does utah have a problem?

D

deserteagle500

Guest
this is an email i sent to the Utah DWR. tell me what you think about it and give me suggestions. i'm compiling ideas and suggestions to take before the division administrators.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Travis K****. I have lived and hunted in Utah for nearly my entire life. I would like to know just why Utah lacks the quality of deer that Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho and other states hold. Why do you give out 85,000 deer tags when you (who ever is reading this) knows that this is too much? Are you doing anything for the general units, aka; every public land, non-LE and non-CWMU units? Or has the division caught the elk fever and got their money grubbing hands into the cookie jar and forgot that hunting is all about the experience and not about how much money the division can line their pockets with. Has the division ever thought about splitting the state into many units and micro managing them? Well, many of us real hunters and not profiteering hunters would like to suggest some ideas. I will compile a list of ideas and suggestions if you feel so inclined to ask, if not, we can continue on the same path and have no more big game for our children?s children to see, let alone hunt.

I have an enormous feeling that this will fall on deaf ears, I hope it doesn't. The Division has a large responsibility to the wildlife, hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, and the future of quality animals. Please don't let Utah down anymore.

You can personally reach me through email at; [email protected].

Thank you for hearing and responding,

Travis K****



beat this
 
I sure is heck would not use New Mexico and Idaho as great examples of great deer management.They both have a couple of good units but so does UT. I will go along with CO for sure and i would use NV as a good one too but the other two have just as bad of problems or if not even worse than UT. I really dont think U will get a great responce to use money grubbing hands and line your pockets with money. Im sure that would just warm someones hart reading that. I know what U are talking about just would go a better way of saying things and get your facts stright before u go in for a fight.
 
My only suggestion would be to phrase your complaint in a more professional manner. It sounds more like a ##### and moan gripe more so than an intellectual complaint. It is obvious that there are problems with the deer herd in Utah, it may be more beneficial to assemble a large group of concerned hunters and actually attend RACs and other DWR sponsored events and outline possible solutions to a large audience to ensure your voice is heard.
 
RE: does utah have problem?

thanks for the response. money grubbing hands, you might just be right. haha. maybe i won't get a very good response. but i think that idaho has better opportunity to take quality animals than utah. i was inferring to the way it is split up into many units. i should send them an adendum to my first email. haha

beat this
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-12-07 AT 03:14PM (MST)[p]do you think that the information and responses given by the public are really listened too? how do i find infromatoin on these meetings? are they held regulary?

beat this
 
thats a really well wrote letter. I hope they listen, and I agree with your opions. A+
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-12-07 AT 06:00PM (MST)[p]Travis:

First, damn good email. Second, unfortunately, it will likely end up in a waste basket absent a few revisions. I would probably send it again. Either way, let us know if you get a response.

Please don't take offense, but here is what I would write given what you wrote (I don't profess to be a great writer, but I have gotten my point across in print a few times):

To whom it may concern,

My name is Travis K****. I have lived and hunted in Utah for nearly my entire life. I would like to know just why Utah lacks the quality of deer that some other Western States produce, even when faced with similar budgetary concerns as Utah.

First, why do you give out 85,000 deer tags? To me this seems like too many.

Second, are you doing anything for the general units, aka; every public land, non-LE and non-CWMU units? Some would argue, and I would agree, that the DWR has caught the elk fever and has put their money grubbing hands into the cookie jar and forgotten that hunting is all about the experience and not about how much money the division makes.

Third, has the division ever thought about splitting the state into smaller units and micro managing them? This has seemed to work well in other Western States. Is there a concern or hang up that is not allowing Utah to make such changes?

I think that many concerned hunters would like to suggest some ideas to better the overall experience and quality of deer hunting in Utah, but feel like they would be ignored. Yes, unfortunately at first many of these suggestions may be at the hands of profit for the DWR. However, over time, I feel this would actually benefit the DWR in many ways, including increased profits. I will be happy compile a list of ideas and suggestions if you feel so inclined to ask. I am afraid that if nothing is done soon, we will continue on the current path towards less management, and ultimately less big game for our children?s children to see, let alone hunt.

I have a feeling that this will fall on deaf ears. Notwithstanding, I hope it doesn't because the Division has a large responsibility to the wildlife, hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, and the future of quality animals. Please don't let Utah hunters and big game down.

You can personally reach me through email at: [email protected].

Thank you, and I will await a prompt response.

Travis K*****
 
Unfortunately your letter will fall on deaf ears. These things are settled months in advance before the RACs meetings are held. If you want anything done you should join a hunting group and go to their meetings and bring your letter. They will hash it out, pick it apart. If they support it they will bring it to the divisions attention and possible the other hunting groups attention. These hunting groups know if it will pass before it even gets to a RAC meeting.
 
i like the revision you have made. should i resend this one or just wiat for a response? thanks for your reply

beat this
 
now sent it to everyone twice a month for a year and now that you done that sent this note to 1 person....HI my name is..TRAVIS ..and I have an AK-47 and 200rnds and I taking names......See what happens! not a problem!
rm
 
Rings along the lines of "I want a 200 inch buck over every ridge but I damn well better be one of the 25000, 30,000 40,000
or how ever many hunters that get to hunt every year"

Stop with the e mail, go to a RAC, be a man, and express your thoughts. I'll stand up right behind you and oppose everything you have to say.

You are right they probably ain't gonna listen to what you have to say unless you have the right name or group behind you.

THE ONLY ww WAITING FOR BESSY TO GET R DONE WITH THIS ONE
 
wileywapati,


i have no problem sitting out a year or two to hunt deer, because i know that when i draw the long straw i will be able to make memories harvesting a buck. i'm not a trophy hunter by any means. i'm just looking for better management.

beat this
 
>now sent it to everyone twice
>a month for a year
>and now that you done
>that sent this note to
>1 person....HI my name is..TRAVIS
>..and I have an AK-47
>and 200rnds and I taking
>names......See what happens! not a
>problem!
>rm


they just might listen, they just might shoot me or put me in jail. can't do much huntin in there.

beat this
 
"tell me what you think about it" - well, you asked.....

This letter is:
emotional
accusatory
arrogant
uninformed
self-contradicting
whiney

You've put all these elements into a letter where you are basically asking for help. You're not going to get any. The DWR will take the high road, maybe send you a thanks for your concern reply. Honestly, would you carry this tone if you were speaking in person with the "administrators"?
If you've got some input, get your facts straight, be able to defend any of your points (facts really help here), and be professional, you'll be taken more serious.

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/about/goals.php

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/mule_deer_plan.pdf
 
I agree with Steelie. You could have worded it a little nicer. I sent a letter to the Utah RAC members(you can get their e-mails from the DWR web site) a couple of months ago.I brought up a few of the same issues you have and I was surprised to get a few letters back. So they will read and take into consideration your views thats what the RAC proccess is all about.

Try wording it a little nicer the RAC members are there to work with us hunters. If they come into the next RAC meeting with a stack of letters with the same conserns maybe something will be/get done.

Allen
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-13-07 AT 07:58AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-13-07 AT 07:56?AM (MST)

The re worded version by the buckstopshere looks alot better.
 
The division does not line their pockets... the money from the sale of license's goes to the Utah general fund and then the Division of natural resources gets a budget from good old Utah to operate on. This Budget also goes for the Managment of all wildlife.
 
If you want to have a political impact then you need to certainly approach this, especially the wording, in much different manner. Again, when you say that they are failing that is only one point of view. In their view they:

1. Provide trophy hunters with several draw units
2. Provide 85,000 opportunities to hunt better than any other state. People must be happy cause they keep buying the product my friend (supply and demand)
3. Since I have been hunting I have heard family friends whine about the F & G and why they are doing it wrong and this is how they should do it. Same guys whined about the BYU, Utah coaches, couch coaches. The F&G has set up RAC meetings for people that want to be more than a couch coach. So go to them. There you may have an impact. Meet with the F & G, do something proactive.
4. The fact that you can sit in your chair and email them some aggressively toned poorly worded letter, in my opinion justifies throwing it in the garbage.

5. The problem is that you want more trophy units, you could give a damn about management as long as there are bigger bucks. Again, unfortunately as I have been proactive as of late, this appears to be the minority of the hunters. The rest of the planet wants an opportunity to enjoy the outdoors with their family and friends and maybe get some meat. If the buck is a 2 point they don't care.

6. So the F & G I agree could do a better job, but balance is the key and that includes opportunity.

T
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-07 AT 07:00AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-13-07 AT 01:33?PM (MST)

i really am grateful for all the responses that have been posted. thank you for your convictions. we all have the same goals here. i believe they aren't monster bucks in everyone's backyard. not even monster bucks evry where. i believe we all just want there to be deer for the future. my grandpa lived and died hunting deer. he never missed a year, never went home empty handed. it doesn't always take killing a deer to make great memories, but i can go backpacking and camping to make these, i would like to continue making hunting memories. no monsters just healthy stabil deer herd.

i hope that i more fully explained myself. i guess when i calm down and think about it my first letter was a wining and moaning text. after a little time to think about it i would like to physically get involved and do more than just my part in perserving this tradition that we all have such a great love for.




beat this
 
I'm a professional wildlife biologist working for a state agency (i.e., all of you who are on this site and all of the other citizens of my state). I read the original post several hours ago and have taken those hours since to try to calm down and develop a reasoned response. I appreciate that the original author has perhaps appreciated the comments of others who responded, but it will probably not come off that way.

I regularly receive a number of comments similar to those of Travis K. To say I find them offensive is an extreme understatement. Would you like to pose the same questions to the widow and children of Rocky Spencer, the Washington wildlife biologist who lost his life capturng bighorn sheep last Saturday after a 29-year career of trying his best to make wildlife populations and hunting better for the hunters of Washington? How about the widow of Michael Gratson, the Idaho research biologist, who died in 2000 in a helicopter surveying for mountain lions and devoted his life to studying elk ecology - why? for hunters and better management of those species? How about the hundreds of other wildife biologists who bust their butts for piss-poor pay and put up with armchair whining about how we are "lining our pockets?"

Know what? I get paid the same whether there are 100 deer tags in my region or 1,000 or 10,000. There is no "profit" in a state agency. State legislatures set budgets at least a year in advance. If there is any money left at the end of the year, it goes back to the general fund. There are no bonuses for biologists who provide more tags. There are no raises based on tag numbers. We manage based on the best available data and public desire as best as possible through developing management plans that try to encompass the "soup to nuts" comments from the hunting public. The money pays salaries, albeit well under market value, and those salaries are limited by state law. Yes, salaries increase over time - it's called inflation (but few states pay well enough to keep up with it). License and tag fees pay for things like helicopter time for surveys, purchasing land for WMAs and maintaining them, stocking fish, gas for trucks, and conducting capture and translocations - what Rocky was doing when he died serving YOU.

Yes, an agency needs funds to conduct its operations and follow state laws - those being to serve YOU and maintain healthy wildlife populations. So how do you figure anyone in a state agency is lining their pockets? Just how does this work? Answer is it doesn't work that way, so why keep bringing up an absolutely ridiculous suggestion? Why waste precious time of a state biologist or manager who would much rather continue dedicating his life to better wildlife management by asking such questions. Yes, that's right, by writing an e-mail with ridiculous accusations and unfounded rhetoric, you are actually taking someone's time away from doing what is important for wildlife management.

All wildlife professionals welcome constructive comments and ideas. We welcome the passion that comes from dedicated hunters and sportsmen - most of us are in the same category. We have dedicated our lives to serving the resource and the public, but we do so at great personal risk and cost, even though we have to put up with a lot of complaining. All I ask is that you recognize the huge personal commitment of those wildlife professionals and give some consideration to the fact that many have died because of their passion for wildlife and our hunting heritage.

I apologize in advance if I offended anyone, but that kind of e-mail is the very sort that makes many dedicated wildlife professionals question whether they might be better off finding a job in the private sector that pays 2-3 times more without the headaches, especially after hearing yet another friend and colleague has died in their quest for the best possible wildlife management they can provide.
 
Thank you for that post maybe some of the winners will understand a little better... glad its only a few who waste your time.. Thanks for all the hard work you do to make it possible for some of us to enjoy the outdoors with our families and still have a chance at a muley. Theres bee some nice mule deer shot in Utah this year durring the archery hunt.
 
i believe that some wildlife officer and conservaionist are highly under paid. they wouldn't be the ones lining their pockets. i wasn't talking about the individual person, but the adgency as a whole. why is it that while we were hunting the pahvant we asked a fish and game officer why the elk have gotten to such numbers and the deer have declined. he siad there has been alot of effort in elk management. (that was somehting i was aware of and glad about) he told us that they will not do anythinging for the deer because the elk is their money market. this was 3 years ago. i wasn't complaining then, but his response took me by complete surprise. your point about the officers loosing their lives is touching, nonetheless your point is then presumed to be that if someone dies then everything is wonderful and the division is perfect. we all mourn the loss of these fine men. i wish there were more with that type of convicition.



beat this
 
Interesting that ONE person who may have or may not have been an employee of the state made a statement about Elk being the "Market" for the State Wildlife Agencies and we believe it as the truth. I don't believe that there is one or another of our wildlife recourses in the state that the UDWR or the UDNR cares more about, and dedicates more time and recourses to.

For instance let's take the States Pheasant Population, which has also declined. If we take into consideration the population increase of the state in the last 15-20 years then you can understand the decline in the pheasant population. That coupled with different clean farming methods have caused the wild pheasant in Utah to decline to the point where most pheasant hunters hunt on pheasant clubs or preserves. Some even hunt captive birds released by the UDWR so that hunters can have birds to hunt. In the mean time the chuckar population has increased in the state. Does that mean that the UDWR has more of an interest in Chuckars than Pheasants?

Whether we believe it or not The Elk and Deer populations of the state are affected by some of these same problems. Homes and cabins are now on some very important winter ranges. People moving more and more into the habitat where these great animals live. This is a Sign of progress that each of us needs to make our living and have the comfortable lives we want. Elk have adapted better to the changes then deer have. The management techniques have had to change over the years and the will change again, the wildlife plans are ever evolving.

It is hard when you hear peoples opinions and what they THINK they know about managing wildlife but funny how none of those people have anything to do with Biology or even better Wildlife Management but ask them and they know how to do it the right way. Sometimes easier said than done! Let your frustrations be known via the proper channels in a professional manner, and if you aren't already a member join the dedicated hunter program show the UDWR that you are willing to be proactive and then maybe we can all together find a new way to help the UDWR manage Utah's Deer population to fit today's situation. We are never going to have Deer hunting like our Grand dads did but we can still have it good.
 
hmmmm, I think that I am going to have to take the side of Wapiti on this one. This has to be my biggest pet peeve in the hunting world. People who complain to the division via letters and emails. THAT IS WHAT A RAC MEETING IS FOR. Utah is full of people like this. You have no idea concerning the issues regarding the decisions that have been made for the Elk and the Deer in Utah unless you attend those meetings and listen.
I can not stand the whining to the division that YOU think they should do their jobs better and manage the wildlife better.
My thoughts are this, show up or shut up Desert. The RAC was created for you and me, the everyday hunter that DOES have a voice as to what happens with our wildlife. The problem: people whine to the division AFTER the decision is ruled on. GET TO THE RAC MEETINGS AND VOICE YOUR OPINIONS THERE!!!!! Not through a chicken letter that nobody will waist their time reading.

SHOW UP OR SHUT UP!!!!


"Luck is often nothing more than preparation running into opportunity.?
-Some Smart Guy
 
i never sent the letter. i was posting it here to see what reaction i would get. i am grateful for every response. all those aginst what i had written i am grateful because i now know how to present myself and my ideas.

elkholla,

this wasn't a chicken letter. i will be attending the next RAC meeting. i am glad that you and others have showed me a better way of expressing my point of view.

in the end we all have the same common goal, we all want to be out there taking a deer, elk, duck, goose, moose, rabbit, etc. i'll do my part in ensuring that is here to stay.






beat this
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-07 AT 11:22AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-07 AT 11:16 AM (MST)



have you ever driven through much of rural utahs highways. well i live in manti and frequently drive on different highways and i can tell you if the hunters dont get em the cars will. our highways are littered with rotting carcuses of dang nice bucks. on any given day there are probably 3-5 new dead deer hit by cars between ephraim and manti.

bottom line, it sucks and one way or the other we will lose our big bucks.

I think your best bet for getting the response you want is to maybe talk about the dangers of having so many hunters hunting in the same area. thats my big beef. its tough not to get hurt when you are stalking a deer with 20 other guys in the same area.

as far as how the units both general and LE are managed, I hardly doubt that most hunters spend as much time on the mountain as the people deciding how to manage these hunts. i expect they have a much better grip on what is going on with the populations.

and now for my final jab. If you cant find a nice buck, maybe you are a poor hunter that just cant hack it. maybe its time to by one of those 50 caliber guns that can kill a buck from 800 yards. it shouldnt be too hard for you to sneake up on them mr. eagle
 
trophy master,

i have scouted over 30 days on the pahvant, wasatch front, monte and boulder. i live in norhtern utah. i put in my time. you know what the sucess rate during archery season is? do you kow the success rate on the pahvant during the archery season? i don't know but from experience i know it is oh so very low. i know that predation from humans and other aniumals play an important role in the decline and or management of big game. i'm not a stupid hunter i was just trying to prove a point. he told us that the elk were more important down here. he told us to add up the numbers. it takes alot of over the counter deer tags to equal just one premium limited entry elk tags. thats all i'm trying to say trophy master.




beat this
 
you are thick trophy. really thick. you want to know something? i put on several stalks within 30 yards of monster bucks. any of which i would have proudly taken home. every time i got ready to shoot some jack hole would come over the ridge or cows would bust the buck or i would forget about the wind. i'm not a poor hunter my good man. please do not talk down to me. i don't know who you think you are.

beat this
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-07 AT 12:26PM (MST)[p]Hey Dipper:

1- I appreaciate your opinion and response to Travis K.

2- Many people die doing their work, and its a lot less desirable work that what you do.

3- While there are many pi$$ and moan hunters, the bottom line is some of the question posed by Travis K should be answered. While you rant and rave about profit not driving the agency, there was no actual discussion about the concerns or suggestions. One reason state officials always get labled as being unresponsive is because of posts like what you just posted. No answers or enlightment, just babble about how tough it is and how underpaid you are - which is true. Well, I personally would like to know why Utah doesn't manage deer on a more micro level? Any answers?????

Now back to being childlike for most of you and questioning each others hunting skills. Get a life.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-07 AT 01:39PM (MST)[p]"Im not a poor hunter my good man"

poor does not necessarily mean financially poor, if thats what you thought i meant. what i meant is that you blame your almost successes on someone other than yourself. you are a victim.

eagle, I could tell your type the second i saw your first post. you are a wasatch fronter who comes to the same place every other person from the wasatch front comes to. you want to change laws because you are victimized by the other million people who love to hunt.

Im happy that you were able to get within 30 yards of a buck. Its a thrill and that is what it is all about, and I'm here to tell you it happens all the time, not just on the pahvant. you should get out and enjoy the great outdoors a little more, maybe explore some new territory and heaven forbid you might even try hiking into a spot that looks like other people havent been there(aka not the pahvant) i think you might get a pleasant surprise.

Im sorry if this upsets you but the truth is utah is full of places to hunt most of which are labeled bad areas because people cant see a buck fromt he road. I would bet 85% of utahs hunters only hit the montains 4-5 times a year and walk no more than 50 yards from their new chevy durmax diesel.

i will repeat what i said in my other post. go drive down the highway by the pahvant or any other rural highway come spring time and look at all the dead deer. im sorry but my safety trumps your desire for less tags.

beat this
 
"poor does not necessarily mean financially poor"

"eagle, I could tell your type the second i saw your first post. you are a wasatch fronter who comes to the same place every other person from the wasatch front comes to. you want to change laws because you are victimized by the other million people who love to hunt."


you really do not understand anyhitng. did you read the post where i told you how much i scouted and where? i this year alone have hunted elk for 2 weeks (all together) and have found three new places to hunt.


as far as deer go, i have my northern utah honey holes, the pahvant is just a hunt that i enjoy because my best friend invited me down there some years ago when i first got into bow hunting. out of all the deer that i have shot, not a single one comes from the pahvant. the buck i took this year came from boulder mnt, which by the way was a new area for me.

my favorite place in all of the world to hunt is monte cristo. my family has been hunting there for so long that over 50 years ago the forest service named campsites, landmarks and roads after us. you ever hunted monte? did you notice taht about 9 years ago they cleaned the deer out? there were more hunters walking around with double doe tags than i could count. i took my buddies up there this last week and one shot a good buck.

i have my own honey holes in my traditional locations. i'm not a wasatch hunter that goes to where everyone esle goes. and if you would hae fully read my last response to you you would have noticed taht not only did i say that i was busted by a hunter, but by cows and more importantly i said that i was busted due to my own mistakes (wind, twigs, etc.). i am not playing the victim.





beat this
 
deserteagle500,

I wouldn't let some of these jokers get to you. Both sides have brought up VALID points. First off, you posted the e-mail for everyone to see. Of course there were emotional points to it AND it needed to be revised.

Having said this, I don't believe there is anything wrong with sending your concerns to the DWR. Most jobs, if not all, have bosses continuosly making recommendation whether they be right or wrong.

Dipper,

As much as I appreciate your dedication to wildlife, I find it tactless to start using the deaths of dedicated employees to argue with desert. I highly doubt that he doesn't appreciate what they did for conservation.

As far as whining hunters, you do make a valid point. I am sure I have done it at times (without justification). However, you also come across this way as well when you compare your wages to the "Private Sector"

If it is better in the private sector, by all means quit. Who could blame you.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-07 AT 02:53PM (MST)[p]TROPHYMASTER:

I'll take a dang Wasatch Fronter with some common sense on my hunting trip anytime rather than someone from the sticks with an attitude problem about all the in-comers.
 
I like the intentions of this letter but I will agree with some who said that the letter sounds more like someone just trying to lash out at the DWR. I think that this, like almost everything else in life, would better received if it weren't first prefaced by insults and accusations. Although your insults and accusations are very accurate, according to my own observations, they might very well be the cause of this letter falling on deaf ears. I too agree that WE the hunters, and the DWR, need to change alot of things here in utah. I am sick of seeing so many tags go to regions just to see deer populations being desimated. There is so much private land that goes unhunted while the public land gets hammered time and time again. I think that some of the problem is also the hunters themselves. I used to hunt an area in the northern region that once had plenty of deer and quality of deer at that. I saw over a period of about seven years where alot of people found out that there were alot of deer there and started to hunt it. This is not the problem. The problem is that now, more than ten years later there is still the same ammount of people hunting there as there were 17 years prior. Now you drive down the roads and look into the camps and see little two points and spikes hanging in the trees. 17 years prior the most common thing to see was a good four point or even a three by four. Hunters aren't watching out for future problems either. The gene pool has gone seriously down hill there now because the only few deer left at the end of the season are little ones and they are the ones doing the breeding. They no longer have to compete with the huge toads to breed. I think that this is not only irresponcible of the DWR to allow this but it is also irresponcible of the hunters to do this. Who cares if there is ten thousand permitts issued for one little area, it doesn't mean that everyone should shoot a deer if there is only little ones left. If you kill all of the little ones every year and don't let them grow, you are not doing yourself a favor, or like what was said in the e-mail, your children a favor either. Long story short, this is a two part problem, one part being the management of the units by the DWR and the other, management by the hunter and being responcible for their own actions and not trying to blame it on someone else.
 
Thanks to those who gave positive feedback to my post. And thanks to those who provided constructive criticism.

I apologize if parts sounded whiny or tactless. I was reacting largely to 2 quotes from the original post:

"got their money grubbing hands into the cookie jar"
"how much money the division can line their pockets with"

which I viewed as a more or less personal attack on biologists. This is a common theme, and my point is there is not a connection between tag numbers and salaries, etc. Deserteagle recanted to say he's talking about the
"agency" as a whole. I still don't get it. How does an "agency" line its pockets? To what benefit? Fees are generated so agencies can conduct adequate surveys, and do all the other things the sporting and general public asks them to do (directly or through state law). As others noted, funds are allocated by the legislature in detailed budgets. If unused, state funds return to general funds. There is just no mechanism to "line pockets" - an agency is not a person - an "agency" cannot be greedy unless a human can personally benefit somewhere along the way. So every time the issue is raised, it seems like a waste of everyone's time to me. If hunters and anglers do not want to see fee increases of want reduced tag numbers, they need to identify what they want the agency to STOP doing, whether it be reduced surveys and therefore poorer data (helicopter time is a huge driver in agency costs), fewer enforcement personnel in the field, fewer biologists to collect data and answer the phone when you call for information, less capture and translocation of animals, fewer acres of habitat improvement, whatever.

"your point about the officers loosing their lives is touching, nonetheless your point is then presumed to be that if someone dies then everything is wonderful and the division is perfect."

I will clarify that I was talking about biologists dying, as opposed to officers, not that it makes much difference. Our officers have very difficult and dangerous jobs (in hunting season, everyone they encounter is armed). You're right, agency personnel dying does not make everything okay. As I said earlier: "All wildlife professionals welcome constructive comments and ideas" and I stand by that. What really drives our job is to incorporate public desires and balance those with biological reality.

"While there are many pi$$ and moan hunters, the bottom line is some of the question posed by Travis K should be answered. While you rant and rave about profit not driving the agency, there was no actual discussion about the concerns or suggestions. One reason state officials always get labled as being unresponsive is because of posts like what you just posted. No answers or enlightment, just babble about how tough it is and how underpaid you are - which is true. Well, I personally would like to know why Utah doesn't manage deer on a more micro level? Any answers?????"

First, I do not work in Utah, so I am not intimately familiar with their deer management program. The questions posed are rather vague to me and contain some assumptions that may or may not have merit. But I can speculate as to likely answers. An important consideration for any management action is identifying ramifications across the entire biological and social spectrum. In other words, what impacts would a change in management have on the entire system.

"Why do you give out 85,000 deer tags when you (who ever is reading this) knows that this is too much?" This assumes 85,000 tags is too much. Too much by what standard? Didn't Utah cut tag numbers by more than half several years ago? Are objectives for buck ratios not being met? How far down do tag numbers need to go tomake you happy? More importantly how irrelevant to the general public do you want deer hunting to be? By that I mean, how many people do you want to drive out of hunting and how few do you want stading beside you when the next ballot initiative to ban hunting, etc. comes along? Hunters are already a tiny minority in most states and "trophy" hunting is the least desirable aspect of hunting in the public eye. Hunter numbers or other aspects of harvest management are determined by the underlying population and biological objectives. In my case, I raise and lower tag numbers or change season structure to acheive the objectives.

"Are you doing anything for the general units, aka; every public land, non-LE and non-CWMU units?" I suspect the answer is a big yes. I expect the UT agency is conducting biological and harvest surveys, modeling populations, conducting law enforcement patrols, participating in habitat restoration and enhancement projects, etc.

"Has the division ever thought about splitting the state into many units and micro managing them?" Probably so. But what are the costs and benefits of doing so? For one, I can promise that as soon as smaller hunt areas are established a whole slug of people will come screaming out of the woodwork because they can no longer hunt all the same areas they once hunted (e.g., they camp on the border of the units or live somewhere where units come together). I'm sure many will view that as a minor issue, but there will calls to legislators and the agency will take a beating. More importantly, what do you gain with smaller units? The costs of collecting both biological and harvest data increase with smaller units, because you need larger sample sizes to gain the same level of statistical precision and power. That means increased fees or less accurate data. If you limit hunters in some areas, what happens to the people who are excluded - will they not hunt or will they be displaced to an adjacent area, increasing complaints there? Will draw odds will get worse and worse? Is there a biological benefit? It is pretty clear that deer populations function just fine with post-season buck ratios in the mid single digits. Pregnancy rates and fawn survival are more than adequate to maintain and grow populations. So there is not a biological argument for maintaining high buck ratios (see some of Jim Hefflefinger's writings on this subject as well as the "genetics" argument). Therefore buck ratio objectives are largely a social issue. And state agencies are left trying to maintain some kind of balance among all the different desires of hunters. To meet the desires of the relatively small proportion who desire high buck ratios and larger proportions of mature bucks, some units are managed that way. The cost is very few people can participate in those hunts. When they cannot draw permits, they ask for more areas like that. At some point, hunters who wish to participate in mature-buck hunts need to recognize that they must forego many, many years of hunting opportunity to attain that goal or, at a state level, reduce hunter numbers so extremely that agencies will not be able to function and hunting will die for lack of participants.

The bottom line is ALL hunters and publics have equal voice in managing wildlife resources, whether they are mature buck hunters or simply content to spend time hunting with their families and maybe put some venison in the freezer. And agencies have a legal responsibility to acknowledge all those voices, but the are seemingly never compatible. Lastly, I would make an argument that an agency not doing what you want them to is not being unresponsive, it is a result of incompatible user group desires and/or incompatibility with the agency's mission and and legal mandates.
 
Thanks to those who gave positive feedback to my post. And thanks to those who provided constructive criticism.
I apologize if parts sounded whiny or tactless. I was reacting largely to 2 quotes from the original post:

"got their money grubbing hands into the cookie jar"
"how much money the division can line their pockets with"

which I viewed as a more or less personal attack on biologists. This is a common theme, and my point is there is not a connection between tag numbers and salaries, etc. Deserteagle recanted to say he's talking about the
"agency" as a whole. I still don't get it. How does an "agency" line its pockets? To what benefit? Fees are generated so agencies can conduct adequate surveys, and do all the other things the sporting and general public asks them to do (directly or through state law). As others noted, funds are allocated by the legislature in detailed budgets. If unused, state funds return to general funds. There is just no mechanism to "line pockets" - an agency is not a person - an "agency" cannot be greedy unless a human can personally benefit somewhere along the way. So every time the issue is raised, it seems like a waste of everyone's time to me. If hunters and anglers do not want to see fee increases of want reduced tag numbers, they need to identify what they want the agency to STOP doing, whether it be reduced surveys and therefore poorer data (helicopter time is a huge driver in agency costs), fewer enforcement personnel in the field, fewer biologists to collect data and answer the phone when you call for information, less capture and translocation of animals, fewer acres of habitat improvement, whatever.

"your point about the officers loosing their lives is touching, nonetheless your point is then presumed to be that if someone dies then everything is wonderful and the division is perfect."

I will clarify that I was talking about biologists dying, as opposed to officers, not that it makes much difference. Our officers have very difficult and dangerous jobs (in hunting season, everyone they encounter is armed). You're right, agency personnel dying does not make everything okay. As I said earlier: "All wildlife professionals welcome constructive comments and ideas" and I stand by that. What really drives our job is to incorporate public desires and balance those with biological reality.

"While there are many pi$$ and moan hunters, the bottom line is some of the question posed by Travis K should be answered. While you rant and rave about profit not driving the agency, there was no actual discussion about the concerns or suggestions. One reason state officials always get labled as being unresponsive is because of posts like what you just posted. No answers or enlightment, just babble about how tough it is and how underpaid you are - which is true. Well, I personally would like to know why Utah doesn't manage deer on a more micro level? Any answers?????"

First, I do not work in Utah, so I am not intimately familiar with their deer management program. The questions posed are rather vague to me and contain some assumptions that may or may not have merit. But I can speculate as to likely answers. An important consideration for any management action is identifying ramifications across the entire biological and social spectrum. In other words, what impacts would a change in management have on the entire system.

"Why do you give out 85,000 deer tags when you (who ever is reading this) knows that this is too much?" This assumes 85,000 tags is too much. Too much by what standard? Didn't Utah cut tag numbers by more than half several years ago? Are objectives for buck ratios not being met? How far down do tag numbers need to go tomake you happy? More importantly how irrelevant to the general public do you want deer hunting to be? By that I mean, how many people do you want to drive out of hunting and how few do you want stading beside you when the next ballot initiative to ban hunting, etc. comes along? Hunters are already a tiny minority in most states and "trophy" hunting is the least desirable aspect of hunting in the public eye. Hunter numbers or other aspects of harvest management are determined by the underlying population and biological objectives. In my case, I raise and lower tag numbers or change season structure to acheive the objectives.

"Are you doing anything for the general units, aka; every public land, non-LE and non-CWMU units?" I suspect the answer is a big yes. I expect the UT agency is conducting biological and harvest surveys, modeling populations, conducting law enforcement patrols, participating in habitat restoration and enhancement projects, etc.

"Has the division ever thought about splitting the state into many units and micro managing them?" Probably so. But what are the costs and benefits of doing so? For one, I can promise that as soon as smaller hunt areas are established a whole slug of people will come screaming out of the woodwork because they can no longer hunt all the same areas they once hunted (e.g., they camp on the border of the units or live somewhere where units come together). I'm sure many will view that as a minor issue, but there will calls to legislators and the agency will take a beating. More importantly, what do you gain with smaller units? The costs of collecting both biological and harvest data increase with smaller units, because you need larger sample sizes to gain the same level of statistical precision and power. That means increased fees or less accurate data. If you limit hunters in some areas, what happens to the people who are excluded - will they not hunt or will they be displaced to an adjacent area, increasing complaints there? Will draw odds will get worse and worse? Is there a biological benefit? It is pretty clear that deer populations function just fine with post-season buck ratios in the mid single digits. Pregnancy rates and fawn survival are more than adequate to maintain and grow populations. So there is not a biological argument for maintaining high buck ratios (see some of Jim Hefflefinger's writings on this subject as well as the "genetics" argument). Therefore buck ratio objectives are largely a social issue. And state agencies are left trying to maintain some kind of balance among all the different desires of hunters. To meet the desires of the relatively small proportion who desire high buck ratios and larger proportions of mature bucks, some units are managed that way. The cost is very few people can participate in those hunts. When they cannot draw permits, they ask for more areas like that. At some point, hunters who wish to participate in mature-buck hunts need to recognize that they must forego many, many years of hunting opportunity to attain that goal or, at a state level, reduce hunter numbers so extremely that agencies will not be able to function and hunting will die for lack of participants.

The bottom line is ALL hunters and publics have equal voice in managing wildlife resources, whether they are mature buck hunters or simply content to spend time hunting with their families and maybe put some venison in the freezer. And agencies have a legal responsibility to acknowledge all those voices, but the are seemingly never compatible. Lastly, I would make an argument that an agency not doing what you want them to is not being unresponsive, it is a result of incompatible user group desires and/or incompatibility with the agency's mission and and legal mandates.
 

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