tags away from SFW and I made MDF respectable again and SFW not as strong.

I always took the side of the public knowing the conservation permits would not go away I minimized how many there would be. I was your voice because your voice was not being heard.

Now I know some of you will now come on here and bash me for what I said but guess what? When the DWR tells me countless times they were glad I went to MDf to counter what SFW was doing and that if I would not of done that, they were afraid of where things were heading, well that is all I needed to hear to KNOW I did A LOT of good for the "average sportsman".

So bash away, a few of us that were there when the process was being built KNOW that it would of been a lot worse had someone "ME" not been there fighting for "YOU the average hunter".

FYI, Certain people wanted 20% OF THE PUBLIC TAGS to auction. But none of you knew that because it got squashed before it got any momentum from the inside.

Enjoy your New Year

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Tony, is there anything that you can compromise on so that we can get deer numbers growing again ? Sometimes we spend to much energy debating and pointing fingers about a small portion of the problem. I know you have said and just about everyone else agrees that the long term solution to opportunity/quality issue is to put our efforts into doing what is necessary to grow our herds. I have members in my family that no longer hunt, that grew up hunting. Years were marked from deer hunt to deer hunt, not January to January. They have left not because of opportunity but because of lack of reasonable expectations for success. I personally left the areas I grew up hunting and had experienced great success ( and no we didn't kill a buck every year) and began in the late 70's backpacking into wilderness areas that held more deer and more bucks. Its sad to say that now even that area has declined dramatically in deer numbers. No ATVs or vehicles-- you're on foot or horseback. I could start at 3 am hiking and by noon I could easily count 300 deer.Now, you're lucky to see 20 to 30 deer on the same hike. Overcrowding seems worse even though there are fewer hunters because we are like any predator-- we go to where the deer are. There are many areas that no longer hold enough deer to hunt successfully, so the hunters have become more concentrated and now many of those areas are seeing a decrease.
I say this because generally speaking this why we are so divided. You want what I had 30 years ago. Big bucks, little bucks hundreds of deer to see every day. Sometimes the toughest part of getting on a big buck was figuring out how to get around the little bucks or does so they wouldn't bust you.
Everyone wants more opportunity, you want to just be able to hunt with your kids, many want to be able to have a better opportunity to see more bucks (with their kids) and have a better chance of finding a big mature buck. Most kids don't enjoy or get hooked on hunting because they most often aren't impressed with tromping through the mountains for two days and only seeing 6 or 7 does and maybe a buck. Having more bucks will hook kids into hunting.
What is going on right now is hopefully just a way to keep folks hunting and in the meantime focus on the things that will get the herds growing and we will have more bucks and more opportunity. Then our kids will have time to grow and learn to appreciate the longer deeper meaning of the memories made while hunting.
No one is trying to ruin hunting for you and your kids, not the DWR, SFW, MDF, BOU etc. and especially not me. You know how I voted on the options presented, the WB voted differently. I personally felt that Option one would work, however I could sense that the mood was to do something more dramatic and get the attention of game managers. Well, it has and hopefully we can focus more on the things that will make a real difference for us and our kids and grandkids, so that they too can enjoy what we have enjoyed.
 
This is were we are headed, 18-25 bucks/100 does, smaller units that will help give more accurate statistics on hunter surveys, better distribution of hunters throughout the state, tag cuts for those units that arent at 18 bucks/100 does (AROUND 13,000 LESS TAGS NOT 67,000 THAT fishon IS STATING), should force the DWR to have to "classify" each units deer herd, will open up oppurtuntiy's to have different hunts and different management policys on different units. THAT IS WERE WE ARE HEADED!!!

fishon you cant predict the future. We need to address all issues facing mule deer to grow deer herds in Utah no matter what opt is put in place. With smaller untis it will only help the process.

That is the truth of the matter not "speculation" or "fears" or "guessing" or even "fishon's opinion/lies".

I'm so sick of hearing countless accusations of "SFW is running our management policies with bribes and intimidation" without any evidence! If you have it come forward with it! If not SHUT UP! All of fishon's,tree's,sidehill's,elite's,ect,ect claims are built on speculation of what could happen and fears of things to come when they dont know the future of anything for sure!

fison why do you put your kid for a 102 tag in wyoming if he has more fun chasing 2 point's? Isnt 102 one of wyoming's top tags that is very limited in oppurtunity? why not applie him for an easier unit to draw so he can have "more oppurtunity to hunt"? You preach one thing and do another. Just like unit 10 tags in CO and waiting 8 years to draw a tag in NV. Sounds a little like Jimmy Swaggert to me. DOUBLE STANDERD!
 
UTMONSTER numbers show that unless permits are cut SUBSTANTIALLY
buck harvest stays pretty consistent.

That being said cutting hunter numbers has always been the answer.

NEBO how do you address unlimited motorized access?? Answer
Cut buck hunter numbers. NOT ROAD CLOSURES. Because the RACs and Wildlife Board won't stand up to the ATV proponents.

NEBO how do you address predators?? Answer cut buck hunter numbers. NOT KILL MORE CATS. Because the RACs and Wildlife Board won't take a stand against the Houndsmen.

NEBO how do you provide low success opportunity. Answer cut statewide archery and take all incentive away from moving hunters in this direction. Because the RACs and Wildlife Board system works so well. How many bowhunters do you think this is going to push in to the rifle draws??

NEBO how do you reduce elk deer competition on winter range and fawning area's?? Reduce Buck hunter numbers. Not kill more elk because the tag pimps and guys sitting on 16 points like CAT won't hear of it in the RAC Wildlife Board process.

You can all sit here and proclaim that micromanagement is going to be the answer, but until you fix the real problem, as in the system as a whole, you'll be pi$$in in the wind.

Reducing buck hunters won't address any of the REAL issues that
aid in the decline of our mule deer. All it does is take buck deer hunters and THEIR MONEY AND POLITICAL SUPPORT out of the game forever.

Any more questions from DC BRUTUS or 73 on exactly what going to 29 units will accomplish?? The system is broken NEBO.











2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
WW,
Please explain how staying status qou was going to help. Pissing in the wind would have been a good way to discribe the last 35 years. The threat of losing 13,000 tags has at least woke up more sportsmen. If status quo would have passed nothing would have changed! Look what that attitude has got us, a declining deer herd. Blame it on the DWR never having their say all you want. That is a load of crap. Go look at how often the WB has sided with the DWR. Look how many times the WB and DWR have NOT supported what the RACS have asked for. Lets stay the status quo for sure. The fact that we should just talk about change and do nothing blows me away.

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
If anybody can clarify a couple items it would be greatly appreciated.

-Where could one find the Colorado deer studies?

-Where can you find the document that states tags wont be re-instated unless the ratio is above 25/100?

-Where can you find the document describing continued tag cuts if the ratio is not above 18/100?

It would be helpful if members would post where there information is coming from. We are all very passionate about this sport, but I dont think the doom and gloom is necessary.

Honestly I feel we have moved in the best direction possible given the 3 choicesthat were available. I can't figure out why each option came with different tag reductions, and nobody has commented on the reason why.

Thank you in advance for helping clarify and solidify some of the previous posts
 
Slcmuley,
Sorry don't now were to find Colorado deer studies.

There is no document to my knowledge.But when the question was asked at the WB meeting by tony I believe it was Anis that stated no tags would be re-instated unless a unit reach's 25 or more bucks per 100 does. Go to the wildlife board minutes and listen for your self.

Also it was said that under option 2 unit objectives would be managed for 18/100 bucks per doe with a minimum of 13,000 tag,s cut to start with. Not sure how this will play out cause I don't think that many units are near 18/100 ratio wright now?

As for your last ? I to was confused as to were they came up with the different tag cuts for the different option's. So I called the UDWR and talked to a nice gentleman and he told me the tag cuts were determined by the different buck to doe ratio objectives to managed for the different option's like for instance option 1 15/100 objective 7,000 tag cut option 2 18/100 objective 13,000 tag cut option 3 which was pretty much status quot was 3,000 tag,s cut.

I am not trying to blow smoke up anyone's arss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hunting Mule deer is my true passion. I prefer a plan that will grow more deer in general not just manage what little we have left. I don't want our deer hunt to turn into what our elk hunt is in regards to waiting 10 to 16 years to draw a good unit or your favorite place to hunt.

I don't feel the entire state should be managed for trophy class animals. There should be a balance for both opportunity and trophy class hunting!

How ever that is my opinion. I don't pretend to now what is best for all.

Option 2 will not grow more deer it will grow more bucks for fewer people to hunt! and that is a fact.
 
>Option 2 will not grow more
>deer it will grow more
>bucks for fewer people to
>hunt! and that is a
>fact.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!


"Manage wildlife WITH hunters, not FOR hunters."
 
Thanks Sidehill
I still don't understand why option 1 and 2 would require different reductions. Both options manage for the same ratio and both options consist of the same huntable area.
Do you think the 13,000 # was being used to pursuade people away from option 2?

Option 2 will definitely help the management become more in touch with each herd, but at the same time it will require more work from the DNR.

Option 2 will also force more changes for us hunters to get used to, both in the application process and while in the field we will need to be more keen to smaller boundaries.

Never the less I feel that option 1 and 3 did nothing for our herds. Im not saying option 2 will be a complete fix, but at least it will give better control to herd size and making necessary adjustments from year to year.

Losing opportunity is the last thing any of us want. Apparantly the WB feels supply is less than demand.

Let's not classify the 13,000 as lost hunters until we see the evidence after a few years of application history.

I am willing to bet we see the same # of applicants for the next 10 years.
 
Slcmuley,
No option 1 and option 2 do not manage for the same ratio's option 1 manages for 15/100 bucks to doe option 2 manages for 18/100 bucks per doe on the low end it will take 25 or more bucks per100 does in a unit to ever get tags reinstated.

I may be wrong but I believe that the Bookcliffs are currently managed for 25/100 bucks per doe to put it into perspective.

You are defiantly in-titled to your own opinion in regards to what option 2 accomplish.

In regards to your ? about 13,000 tag cut to persuade people against option 2. No I don't they are totally different management goals. one manages for more opportunity while the other manages for more quality bucks and none of them manage for overall growth in numbers.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-10 AT 10:46AM (MST)[p]WW said-----
NEBO how do you address unlimited motorized access?? Answer
Cut buck hunter numbers. NOT ROAD CLOSURES. Because the RACs and Wildlife Board won't stand up to the ATV proponents.

NEBO how do you address predators?? Answer cut buck hunter numbers. NOT KILL MORE CATS. Because the RACs and Wildlife Board won't take a stand against the Houndsmen.

NEBO how do you provide low success opportunity. Answer cut statewide archery and take all incentive away from moving hunters in this direction. Because the RACs and Wildlife Board system works so well. How many bowhunters do you think this is going to push in to the rifle draws??

NEBO how do you reduce elk deer competition on winter range and fawning area's?? Reduce Buck hunter numbers. Not kill more elk because the tag pimps and guys sitting on 16 points like CAT won't hear of it in the RAC Wildlife Board process.

You can all sit here and proclaim that micromanagement is going to be the answer, but until you fix the real problem, as in the system as a whole, you'll be pi$$in in the wind.

Reducing buck hunters won't address any of the REAL issues that
aid in the decline of our mule deer. All it does is take buck deer hunters and THEIR MONEY AND POLITICAL SUPPORT out of the game forever.

Any more questions from DC BRUTUS or 73 on exactly what going to 29 units will accomplish?? The system is broken NEBO.

REPLY
The WB and the RACS have NO say or control over ATV/road closures. The Forest Service BLM State Gov't make that policy. I suggest you go beat on their door.

I have ask for more cougar tags and also increased bear tags. There has not been any group that has brought that forward as a proposal. It is a very political thing that the DWR has to be very careful with.

The Central RAC voted for option 1. I felt much of what was wanting to be accomplished could be done within that framework and not further restrict where we could hunt.

Your opinion on elk competition could be valid- wildlife biologist are not convinced that they are a major factor in the decline of mule deer numbers though.

No one is saying that increasing buck/doe ratios will substantionally increase overall herd numbers--- but doing nothing right now won't either. You ought to read Valerius Geists book Mule Deer. In one part he does state that having a high number of older class bucks in a population is vital in herd stability and growth. The does will always choose a older more mature buck to breed with because they already show genetic superiority over a yearling buck that may or may not have great genes.

The system isn't perfect but its not broken either. Its only broken for you because you don't get your way and I guess you don't realize that this is not a right and wrong issue. Most hunters just don't want the status qou. The reason it is the way it is, is because the deer herds are declining-- everybody knows ( I think) that if we can get the deer population increasing, much of what we are debating will go away.
 
"The system isn't perfect but its not broken either. Its only broken for you because you don't get your way and I guess you don't realize that this is not a right and wrong issue. Most hunters just don't want the status qou. The reason it is the way it is, is because the deer herds are declining-- everybody knows ( I think) that if we can get the deer population increasing, much of what we are debating will go away."

What EXACTLY is my way NEBO??? Does that include more deer and more opportunity for all hunters?? Cause That is my way.

Proclaiming that most hunters don't want the status quo is intellectually dishonest. Status quo compared to what NEBO??
Not hunting to grow 3 more bucks per hundred does?? The survey
I have said that over 70% did want to hunt vs growing more or bigger bucks. I know you have it as well quit spinning this and
own up to it. I know how the Central Rac voted. I was there. I also heard one of the RAC members give one hell of a tongue lashing to the WB members in attendance for doing what they had done.

Like I said the current process has taken the easy way out and will until it is fixed. Taking hunters out of the hills hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried in a General Season Hunt scenario. It's been in effect here since 1994 and it hasn't done squat. Nevada herds are not increasing and neither is Colorado. It won't do squat this time either.

I won't go in to Jake reading a pre written motion after hours of "Public Input". I won't go in to Rick voting against 4 out of 5 RACs, including his own constituents in the Central Region, to end Statewide Archery.

Keep cutting hunters and ignore everything else cause the system is working so well


2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-10 AT 02:15PM (MST)[p]What is your way WW ? It seems as though every thing the RACs, WB or DWR does, somehow doesn't fit with your way of thinking.
So, tell us how you would do things if you had the power to implement a plan. Good luck trying to give everything everybody wants. I would bet you are sensible enough to know that there is no perfect way to please everyone. Keep letting the powers that be what you think is best-- that is how we get to where would be the best consensus-- not perfect but somewhere in the middle.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-10 AT 06:49PM (MST)[p]How about this wileywapity? the deer herds arent going to grow much, and if anything they will decline. I don't care if you scream bloody murder and dance naked in the street, your more than likely not going to make the deer herds start thriving and growing. We should do what we can, but the animal-habitat connection is far more complicated than humans can fully understand. So the bottom line is this- take better care of what there is.
 
Richard

The West compromised on "300" wolves and look where that has got us. There is a reason that the NRA will not compromise on Assault weapons, because if the compromise on assault weapons than the anti gun people will attach something else.

So here is my compromise for you and I posted it on another thread as well.

I will compromise on killing 100 more lions statewide

Think of it this way.
If the DWR simply killed on average 3 more lions per deer unit (29 units) we would save more deer than cutting 13,000 hunters and we would not lose revenue.

And I am not just talking bucks. We would save Bucks and doe's by killing 100 more lions state wide and those doe's would have fawns for years and years and those bucks could grow up to the trophy breeding bucks you all want. So the trickle down effect would be huge.

Then we could take the revenue that was not lost by cutting tags ($500,000) and put it into Coyote killing in the spring and save that many more fawns that will turn into bucks and breeding doe's.

This is how simple things could be and much more effective and popular than cutting the hunters and the opportunity.

100 lions killed would not be missed like 13,000 hunters will be.
100 lions killed would actually increase revenue for the dwr and opportunity for hunters unlike cutting 13,000 hunters which would reduce opportunity and revenue.
100 lions will come back 100 times easier than our deer herds.

This is just one simple way to look at other options to have no loss of hunters or revenue but still accomplish what EVERYONE wants which is more deer.

You would think that with all the people out there that are a lot smarter than me that they could see the logic in other options.

There is still time to correct the mistake. Lets all get behind this one and WE ALL WIN instead of we all lose.



Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Sidehill-
Option 1 18/100 ratio regional hunting 7,000 tag cuts.
Option 2 18/100 ratio 29 unit hunting 13,000 tag cuts.
Option 3 15/100 ratio regional hunting 3,000 tag cuts.
Why are there different tag cuts for all 3 options?
Aren't we still hunting the same amount of area regardless of the chosen option?
Does anyone want to chime in regarding the logic behind this?
 
Slcmuley,

I was told December 29, when I called the UDWR by a gentleman from Jim Karpowitz's office this data.

Option 1 management objective low end 15/100 high end 18/100 buck to doe ratio hence 7,000 tag's cut. Manages for more bucks and more opportunity.

Option 2 management objective low end 18/100 high end 25/100 buck to doe ratio hence 13,000 tag's cut. Manages for more quality bucks with fewer hunters.

option 3 management objective low end 12/100 high end 15/100buck to doe ratio 3,000 tag,s cut. Manages pretty much to status quot.

I don't know if this is accurate but this is what I was told by the DWR. This is how it was explained to me by the gentleman I talked to.

I to am still confused as to how they come up with these numbers when they have not actually done field classifications on all of the said 29 units.

Hope this kinda helps as to how they would come up with the number's if they actually did do field classifications on all 29 units.

Your other question yes we will still be hunting the same amount of area just in smaller units.
I believe if there was any logic behind this it would be to take hunters out of the more popular areas that have fairly strong deer numbers and distribute them out threw the less popular areas with lower deer numbers to try to evenly distribute pressure and harvest to try to grow more quality bucks. Just my opinion which I think is total Bullsshit! to do to the entire state.

Sidehill
 
Sidehill-
That makes sense, " having a low end of the ratio " .
Never the less the DWR was suggesting tag cuts for 2012 regardless of the management style.

It will be interesting to see the # of permits per unit. After reading through some of their data you can see that they manage by estimating the amount of bucks that will be harvested. It sure would be a whole lot more accurate to just have a mandatory internet survey.


Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 
>Sidehill-
>Option 1 18/100 ratio regional hunting
>7,000 tag cuts.
>Option 2 18/100 ratio 29 unit
>hunting 13,000 tag cuts.
>Option 3 15/100 ratio regional hunting
>3,000 tag cuts.
>Why are there different tag cuts
>for all 3 options?
>Aren't we still hunting the same
>amount of area regardless of
>the chosen option?
>Does anyone want to chime in
>regarding the logic behind this?
>

This has been my question from day 1. Regardless of what option is in place, we are still hunting the same number of deer on the same amount of ground. The only difference is hunter dispersment along with (I'm crossing my fingers on this one) more accurate management by the DWR.




It's always an adventure!!!
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

image.jpg
IMG_5190.jpeg
20210403_133243.jpg
90C75B2B-3ADA-4A17-83CD-4007DDEF4CA2.jpeg
Big Buck Down!
CE19A9DF-AB0F-4DD6-A780-B4351F3C2E00.jpeg
20230524_235931.jpg
20211113_144229.jpg
New buck 3.jpg
New Mexico Muzzleloader Bull for Osprey
Fine Muley
1599433971223.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom