How many more tags in each general unit this year?

I read the release that said they will add 4,400 more general tags this year. I didn't see a breakdown of how many for each unit. I am not looking in the right spot?

Muleycrazys Facebook page has the info. They posted it roughly a month ago to get word out before the RACs. The majority of tags are added in only a couple of units. Typical Utah BS! Take units that are finally doing well and destroy them.

Thanks jray for the info. That sucks! We decided this year to give Utah a shot. We didn't have enough points for Colorado and it's a closer drive from Ca for us. We flipped a coin between Monroe and Pine Valley! We picked Pine valley and they added 200 more tags as opposed to 50 in Monroe.

Here's the info
http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1847-more-deer-permits-new-elk-permits.html

A break down for tags allocated for each unit should be out this week.
"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt

Miley,

Not everyone in Utah believes that increasing tag numbers is "typical BS" or going to destroy anything.

In fact, the biologists paid to make recommendations believed the increases were warranted, and one poll I saw showed that almost 70% of responders favored the increase. I believe those that are most sore over the increase are those that benefit financially by having less hunters in the field to compete with. The vast majority of the increases were absolute no brainers. A couple were more debatable.

Unless something crazy and unexpected happens between now and the fall, Utah should have a GREAT deer hunting season. Hopefully you get to come out and enjoy it.

Seems like a lot of new tags to be giving out!!! Might make it a little harder to get away from everyone.

Vanilla, I don't benefit one bit financially. I'm just an average Joe hunter that spends every spare day possible scouting the deer in the unit I hunt, all year, not just summer and fall. Tell me how on a rather small unit, increasing the tags from 2500 to 2900 is a good idea? I put a lot of boot miles on the ground and can honestly say I don't see the numbers to support such a large increase.

jray,

There is no convincing anyone that has already made their mind up because they know more than everyone else, so I won't try. I will say, however, that Oquirrh/Stansbury is one of the units, based strictly off the published numbers, fits into that "more debatable" segment I mentioned. I assume that is the unit you're talking about based upon the numbers you mentioned.

WB voted to change the proposal of 550 additional deer tags on the Manti/San Rafael to 275 additional tags.

>jray,
>
>There is no convincing anyone that
>has already made their mind
>up because they know more
>than everyone else, so I
>won't try. I will say,
>however, that Oquirrh/Stansbury is one
>of the units, based strictly
>off the published numbers, fits
>into that "more debatable" segment
>I mentioned. I assume that
>is the unit you're talking
>about based upon the numbers
>you mentioned.


Well I'm glad you're assuming I know more than anyone and can't be convinced but then agree that it was the "more debatable" area. I'm always open to debate and I would love to hear your opinion of why the unit can handle an extra 400 tags since you seem to know everything. I'm betting you know everything about the unit even though you have probably never stepped foot on it, trusting everything the state biologists report.

jray--this is why I don't try. Even when I open the door that I might agree with you, you want to argue with me.

What if I told you I spent 317 days on the unit last year and my observations are in line with the DWR's numbers? Would it change your mind? Or what if I told you I had never stepped foot on the unit and I am just a DWR kool-aid drinking kid. Would either statement have any impact whatsoever on your thoughts on this? I'll answer that for you: no, it wouldn't.

I like the tag increases. The science and biological information available supports them. Utah is in shape for another great deer season statewide. Hopefully you will ever able to enjoy it. Sounds like the increase in tags on "your" unit should increase your chances of being able to do that.

First of all, I would be jealous as hell if you were able to spend 300+ days on the mountain. I would definitely take your opinion over mine if that's the case. I would still have some doubts and would wonder where exactly you have been to support the numbers, but I would never ask because I'm not like that.

jray,

When I look at the numbers and the 5 year Mule Deer Plan, I can understand why there are now permit increases and I can easily accept most of those unit increases, including the Oquirrh-Stansbury. So what are the specific issues or numbers stopping you from accepting them?

Sorry to jump in this discussion a little late but here's my take.

Vanilla, although I haven't hunted unit 18 all my life, I did grow up hunting that unit and now live in the heart of the unit. I've hunted all over the state the last 20 years and plan on hunting different units in the future.
I do have friends and family that hunts the unit regularly. So I will always have a vested interest in the unit.
If you and Elkfromabove remember,
I was very vocal about having the proposed tag numbers in 2012 reduced when the new sub units were divided and announced.
I could tell that the proposed tag numbers were higher than what the proposed buck/doe ratio could sustain and the local Biologist agreed.
Both the RAC and Wildlife Board told me that we should just see what happens and those numbers were set by people who have put a lot of work into coming up with those numbers.
Who are those people, if not the local Biologist?
In 2013, the buck/doe ratio dropped and tag numbers were cut by about 12%.
So The Biologist and I wasn't full of crap after all.

Buck/doe ratios were steady in 2013&2014 but then a steep incline in 2015 at 27/100 ratio.
Even with a higher than normal fawn/doe survival ratio, which will help in future numbers, there was a higher than normal success rate last fall and more bucks were killed.
It seems like to me that the DWR used a knee jerk reaction when seeing the 27/100 ratio for last falls count and added the extra 400 tags to unit 18. Why not approach things on the side of caution and maybe added half of that?
The 27 buck ratio could of been a fluke or error in counts. The three years average jumped a lot higher with that inflated 2015 ratio.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how far next years ratios drop.

Vanilla, since you basically try to portray me as an ignorant know it all, I would really love for you to come clean and say if you have even been on the unit or if you really do spend 300+ days a year on it ( which I would bet good money you don't ).

Elkfromabove, I have numerous reasons why I don't like the large tag increase:

1. I have lived on the unit my whole life and as I stated previously, I spend every spare day I get away from work and family life on the unit scouting deer. Not just driving around the area, actually hiking. Plain and simple, I don't see the numbers to support such a drastic increase.

2. During the time frame the new tag increase proposals were going through, we were still getting pounded with snow. Nothing too serious but I believe it could've been enough weather to finish off any deer that were barely making it through the season.

3. The new muzzleloader optics law. None of us know yet if this will have an impact on harvest success but I don't see how it won't. It will definitely help me to now be confident and very effective to 200+ yards ( ethically). I'm all for long range shooting but wish the magnification limit would have been set at 4x so we can see what we're shooting at but not think we have rifle capabilities. I worry now that people will be shooting much further than they have any business shooting a muzzy with poor terminal velocity.

4. Will the tag numbers ever be decreased now if need be? Wish I could say I trust Utah to do that but I don't. Will the local biologist ever come up with numbers to ever support a decrease? I highly doubt it.

I just don't understand why you wouldn't do a small increase the first year and then see how it looks and do another small increase the next year if need be and so on. If not immediately, I believe this large increase in tags is definitely going to have a huge affect on the deer hunt quality within 3 years.

Ridge, your statement about the potential one year outlier affecting the average is exactly why I think that unit is debatable for tag increases. You can look at just the posted data and see that there is possibility for error there.

jray, tags were cut before these increases. This happened just within the last 5 years. Deer numbers go down, so do tags. Deer numbers go up, so should tags. That is how it should be. Nobody called you ignorant, by the way.

LAST EDITED ON May-09-16 AT 09:56AM (MST)[p]I'd like to jump in on this topic. I think the buck to doe ratios are too low . I think they should be around 30/100. I know some of you might consider this a limited entry level. I say this because most of the buck/doe count as of now are young bucks. I say let them grow a couple more years so we have a larger age class of bucks. I wonder when the Wildlife Board sets the (buck/doe) count...does the doe harvest affect the actual buck/doe count?

My thoughts on the muzzle loader hunt are to limit scopes to 1 power. I get it when people cant see their iron sights because of their eye sight but come on...When does it stop becoming a primitive hunt?

>LAST EDITED ON May-09-16
>AT 09:56?AM (MST)
>
>I'd like to jump in on
>this topic. I think the
>buck to doe ratios are
>too low . I think
>they should be around 30/100.
>I know some of you
>might consider this a limited
>entry level. I say this
>because most of the buck/doe
>count as of now are
>young bucks. I say let
>them grow a couple more
>years so we have a
>larger age class of bucks.
>I wonder when the Wildlife
>Board sets the (buck/doe) count...does
>the doe harvest affect the
>actual buck/doe count?
>
>My thoughts on the muzzle loader
>hunt are to limit scopes
>to 1 power. I get
>it when people cant see
>their iron sights because of
>their eye sight but come
>on...When does it stop becoming
>a primitive hunt?

And when does the constant push for TROPHIES at the expense of opportunities stop? When every unit becomes a Henries and we only get to hunt every 12 to 15 years?

Looks like I opened up a can of worms! I'm excited to get a chance to hunt Utah for the first time! I doubt we have a buck to doe ratio of 10/100 in our general units here in California. My unit has a 23% success rate and %60 of those bucks taken are 2 pointers. Thanks for all the opinions.

I have a question on this topic, Is there any Info on what the hunter distribution maybe between the Oquirrh and the Stansbury side?

>Vanilla, since you basically try to
>portray me as an ignorant
>know it all, I would
>really love for you to
>come clean and say if
>you have even been on
>the unit or if you
>really do spend 300+ days
>a year on it (
>which I would bet good
>money you don't ).
>
>Elkfromabove, I have numerous reasons why
>I don't like the large
>tag increase:
>
>1. I have lived on the
>unit my whole life and
> as I stated previously,
>I spend every spare day
>I get away from work
>and family life on the
>unit scouting deer. Not just
>driving around the area, actually
>hiking. Plain and simple, I
>don't see the numbers to
>support such a drastic increase.
>
>
>2. During the time frame the
>new tag increase proposals were
>going through, we were still
>getting pounded with snow. Nothing
>too serious but I believe
>it could've been enough weather
>to finish off any deer
>that were barely making it
>through the season.
>
>3. The new muzzleloader optics law.
>None of us know yet
>if this will have an
>impact on harvest success but
>I don't see how it
>won't. It will definitely help
>me to now be confident
>and very effective to 200+
>yards ( ethically). I'm all
>for long range shooting but
>wish the magnification limit would
>have been set at 4x
>so we can see what
>we're shooting at but
>not think we have rifle
>capabilities. I worry now
>that people will be shooting
>much further than they have
>any business shooting a muzzy
>with poor terminal velocity.
>
>4. Will the tag numbers ever
>be decreased now if need
>be? Wish I could say
>I trust Utah to do
>that but I don't. Will
>the local biologist ever come
>up with numbers to ever
>support a decrease? I highly
>doubt it.
>
>I just don't understand why you
>wouldn't do a small increase
>the first year and then
>see how it looks and
>do another small increase the
>next year if need be
>and so on. If not
>immediately, I believe this large
>increase in tags is definitely
>going to have a huge
>affect on the deer hunt
>quality within 3 years.

1. Since the unit includes two major mountain ranges and several smaller "hills", what areas do you scout? (or have scouted?) Other than just randomly walking around, how do you scout? What is your purpose for "scouting"? Do you keep a log?

2. We get pounded by snow during the classifications every year and "winter" kill doesn't usually happen until March/April anyway when the deer have lost most of their fat, so why would it be an issue now?

3. The new muzzy/scope law was proposed to help prevent the lose of wounded deer. If there are hunters who will ethically abuse the change by taking shots longer than they should, it will be those who were already taking shots longer than they should. In any case, the change won't significantly increase the kill rate. And, after all, we're still talking about killing bucks which won't effect the population enough to notice.

4. Where/how did you come to the personal conclusion that the DWR will not likely reduce tags when biologically needed? Do you have stats to back it up or do you think an unverifiable personal view is enough to determine how the majority of Utah deer hunters are allowed to hunt?

You are correct that this increase will change the General hunts on this unit, whether immediately or long term, but whether that is considered an improvement or a detriment depends on one's definition of "quality". What's yours?

elkfromabove I would like to see good representation of all age groups.

>elkfromabove I would like to see
>good representation of all age
>groups.

And so would I and the DWR, but we may differ on what we consider a "good" representation, which is what this trophy versus opportunity debate is all about. I thought the trophy crowd already had a "good" representation with the number of trophy/limited entry units proportional to the number of trophy hunters, but apparently I was/am mistaken.

We've seen about every trick/effort made thus far to turn the whole state over to trophy hunters, but we probably haven't seen all that's coming. We haven't seen the results of the land grab nor the wilderness designations nor the changes in technology nor the ultimate Conservation and Expo tag numbers, but unless people wake up and do something, you can bet the majority of Utah hunters and fishermen who have hunting and fishing further down their list of priorities than the trophy crowd, will end up paying the costs of these ongoing efforts whether financially or in lose of opportunity.

I didn't see that the last time we hunted. We mostly seen young bucks 18 inches could of filled our tags but we decided to pass plus our freezer was almost all full. There was not much picking after that age class..

LAST EDITED ON May-10-16 AT 02:47AM (MST)[p]>>Vanilla, since you basically try to
>>portray me as an ignorant
>>know it all, I would
>>really love for you to
>>come clean and say if
>>you have even been on
>>the unit or if you
>>really do spend 300+ days
>>a year on it (
>>which I would bet good
>>money you don't ).
>>
>>Elkfromabove, I have numerous reasons why
>>I don't like the large
>>tag increase:
>>
>>1. I have lived on the
>>unit my whole life and
>> as I stated previously,
>>I spend every spare day
>>I get away from work
>>and family life on the
>>unit scouting deer. Not just
>>driving around the area, actually
>>hiking. Plain and simple, I
>>don't see the numbers to
>>support such a drastic increase.
>>
>>
>>2. During the time frame the
>>new tag increase proposals were
>>going through, we were still
>>getting pounded with snow. Nothing
>>too serious but I believe
>>it could've been enough weather
>>to finish off any deer
>>that were barely making it
>>through the season.
>>
>>3. The new muzzleloader optics law.
>>None of us know yet
>>if this will have an
>>impact on harvest success but
>>I don't see how it
>>won't. It will definitely help
>>me to now be confident
>>and very effective to 200+
>>yards ( ethically). I'm all
>>for long range shooting but
>>wish the magnification limit would
>>have been set at 4x
>>so we can see what
>>we're shooting at but
>>not think we have rifle
>>capabilities. I worry now
>>that people will be shooting
>>much further than they have
>>any business shooting a muzzy
>>with poor terminal velocity.
>>
>>4. Will the tag numbers ever
>>be decreased now if need
>>be? Wish I could say
>>I trust Utah to do
>>that but I don't. Will
>>the local biologist ever come
>>up with numbers to ever
>>support a decrease? I highly
>>doubt it.
>>
>>I just don't understand why you
>>wouldn't do a small increase
>>the first year and then
>>see how it looks and
>>do another small increase the
>>next year if need be
>>and so on. If not
>>immediately, I believe this large
>>increase in tags is definitely
>>going to have a huge
>>affect on the deer hunt
>>quality within 3 years.
>
>1. Since the unit includes two
>major mountain ranges and several
>smaller "hills", what areas do
>you scout? (or have scouted?)
>Other than just randomly walking
>around, how do you scout?
>What is your purpose for
>"scouting"? Do you keep a
>log?
>
>2. We get pounded by snow
>during the classifications every year
>and "winter" kill doesn't usually
>happen until March/April anyway when
>the deer have lost most
>of their fat, so why
>would it be an issue
>now?
>
>3. The new muzzy/scope law was
>proposed to help prevent the
>lose of wounded deer. If
>there are hunters who will
>ethically abuse the change by
>taking shots longer than they
>should, it will be those
>who were already taking shots
>longer than they should. In
>any case, the change won't
>significantly increase the kill rate.
>And, after all, we're still
>talking about killing bucks which
>won't effect the population enough
>to notice.
>
>4. Where/how did you come to
>the personal conclusion that the
>DWR will not likely reduce
>tags when biologically needed? Do
>you have stats to back
>it up or do you
>think an unverifiable personal view
>is enough to determine how
>the majority of Utah deer
>hunters are allowed to hunt?
>
>
>You are correct that this increase
>will change the General hunts
>on this unit, whether immediately
>or long term, but whether
>that is considered an improvement
>or a detriment depends on
>one's definition of "quality". What's
>yours?


I definitely don't just "randomly" walk around. The majority of the areas I go are where most don't go. As far as your scouting question, why does anyone scout deer? I'm looking for trophy deer. And no I don't keep a log..... Nearly half of the one major mountain is private along with the smaller hills you speak of.

This year we have had more heavy, late snow storms than normal is what I was implying about the possibility of a higher than normal winter kill.

I think you are up in the night if you truly think the muzzy success rate isn't going to change with better optics!

As far as the tag numbers, when have you known this greedy state to cut tags? Ya, once they completely screw up and decimate elk herds etc. they finally cut tags. Hopefully I'm wrong and they'll cut tags if need be next year but I have zero faith in that.

I am definitely a quality over quantity guy. As you can tell, my definition of quality is hunting mature bucks not hunting a population of 1 to 3 year old bucks that are lucky to see maturity due to high hunting pressure. I'll go years without pulling the trigger if it means letting decent and even borderline shooter bucks mature. I'm not in it just for the kill. I love the meat but beef, lamb and pork haven't let me down yet.

jray, when did this greedy state cut tags?

Ummmm, how long have you been hunting in Utah? I dont mean to be rude, but have you followed tag numbers over the years?