Proposal for New Limited Entry Hunts in Utah

[cannonball]

With the point creep, bearing in mind that some other regular unit draws may and probably would have less permits issued, what NEW Limited Entry units can you think of to decrease the applicants of the ones we have now?

 

[highcountryfever]

Are you proposing an "option 2" type split of the current LE elk units?

 

[cannonball]

My main concern was deer, but the point creep also shows up on the elk. An example: This year the Limited Entry Monroe Mountain deer late ML hunt. There were a few other hunts that came to being this year. I'm sure this took a few applicants out of the pool of the other limited entry units. I would like to see a lot more of them so you wouldn't have to wait 30 to 40 years to reach the maximum point for a certain unit. More units could foreseeable happen.

My ultimate option would be to choose your poison where you apply for one hunt - THAT'S IT -ONE HUNT!! Want to hunt Phavant, that would be your only application. No limited entry application would be allowed unless you selected the LE rather than the Phavant. In essence every hunt would be a pure LE hunt. No more Bonus point creep, but I am sure that option will never happen. What could happen is more LE hunts. So what other Limited Entry units could be created?

 

[Deerlove]

They said when b to d ratios go so high they can get that le late muzzy hunt going, but I don't think that would change the pt creep much. Drastic measures like one species only or first choice only hunt would help.

 

[Zeke]

Be careful of what you wish!
You're really talking about less opportunity, right?
More trophy hunts will always equate to less hunters in the field unless it's just late muzzleloader hunts when the buck to doe ratios permit. Like you guys said, these don't take a lot of pressure off the LE applications.
If you went to one deer app only and treated every unit as LE (which it kind of is already) the mid and top points tier guys would NEVER move back to general so in reality you wouldn't change the LE wait until you cycled through those applicants and that would take decades. You would probably eliminate the bottom points pool bracket or two but by doing this it wouldn't get YOU an tag any faster.
It makes no sense to take a general unit and turn it into a LE unit unless you really only want to hunt a deer or two in your life!
Remember this too, whenever there's a change someone wins and someone loses. It cannot be another way than this.
Zeke

 

[TheDudeAbides]

A couple options for LE Elk:

You could split units, which will decrease the amount of top point holders getting permits every year and increase the likelihood of someone with less than max points getting tags. Which would move it to more of a bonus point system.

You could add more hunts, like a late archery before the late rifle and a late muzzleloader after the late rifle hunt. Adding three more limited entry hunts per unit would result in the same scenario as splitting the units without giving out more tags.

You cannot and decrease the amount of points without increasing the amount of tags. There is no model in statistical existence that can do this. The only thing you can do is make it easier for those with less points to draw or for those to hop across to a different unit to creep on the bonus permits.

LE Deer is increasing permits with the late ML, so it is a help.

LE Pronghorn is hampered by land access and the killing of too many does.

 

[Zeke]

How would your first elk suggestion work in paragraph one to give fewer tags to top points holders? Seems statistically impossible since top tier guys get half even if you split a unit.

 

[cannonball]

>How would your first elk suggestion
>work in paragraph one to
>give fewer tags to top
>points holders? Seems statistically impossible
>since top tier guys get
>half even if you split
>a unit.

 

[cannonball]

Look at the Monroe Late ML and how many points it took to be in the bonus. Most of those applicants come from other units and with a whole bunch more units added it would help.

I would like to see a flintlock hunt with only two or three tags. There are a few hundred old time shooters who would leave other LEntry draws for a crack at a flintlock hunt and I'm sure the success ratio would be half the archery success percentage. It would be fun to see though.

 

[2_Point]

Easiest way to end point creep is to have one deer point and any tag drawn or bought makes you lose your points.

 

[Deerlove]

That's a great simple idea.

 

[Deerlove]

I'd like a dedicated elk hunt for gen seasons.

 

[Zeke]

You're right. That would be the easiest and the option that would have the most negative impact on the most people and not just for deer hunters.
The elk applicant would have zero chance to hunt deer in the State until he drew his elk tag. There are other reasons but maybe you could think of them all by yourself.
Like I said: there are going to be winners and losers with any change.

I really like where cannonball is headed with his thinking. It's ADDING opportunity and having a very small impact on the resource. Cap and ball, flint lock, recurve, really primitive seasons closer to the rut than any other season!

Zeke

 

[3blade]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-01-16 AT 10:53PM (MST)[p]""I really like where cannonball is headed with his thinking. It's ADDING opportunity and having a very small impact on the resource. Cap and ball, flint lock, recurve, really primitive seasons closer to the rut than any other season!""


I would be all over a recurve/longbow elk season. Cap and ball w/iron sights for deer would be cool too.

But I don't like having to pick elk or deer, what's wrong with both? Or at least having the option to buy a point. We want to increase opportunity not get rid of it right?

Should also be any tag drawn and you burn your points.

 

[PleaseDear]

I would like to see the High Country Buck hunts come back as LE hunts.

Like Wellsville Mtns

Mnt. Naomi

The High Uinta's North/South Slope

Maybe the Beaver -----

To name a few....

For sure combine the Pref/Bonus Deer points into 1 deer Bonus point Pool, ressy & non-ressy.

Good topic cannon----

Robb

 

[cannonball]

Some say if you make less permits available on a unit to create another unit it does not help with the point crawl. It does if that unit is a regular draw and the new created is limited entry. It would be nice to see a whole raft of new limited entry units created from a part of the regular units. If you have a bunch of them and make them attractive enough you could improve the other limited entry odds quite a bit.

To spit the limited entry by itself does not help like the Pauns premium hunt vs the Pauns regular.

I, like many, would move if they had like a Boulder Plateau Flintlock limited entry hunt. To be out in the hills with a few rather than many - What a Joy!!

One thing. Make it a 5 year wait rather than a 2 year wait for deer. That would improve the creep quite a bit.

Taking the Thousand Lake unit off of the limited entry status was just dumb. Had a friend who put in for there. Now he competes with me on the Pauns. for the few limited entry permits and drew for the Thousand Lake dedicated. No one said life had to be fair.

 

[Deerlove]

Another big one for elk is to take the rifle hunt out of the rut, and issue more archery tags. I know it's been beat to death but you have push hunters through quicker without killing the resource. We all know it would never happen because the hunting orgs in Ut would lose too much $. And why does the gen season archery elk end so soon? Givem all sept!

 

[fin little]

How about some late season archery tags in over objective units when the bucks are available. 50 or so tags in early Dec on Zion for example. A few more of the late muzzleloader tags wouldn't hurt IMO

 

[TheDudeAbides]

It you have 15 tags split between two units.

One unit has eight. 4 Go to the top and 4 go to the draw.

One unit has seven. 3 Go to the top and 4 go to the draw.

7 Top point holder permits and 8 draw permits.

If you distribute equally all units with five tags. 2 Go to the top point holders and 3 go to the draw in each scenario.

6 top point holder permits and 9 draw permits.

Because Utah is technically a 49.9/50.1 draw system an odd number of permits in a hunt will result in more permits in the bonus point draw.

The more splits and divisions that you do, the better chance that the split will benefit the random draw rather than the top point holder draw. The more units you make will most likely increase the number of units with odd number of permits.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I propose to you an interesting idea.

A 3 year cycle on the rut hunts.

Rotate the hunts

- Do muzzleloader, rifle, bow

- Do rifle, bow, muzzleloader

- Do bow, muzzleloader, rifle

This would be an interesting experiment and I think that some people would buy points instead of the putting in on the years with less than optimal dates.

Just a crazy idea

 

[cannonball]

Sorry I don't understand how either one of the posts would do much to slow down the point creep we are now experiencing.

 

[goforbroke]

Move the rifle elk to middle of October!!!!!!. Success rate would go to 60% so you can issue 45% more tags ando still kill the same number of elk. Every other state does this with only very few rifle hunts in September.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Move Archery to December. You could give out at least 100 tags per unit and have a success rate of 10-20%. In Units like the Wasatch and Manti, you could give out 500 permits.

The issue with this is that people want to hunt elk during the rut regardless of the weapon.

If you take all of the hunts out of the rut, then you could give out a lot more tags in each of the units.

Also, Utah did have a few units that had draw tags this year in the middle of October. You have the option of hunting in Rut, Post Rut, or Late Season in some areas with a rifle.

 

[BillyBoB]

Somethings I noticed on the draw odds report was all the new CWMU units. I'm sure people were more reluctant to NOT apply for them to see how they turn out. It seemed there were a bunch of new ones. Along with that, to me, it seemed like the number of CWMU applications was way down than previous years. I haven't cross referenced previous years data yet to confirm but if it's true, then many are changing their applications/strategy to different hunts.
If that makes sense.
It just seemed to me that there wasn't very many people applying for CWMU tags.






"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt

 

[TheDudeAbides]

They don't and that was the point. You can't decrease the number of point holders without increasing the number of tags.

I have found there are a lot of definitions of "point creep."

One is that the overall points it takes to draw a tag is going up.

One is that someone who is just putting in for points jumps in one year with enough points to draw the tag ahead of someone who should have drawn the tag.

One is that someone who is applying for a different unit, then switches to your unit and draws the tags ahead of those that should have drawn.

Basically point creep comes down to being a buzz word to describe not drawing a tag. Anything that prevents people from drawing a tag is a result of point creep.

Short of increasing tags there is nothing you can do to fix point creep.

A couple things Utah can do to increase tags

A 1:1 R/NR permit allocation for CWMU's. Take Deseret for example. They give out 17 buck deer permits for residents and 93 permits to non residents that buy the hunts. 55 for residents and 55 for non residents to buy would be a better option.

Have only a handful of auction tags. 1 Statewide permit of all species rather than the 500 or auction permits they sell now. Put the auction tags back into the draw.

Add a late season archery and muzzleloader hunt with additional permits. If you add a lower success hunt with additional permits rather than splitting the available permits. It would help those that choose to not hunt the rut to hunt more often.

 

[3blade]

How about move archery elk to October, muzzy to the first half of November, then rifle. Success rates would be cut in half throughout all seasons, now you could give out twice as many tags across the board. As a bonus, there'd be no more bitching about who gets to hunt the rut.

 

[cannonball]

You all are shooting around the target without hitting a thing. Again I say the best thing to do is have the applicants apply for one hunt only as a first choice, but that isn't going to happen. The next best thing to do is make more LIMITED ENTRY HUNTS. Most would have to be taken from regular hunts, but not all. All I was asking is your ideas to get thru the points as fast as possible. Lets made Boulder Plateau a limited entry hunt with the same number of permits as in the past. Thousand Lake the same. Beaver Mountain a limited entry. A few of you should be getting excited about now!!

Here is another idea, have a:

tier I (premium limited entry deer hunts)
tier II (regular limited entry deer hunts)
tier III (new limited entry deer hunts - this includes all of the other units.

Here is how it works. Draw a tier I hunt you loose 100% of your points. Draw a tier II loose 80% of your points. Draw tier III loose 40% of your points and no waiting period for tier III.

All points are converted to a one point system. limited entry points stay, and the other points would have a break in period to get rid of them or some satisfactory conversion.

 

[Packout]

So we decrease point creep for Limited Entry by increasing point creep for General Season. Got it......

Just a reality check-- there were over 6,000 new applicants for LE deer in Utah. So if you want to stop point creep you have to increase LE tags by over 6,000.

It is crazy that in Utah we have 3 point systems and 6 ways to distribute Deer tags-- General draw, Lifetime License, Landowner, Voucher, Dedicated Hunter, Limited Entry. Surely there is someone smart enough to simplify the process. And it will surely cause some issues for almost everyone, but on the other hand it could just make it better for almost everyone in the long run.

Cannonball- I like you thinking outside the box. While I don't believe we need more regs that confuse the masses even more, your idea is interesting.

 

[cannonball]

You would have to set restrictions on applicants being allowed to select either Tier I & II and then they could also select Tier III. Also everyone would have to start out with one point.

Even if you lowered the draw percent loss at 30% with Tier III, after six years you would have almost three points for Tier I or Tier II. I guarantee there would be a lot more hunters who would put their emphasis on future hunts. Watch the point creep fall all hunting units.

Second and third rounds would be exempt from any point reduction.

 

[Zeke]

>So we decrease point creep for
>Limited Entry by increasing point
>creep for General Season.
>Got it......
>
>Just a reality check-- there were
>over 6,000 new applicants for
>LE deer in Utah.
>So if you want to
>stop point creep you have
>to increase LE tags by
>over 6,000.
>

^^^^^That's all true! You cannot "change" the system without negatively impacting others who are waiting their turn. We continually add applicants and they continue to vie for the limited number of LE tags. Either random or points, we're just talking about tough draw odds for a limited resource.

The only way to run more points holders through the system is to increase tags and the only logical way to do that is with more "real" primitive hunts during difficult times of the year so we don't deplete the resource. This will still never take the top tier points holders out of the draw but rather will allow low points holders and option for a tag, which might be less desirable than a general tag!

The bottom line is the current system works but some just get impatient or want to figure out a way to jump to the front of the line at the expense of others. That's human nature, I suppose.

Zeke

 

[Zeke]

...and I'll add this for you statistics guys;

There are 60,000+ total applicants for 1560 total LE deer tags. Do the math boys! Demand is so high that you can't possible "run" folks through the draws very much quicker.

No matter how you slice it and dice it the demand has and will forevermore outstrip the resource. It also doesn't matter the tag dispensing system since odds will always be long.

The only way to more quickly reduce the top tier points holders is to do it the Colorado way (give tags to only those with the most points). I do not like this option but on the other hand I dislike straight random. I like a system where applicants are rewarded for dedicated application yet everyone has a shot at a tag.... like Utah's system. It's the best of both worlds.

There's my 2 cents
zeke

 

[Packout]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-16 AT 03:06PM (MST)[p]I guess I don't think the current system works for tags which take a lifetime or 4 to draw. Seems harsh that kids and future grandkids will never reach those top level points to get a permit on some units (well unless they outlive the other applicants). I like the idea of capping points-- let's say at 25. That allows everyone a chance to reach the top level. 25 years is a long time to put in. Long-term applicants are rewarded for a quarter century of diligence and those just starting can reach the max pool in their lifetime. In fact that would stop point creep as it can't creep past 25.

 

[cannonball]

That is only true to the extent everybody wants everything. Make hunters choose, lets say only one chance at a deer hunt, and the bonus creep goes away. Those who want to hunt deer every year can do so and those who want to hunt trophy deer would have to wait for four to five years to hunt.

Trouble is everyone does not want to give, just take. This State is growing by leaps and bounds. You better adapt because the time is coming that you won't even need a deer hunting gun and you will say, "WOW, How did that happen".

 

[fullthrottle]

How about a high country rifle hunt in the archery only portion of the wasatch?? Very limited tags. How about making archer's choose the early or late season extended hunt and not get to hunt both, that would allow more guys to get in the field, and allow for a higher quality expieriance on both hunts. How about more areas with a late archery deer hunt?? Not an extended season hunt but a very limited draw hunt. Again very few tags and low impact on big bucks, but could be very sought after and spread out the point pool. Lots of ways to increase hunter oppurtunity with quality hunts and help slow the point creep, without effecting the mature age class to severely. And for whatever it's worth having the limited entry rifle elk hunt in the heat of the rut is a joke.

 

[elkfromabove]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-16 AT 05:31PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-16 AT 05:08?PM (MST)

>>So we decrease point creep for
>>Limited Entry by increasing point
>>creep for General Season.
>>Got it......
>>
>>Just a reality check-- there were
>>over 6,000 new applicants for
>>LE deer in Utah.
>>So if you want to
>>stop point creep you have
>>to increase LE tags by
>>over 6,000.
>>
>
>^^^^^That's all true! You cannot "change"
>the system without negatively impacting
>others who are waiting their
>turn. We continually add applicants
>and they continue to vie
>for the limited number of
>LE tags. Either random or
>points, we're just talking about
>tough draw odds for a
>limited resource.
>
>The only way to run more
>points holders through the system
>is to increase tags and
>the only logical way to
>do that is with more
>"real" primitive hunts during difficult
>times of the year so
>we don't deplete the resource.
>This will still never take
>the top tier points holders
>out of the draw but
>rather will allow low points
>holders and option for a
>tag, which might be less
>desirable than a general tag!
>
>
>The bottom line is the current
>system works but some just
>get impatient or want to
>figure out a way to
>jump to the front of
>the line at the expense
>of others. That's human nature,
>I suppose.
>
>Zeke

And it's human nature for those who remain in line to resent those who butt in line in front of them, especially if they do it without asking or offering to compensate those waiting in line. That's also true of the trophy versus opportunity hunters.

So, if you want to reduce point creep by adding more LE units and permits and OIL permits from the public permit pool, then it's time to compensate opportunity hunters for their losses. Here are some ways to do that:

1) Stop holding general permits hostage while trying to increase unit buck to doe ratio objectives. The current established ratios are already 3 times the biological number needed and they don't need to be increased even further to save the herds as is claimed. When the b/d ratio exceeds the number established in the unit plan, issue the number of permits needed to bring it down to where it should be. Spread that reduction if you want to, but by the end of the 5 year plan that b/d ratio should be where the plan calls for it to be.* (* with considerations for populations, access, private property, etc. as stated in the plan.)

2) Stop holding general permits hostage for social reasons that don't benefit the herds nor opportunity. "Overcrowding", loss of statewide archery, shortened seasons and antler point restrictions are some of the things we've experienced or heard, but there are others. The Partners in Pine Valley established some proposals for managing the unit deer herd without consulting the DWR and asked the State Deer Committee to consider those proposals. We didn't because they were unit proposal, but, as it turns out those proposals either had been done or were already being done or were not feasible. In any case, they didn't do their homework, but went ahead with their proposal anyway because they wanted the buck to doe ratio raised to 23/100 from 17-20/100. That's managing for trophies on a general unit and it's not opportunity friendly.

3) Put a cap on Conservation (LE & OIL) permits and keep the 200 permit cap on Expo permits. Any new LE units approved and any increases in populations of LE animals in the current units would be off-limits to Conservation Permit & Expo Permit Programs. Any additional LE & OIL permits need to stay in the public pools.

4) Remove LE and OIL permits from the mentor program. They are not needed to recruit youth (dads and grandpas are the real reason they go) and we simply can't afford numerically to use them as such. But if they remain, then charge both the adult and the youth with the loss of points and the waiting periods, including the OIL rule.

5) Since the Expo draw is claimed to be a draw open to the public, then treat it as such, including loss of points, waiting periods, OIL rules. It should simply be another opportunity to draw a public permit, nothing more! If you've drawn a bull moose tag in the regular draw, you're out of the Utah public draw pool for bull moose including the Expo draw. If you want to shoot another one, then apply in another state or purchase a Utah permit at one of the auctions.

6) Limit the number and ratios of private CWMU permits vs public CWMU permits to more favorable public opportunity numbers. Of course this would be a lot more involved than just unilaterally or arbitrarily establishing some numbers, but the effort should be worth pursuing for all parties involved.

7) Issue the number of antlerless permits the plans call for in order to regulate the populations. And limit the transplants to areas that offer no alternatives or to situations that are species expansion designed. Transplants are too expensive to use on a regular basis and not that effective in controlling the populations on either end.

Too much, you say! Well welcome to the club! If you want to slow down the point creep, pay the price!

Edited: And, yes, many of the above ideas would be needed also, especially the chose your poison (LE or general) idea.

 

[El_Matador]

Elkfromabove, you have some very good ideas there. The problem is that nothing is going to change as long as SFW controls the Wildlife Board. They are managing things to give themselves the highest profit so point creep is exactly what they want! It makes the tags more valuable when people are heavily invested in trying to get them.

My unit in northern Utah gets hammered every year on the extended archery hunt. Big buck numbers are way down. The buck ratios are up though, so what did they do to fix the problem? ML rut hunts. They're going to target the big bucks to bring the ratios back down. They are limiting general season hunters but then opening it up to LE. It's such BS. I will not be surprised to see SFW auctioning off some late ML tags for this unit in the near future.

The simplest fix I can think of for point creep would be: You cannot get a bonus point and a deer tag during the same year. Same for bull elk. That would keep the LE guys out of the general hunts and it would keep the general hunt guys from amassing points.

Another problem with the current setup: Because the points have value a lot of people are applying that wouldn't ordinarily hunt. A lot of them don't even want to hunt, but a friend or relative convinces them to apply because the points are valuable. If we got rid of points altogether and made it a random drawing I believe many of these applicants would go away.

I would actually love to see them get rid of LE, Conservation, and Convention tags altogether. Limiting the number of permits is not a bad thing, but limiting them to such an extent is a waste of the resource. Let's have statewide deer and elk hunts with a reasonable number of tags given out in a preference point drawing.

 

[nebo12000]

ELMatador-- I am not an SFW guy,, but the current system went into place long before SFW had the majority of positions on the WB. Almost every conservation group is allotted LE permits to auction at banquets, so they all make money as well.
The Bonus Point system was set up originally to help reward those that would continue to apply. It has grown into a monster in some ways for sure, but the intent was not to make Cons Orgs, money.
I see the only way to help reduce point creep is to limit everyone to one species. Deer or elk. If you apply and receive a bull elk permit (LE), you can't purchase any type of buck deer permit in the same year and vice versus ---opportunity lost for some. One other thing you could do is that if you receive a buck or bull permit in a drawing or auction-- you lose the bonus points you might have for that species.
No matter what would be done, someone is going to lose "opportunity".
These are tough choices, but the "opportunity" to hunt big game is still better than its ever been in many respects. When I was a teen-ager, hunting elk was like hitting the lottery . The real opportunity now is huge. Certainly not for mature bulls every year, but you could probably hunt "any bull units" or general season(spike) units every year if you want to.
In reality, Utah has a lot to offer a Big Game hunter.

 

[El_Matador]

I realize SFW didn't invent this system or put it into place, I'm just saying they don't want it changed. It has allowed them to make millions so there's no way it's going to change any time soon. The original intent of bonus points and LE areas was fine and dandy but it has had a terrible impact on our big game hunting. Most of the areas I hunted as a teenager are now off-limits to me, and I'll likely never hunt them again.

I've seen some great ideas tossed around on these forums but its all dreaming until we get a new Wildlife Board.

 

[theox]

Well they kinda started my idea. But my idea is to get the rifle hunt out of the rut!
With this you accomplish several things
1 success rates will drop meaning you can give out more tags and kill the same amount of Bulls.
This will also help to not shoot the biggest and best bulls because they will be harder to find.
Do we really need 80+ % success rates?
You could either shift the archery later
Or just not hunt the heat of the rut
Period. Bump the hunts back a week and IMO it would greatly reduce the success rates allowing many more tags to be issued.
I mean for heck sakes it's hunting!!! Sometimes you just don't kill stuff and it doesn't need to be a slam dunk! Plus it's likely you won't just draw once you may be able to draw multiple times. Also do away withy the wait periods. I know people in az the have drawn elk tags multiple years in a row even 3/4 years.
I mean does a 5 year period really help?

 

[theox]

>LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-16
>AT 03:06?PM (MST)
>
>I guess I don't think the
>current system works for tags
>which take a lifetime or
>4 to draw. Seems
>harsh that kids and future
>grandkids will never reach those
>top level points to get
>a permit on some units
>(well unless they outlive the
>other applicants). I like
>the idea of capping points--
>let's say at 25.
>That allows everyone a chance
>to reach the top level.
> 25 years is a
>long time to put in.
> Long-term applicants
>are rewarded for a quarter
>century of diligence and those
>just starting can reach the
>max pool in their lifetime.
> In fact that would
>stop point creep as it
>can't creep past 25.

Not a terrible idea!
I like it.

 

[theox]

Wow I'm glad some of you are not in charge of making these decisions!!! Wow!
Wanting to limit to one species. Geez sounds like a bunch of sour grapes here.

Not everyone can win! Also at least we get a chance of drawing with low points Colorado doesn't do that. People just starting will never ever hunt premium units there because only the high point holders get tags.

Keep it how it is put the hunts in tougher times of the year ( rifle elk out of the rut)
Which would lower success and raise tag numbers to give more people a chance

 

[3blade]

>Wow I'm glad some of you
>are not in charge of
>making these decisions!!! Wow!
>Wanting to limit to one species.
>Geez sounds like a bunch
>of sour grapes here.
>
>Not everyone can win! Also at
>least we get a chance
>of drawing with low points
>Colorado doesn't do that. People
>just starting will never ever
>hunt premium units there because
>only the high point holders
>get tags.
>
>Keep it how it is put
>the hunts in tougher times
>of the year ( rifle
>elk out of the rut)
>
>Which would lower success and raise
>tag numbers to give more
>people a chance

Agreed! 95% rifle success rates is sickening. Its a shoot, not a hunt.

 

[gundog2]

All deer tags in one draw. It really is that simple.

 

[Zeke]

>All deer tags in one draw.
>It really is that simple.
>

...and treat them all as equal units? Or are you saying they're all equal units but some are just more "equal" than others and so the permitting process is different?

I've heard the argument before and it's not a bad one but let's treat them ALL the same! NO MORE LE HENRY'S OR PAUNSAUGUNT TAGS! Lets manage them just like all the other general units.

If we have one deer draw then let's have one deer draw and not have "special" draw units! Let's manage for a sustainable herd and no longer for any trophy quality. I can hear it all not. "Oh, that's not what we want"

I can hear the howls already from you guys who want the units all the same ....but different!

Be very careful of unintended consequences boys!

Zeke

 

[Deerlove]

Did you guy really think the cons org will buy moving the elk hunt out of the rut? They'll simply lose too much $ even though it's the right thing to do for the pt creep.

 

[nebo12000]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-10-16 AT 02:01PM (MST)[p]Just remember -- the reason that LE units exist is because there was a huge out cry among sportsmen that there weren't enough big bucks to hunt. Most of what we have in place now is because of what hunters wanted and still want. It may not fit every ones personal agenda but its an attempt to try and give something to everyone. Its an attempt to balance the trophy and opportunity folks and give them at least part of what they each want.... certainly its still a work in progress.

 

[theox]

>Did you guy really think the
>cons org will buy moving
>the elk hunt out of
>the rut? They'll simply
>lose too much $ even
>though it's the right thing
>to do for the pt
>creep.


Maybe I'm missing something but how would they lose money?
You don't think people will still pay big bucks for a San Juan etc elk tag? Just cause it's a week later?

 

[Deerlove]

You wouldn't put it a week later, you would put it in mid Oct. Issue more tags across the board. Start pushing a few more hunters through the system.

 

[Ticks N Tines]

Split the units adding more opportunity to hunt, more money for the DWR, and more hunts to spread out the point holders.

For example, the Pahvant could easily be split into three separate units for elk. There are plenty of bulls on the North and plenty on the South. There's a bunch in the middle as well. Divide it up into three smaller units and make people choose where they want to hunt.

This would split up all the applicants and reduce the point creep for a while anyway. This causes no loss to anyone and no loss of hunting opportunity for other species as well. In my opinion, it's a Win-Win situation and mirrors the way Colorado manages big game.

HJB

 

[TheDudeAbides]

It is not the current system it is the demand.

Limiting the amount of tags and taking tags out of the draw for auction purposes and the amount of people that apply for the tags.

In limited Entry Deer 47,447 people applied for 1,559 permits. It would take 30 years for everyone to draw a permit in the list.

52 Auction Permits were sold. Not to mention the number of CMWU permits that were sold. If Utah gets it's way with the land transfer it is only going to get worse.

Elk is a scarier story when it comes to auction tags.

60,105 people applied for the 2,831 elk permits. It would take 21 years to get everyone through the list.

106 Auction Permits were sold and not to mention the number of CMWU permits.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2016_conservation_permits.pdf

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2016/16_big_game_odds_report.pdf

The best advice you could give to your kids and grandkids is to get the best job that you can get, because the future of hunting will be all about the Benjamins especially if land is transferred to the state to be sold.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Not Quite.

Lifetime Deer License Holders would put a big quirk in that system.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Splitting Units without giving out more tags does nothing with point creep.
One Draw

Pahvant 15 tags (7 Top Point, 8 Random)

Two Draws

Pahvant North 7 Tags (3 Top Point, 4 Random)

Pahvant South 8 Tags (4 Top Point, 4 Random)

Three Draws

Pahvant North 5 Tags (2 Top Point, 3 Random)

Pahvant Middle 5 Tags (2 Top Point, 3 Random)

Pahvant South 5 Tags (2 Top Point, 3 Random)

With the same or one tag less in the top point holder pool, it will do nothing to stop any point accumulation. With the bonus point system in the random draw, it may actually decrease your draw odds over time. If you get more high point holders with additional numbers in the draw, it will make it statistically harder for those with lower points to draw. It is still possible to draw, but it is not a good mathematical option at reducing the number of points in the application pool.

 

[littlebighorn]

Simple economics gents!

Supply (deer) vs. Demand (hunters)

I lived through the declining deer numbers and over the counter years when every ridge had 100 orange clad nimrods on it and any 2 point that showed himself got thumped. No point creep then, but it got to the point where no one was having much fun.

As I see it, that was way worse than the current system. I have waited my turn for a couple of LE tags (none in great units), but I am also willing to do the dedicated hunter program and every year I have a chance at a decent buck or two. (forkies don't get a second look)

There are no easy answers...unless of course, everyone that is bitches and moans has to drop out!

Now that might do it.