Idea for the Utah Deer Hunt

R

RKenSparc

Guest
Having hunted all my life in Utah, and I know there are large bucks to be found in the open hunting regions ? but in general, the average buck in the 5 open regions is nothing to write home about. I would love to see more ?mature buck? (For argument sake lets call mature bucks anything over 2 years old) in Utah?s open hunting areas, but it seems the only way to get mature bucks is significantly limit the number of hunters. I've been trying to think of a way that would 1- Increase the number of mature bucks, and 2- Not limit the general hunting opportunities in Utah. I've had an idea that I thought I would throw out and see what others think and point out it's short comings. I'm biased, but it seems like a good idea to me.

The only way to have mature bucks is for yearling bucks to survive their first hunt, but it seems most hunters would rather fill their tags with a small buck rather than no buck. Ask most hunters prior to the hunt and their ego will tell you that they don't shoot small bucks, but the moment that little spikes steps into the crosshairs the hunt is over. So?.what if, the DWR offered two different deer licenses? One license for mature bucks (for arguments sake we'll say a 3-point or better) and one license for any buck (this one is would be equivalent to Utah?s current license). Now to encourage hunters to buy the mature buck license you offer it at $15.00 to $20.00 less than the any buck license, and possibly even extend the mature buck hunt by a few days. Betweens egos (I'm not shooting a small buck!), saving a buck (pardon the pun) and getting a couple of extra days to hunt (sorry bosses & wives), I think the DWR could make the mature buck license very attractive to a lot of hunters. If this works, and there is an increase in mature bucks, as time goes on the mature buck license will become even more attractive, resulting in even fewer yearlings being harvested. For those hunters who still want to be able to take a yearling the opportunity is still there, let youth and seniors have the ?any buck? permit at a discount. As I see it ? everyone still gets to hunt, but assuming a significant number of hunter opt for the mature buck permit than more yearlings will survive for next year. Granted this system won't make the general hunt equivalent to a limited entry area, but I believe it would increase the average age class of bucks taken outside of the limited entry areas.

One possible variation to this system would be a 3 tiered system where a hunter could purchase a 4-point or better, 3-point or better, or an 1- point or better license making each progressively more expensive, and with shorter seasons.

A beneficial side effect would be with more mature bucks the rut would become more competitive and the stronger healthier bucks would be the ones to pass on their genes, improving the overall health of the herds.

Anyway just thought I'd throw this out there and see what everyone else has to say about it.


Check out my black powder site at:
www.angelfire.com/home/oldguns
 
If the majority of people were honest, then it would work, but I think you would see a lot of dead smaller bucks left to rot. After all the unethical crap I saw on this years muzzleloader hunt in Utah (400 yard + shots with a muzzleloader, shooting at deer someone else was stalking just to make sure they didn't get it, etc.), I don't have faith that it would work. I just don't think that the average Utah hunter is honest and ethical enough to care.

"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
 
Not sure I follow the point about the 4 point license costing more than the spike but having a shorter hunt. Seems if I'm willing(I totally am) to pay more to have a 4 point or better tag, then I'm not gonna be tempted to shoot small bucks and therefore am more or less self regulated. IE I shoot what makes me happy or happily(more or less) go home without anything.

Personally I've always shot a doe(its way legal here) instead of an almost buck. That way I get both worlds.

Jeff
 
Droptine,
Sorry to hear about you muzzleloader hunt. Personally I disagree with you - I think most hunters are honest. I know there are a lot of jerks and idiots, but I think they are the minority.

Check out my black powder site at:
www.angelfire.com/home/oldguns
 
Jeff,
Sorry if I wasn't clear but you've got it backwards. A 4 point license would cost less and be a longer hunt as a "reward" for passing on smaller bucks. Those that want to take a small buck could but it cost them a bit more for the privelage of have more legal deer, and they would have fewer days to hunt.




Check out my black powder site at:
www.angelfire.com/home/oldguns
 
Shhhh! Don't let this secret out. Only sell 45,000 tags or equal tags for estimated equal amounts of bucks. Remember though, don't tell anyone or let the cat out of the bag, Shhh!
 
My thoughts exactly Droptine. I beleive I was even thinking of the exact same 400yd muzz shots being launched as you when I first read this post. What a joke! I didn't even think I'd hit the stupid thing he says? Hmmmm. We sure have an authentic breed here in UT don't we. I'm amazed that a CO boy like yourself would even consider hunting here!

Our whole state is already set up as a draw. You have your choice between the 5 exsisting units. Some sell out and some don't. Personally I think we should just chop the state into more units so we can better manage things. Say 25 units like has been recomended and then allocate tags according to the situation we want to have in each unit. Some people want quantity and others want quality. Give fewer tags to the areas that have potential to produce big bucks (say 30% of the 97,000 or 29,000). Maybe have a point restriction of some sort that changes as needed or whatever works (try new things if needed). Make it mandatory for these hunters to report thier success as well as what they saw during their hunts at the end of each season so each area can be evaluated and adjustments can be made to tag numbers/pt restrictions as needed. Then give the remaining 70% of the tags to the units with inferior genetics, lower deer numbers, less habitat or whatever. This way 70% of the state can go camping and enjoy the experience in a crappy hunting area and possibly shoot a small buck if they so choose. The other 30% of the hunters can draw a decent tag now and then (say once every 2 or 3 years or so) and make good use of it. A guy could put in his first choice as a good unit. Then second or even third choices as one of the not so hot units. You gain pts just like we do now and if you keep after it you draw a decent tag now and then. Really the only difference between now and then I guess would be that we increase the number of limited entry units in the state. It seems to work really well in NV and CO? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that is exactly what they are currently doing pretty much. To me it seems simple (probably because I have a simple mind!). We just need to do what our neighbors are doing and then learn as we go. It seems to be working pretty well for them. I guess one problem is we would need a couple of guys looking at the feedback from each of the areas and adjusting the tags/restrictions now and then. I'm not sure if we can afford that (ya right)! All I know if if we just keep turning 97,000 people loose and hoping they don't all hunt in the same place not much is going to change. Good post! Hopefully together we can come up with something that will eventually work and benifit our herds.

Good luck to everyone this weekend!

NvrEnuf
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-19-04 AT 04:46PM (MST)[p]I have also hunted all my life in Utah and I would support this type of hunt 100%. I also would like to see larger and more mature bucks. I realize there are many different factors that play into a bucks size, but every little bit will help and the bit that we can control is indeed US. If I should go many years without harvesting, then I would be apt to purchase a smaller buck tag in order to fill the freezer. Quite some time ago, I posted the question of going to a point system. I believe one of the responses was that Utah at one time did try a point system, but people were shooting smaller bucks and then leaving them so they would not get caught. I do think that dishonest hunters are the minority, but there are still enough out there to make the program difficult to succeed. I would say let's try something like this for 3-5 years and see what happens. I'm not sure that would be enough time to see a notable difference but if it seemed to be working, we could continue it. I also personally like the 25 units for better management, even if it does interrupt some family traditions. I am willing to sacrifice for a year or two in order to improve our herds and buck to doe ratios in certain units. What about adding this to the equation...Offer a discounted tag or even a free tag of a hunter's choice if he volunteers his time during the hunt as a patrolman, and sign up enough individuals to cover the larger hunting units. This might decrease the rate of shooting smaller bucks and leaving them to rot. He could still hunt, but would take some responsibility to watch other hunters in the field. I don't see that stopping that type of activity altogether, but it could indeed decrease it. I'm sure this has been brought up to the DWR at one time or another, but maybe we should ask them again just to get their feedback on the matter...pros and cons from their point of view.
 
Just look at pennsilvania. They instituted a 3 point or better restriction and the hunters went ballistic. Well that all stopped once they started seeing bigger deer. But to supplement this hunt, they encouraged more hunters to take does to help control the population. Granted, these are whitetails and the population is closer to 1 million, but Utah needs to do something. At one time when the state was open in all areas, there were some areas (around fish lake) that were 3 point or better. I say we keep the system as is, but institute 3 point or better areas in the regions that need less pressure on the herds. Now the DWR will NEVER go for this because that means lost revenue and this state loves to rape the funds from our licenses and use it for other projects. Due to this pressure you will never see the number of tags reduced to the number of bucks in the state. However, I would pay more money to hit the 3 point or better area if the hunt was longer. Wait wait wait, I got it. Lets import whitetails and let them drive out the mule deer then we can have the problems of 1 million plus deer to manage. Yea that's it. We can trade elk (we do it for turkeys so why not whitetails?). I don't see a change until it is to late.

Peace out.

Katghoti
 
Just to clarify, my opinion is not based off this one hunt. I grew up in Utah and started hunting there 20 years ago. I have always seen behavior like I saw this year. This year was the first year I have hunted there in 9 years. Low and behold, I start running into buttheads on the first day out. It just disgusts me. I have never seen this in any other state I have hunted in.

"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
 
Here we GO!!! The Three point or better restriction on the Fishlake part of the unit WAS working. The local Warden freely admitts that, problem was that over the large are they implemented it, for the most part it wasn't working! How about this idea? Those who get too excited, missjudge, or could have sworn that branch was horn attached, instead of having to let lay or be illegal, voluntarily (I know, I know) buys a possesion permit to LEGALLY keep the under size animal???(Make it orange so it's immediately recognizable) Hey, I let go some huge two points those years, if I knew I could have taken it and paid $5-$10 bucks more to be legal, I might have! All it would take is a DWR truck in the Canyon, and I believe a majority of those who erred, or heck, shot it on purpose, would pay the fee, cheap and simple way to keep a clear conscience, and the DWR benefits the way they like the most... MORE MONEY! Still at the same time raising the standard, and hopefully letting more bucks survive? (Always the pessimist, perhaps the cougars won't even get them all!)
 
This whole issue cracks me up. Every year at this time we hear the stories of how bad it is and people wanting better bucks, more bucks, or meat because they just love the stuff so much.

Point restrictions will never work. You cannot enforce it. Look at the spike only on elk. It works, but the definition of a spike makes the determination hard. Can you imaginge trying to determine how many points a deer that is scared to death and running for dear life would be? With so many people on the mountain, counting points is a difficult feat at best.

Why does everyone want to buy a tag and expect to go home with nothing? This baffles me. If you buy a tag isn't your hope and determination going to tell you to get your buck whether the buck is a trophy or a spike? Every pumkin on the mountain Saturday is going with the intent of blasting a deer, otherwise what would be the point of hiking around with a gun strapped to your back?

The only way to limit the harvest is decrease tag amounts to an acceptable level. It is the only way that will work. "Go big or go home " won't work. Point restrictions won't work. Being "ethical" won't work. The only method to limit harvest is limit tags. Why doesn't anyone see this?
 
KTC,
I agree and I think that is what NvrEnuf was trying to point out. I think it has worked here in Colorado.

"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
 
I seen the three point or better work on the Monroe mtn. unit in the 90's, and I am sure there were a few 2 points shot and left to waste. The carry over for the small bucks was far better then it would be if they reduced the number of tags again. Back in the day when you could buy a tag over the counter I seen more and bigger bucks then you see now with one third of the hunters in the feild. One solution to that may be to have youth tags that are any buck tags for hunters who are less experienced and more likly to get excited and make a mistake. Anyway I like the concept of the idea.
 
Hello, Im sorta new to this site, live in lehi, have been hunting for 15 plus years and really appreciate the ideas you all have towards a better dear herd. I think there is value in many of the plans offered. I do know most hunters want a chance at a bigger buck, even the DWR recognizes this sorta! I Do think we can help them(DWR) evolve if we consistantly show up at rac meetings, email them etc! There is a lot of truth to the squeeky wheel theory. I plan on joining the dedicated hunter program again just so it will force me to attend meetings. MY point is this, the means to the end will probably be the very things yall are talking about but first lets let them know of the end result we all want which is a descent chance at that trophy buck. If we consistantly sound of in thier ears that we are not satisfied, that we expect that trophy buck opportunity, I think they will evolve, slowly yes, but until our voices are directed in thier direction I feel little will change. thanks for hearing me out, contact them today with your ideas, and every month we should remind one another to bug the &^%*% out of them with our displeasure in the statis quo! thanks Jer
 
I would like to encourage everyone to keep on open mind when dealing with these topics. Most hunters have some pretty strong convictions when it comes to these types of subjects. I think through it all, most hunters would agree that some hunting is better than none. That means that even though we express concern about more, and larger bucks, we would still take what we have over nothing at all. I think it is fair to say that there will never be 25 trophy bucks to every 100 does here in Utah, and that is OK. We will take what we can get. However, I think it is also OK to constantly strive for improvement by brainstorming ideas together. This is how good things happen...you take the good and weed out the bad ideas. Most of what is said here falls on deaf ears as it doesn't go any further, but it still presents itself the opportunity to be taken to a meeting. Again, I think the DWR makes mistakes...but we all do. I still have faith that the general public is their priority, but they can't always satisfy our needs, and the needs of the environment also. Tough situation!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom