Proposals for Deer Hunting in Central Region

[nebo12000]

As a member of the Central Region RAC I would very much like to hear from hunters in regard to proposals for the improvement of deer hunting in the region. Please be specific about the area you would like have considered for implementing changes in. I have recieved suggestions for the Nebo area- management area 21A. It has been proposed that it be restricted to a 5 day hunt and limited to 2000 permits. Additionally,the buck/doe ratio stands at 12 bucks /100 does, the objective is 15. The proposal would include the language that if the unit does not reach the objective of 15 bucks /100 does within 2 years thta the tags be reduce by 10 %. If and when the buck/doe ratio increase to 17 bucks/100 does or higher that the tags be increased by 10%. If the unitever goes below 11 bucks/100 does the unit would be closed for a minimum of one year.
Please post your thoughts and suggestions.
Richard Hansen

 

[TFinalshot]

I don't hunt the area, but I always thought that it was interesting that we still trying to set hunting regs based on old school ideas.

Why reduce hunter days, why not limit the harvest and broaden the opportunities for hunters to hunt? Why not allow some bow, some muzzy, some modern, some pistol and set the harvest based on what the habitat can support in terms of a healthy deer population in stead of just a B/D ratio?

I cant be specific about the unit and what is right for every herd, that's your job, that's why youre on the RAC, but I think there needs to be more hunting opportunities for the hunter who lives there and who does not have the deep pockets to buy his or her way into a tag every year. At the rate we now are going, only the rich kids who have wealthy parents will get the opportunity to harvest game regularly, from one year to the next.

I mean no disrespect, and I'll admit I dont know all that there is to know about the units there (most dont), but seems to me like you should limit the harvest to a biologically sound number, but dont reduce the hunter days. Reducing hunter days means you are stealing from Peter to pay Paul; your hunters are YOUR ONLY support, if you shut them out, they will manage to shut you down! It would be very very unwise to take away more and more opportunity and it would help to put one more foot in the grave of the publics open access to wild and free ranging animals in the west. . . I'm a non resident, so you can take what I say or leave it, but it's time to make sure that our young, middle class people have a chance to learn to hunt, not just have a chance at a hunt and a kill every 10 years, that's no way to raise a hunting community. . .

The common, average hunting public is your base, loose many more of us and we all loose the future of our great hunting heritage. I know some will say no way; some will say I'd rather have a chance at one monster mule deer buck every 7 years than I would a hunting experience every year. I dont agree with that policy and nor should it drive the management of our deer herds as it now does. MM is one place to check, but most, I'd say the majority of your hunting public, is NOT on monster muleys and does not subscribe to the "trophy" hunting standards. . . .

We need more opportunity, not less. Get creative with dates and times and weapons restrictions, make the game department and the hunter work a little harder, that's okay with me, I'd rather work harder at hunting than I would work harder and trying to get an opportunity to hunt while I sit around on my couch and get fat because I cant go deer hunting anymore. . . .

 

[GoatT]

+1 T.

http://www.trophyblogger.com/Goat

http://www.trophyblogger.com

 

[300MIKE]

Nebo

One of the most useful management strategies I have heard yet. I think you have to have a balance between the objective and hunter opportunity. I feel vey strongly that if objectives are not met that the closure of a unit will enhance future standards. If the complaint comes to the lack of opportunity, increase the primitive tags elsewhere to take some of the slack. As we all know the historic success rates for primitive weapons are far less than rifle stats. This will in turn help the ratio objective and increase the number of mature animals. Sounds like a win win situation. You could go a step further and use a rotating basis for the closure of units enhancing future ratios. The idea of changing the allocation of tag numbers is vital to herd management, this allows numbers to be somewhat managed and avoid over harvest of a given herd. We need to start managing for objectives before they hit the low end, if that means cutting some tags so be it. If we would like to preserve this wonderful resource for the future generations of hunting something has to be done. Some people will say lets not re-invent the wheel, I agree but once in a while that wheel needs alignment.

 

[coloradoelkhunter]

I agree that changing the distribution of tags to other methods of take would, by far, be a better alternative to limiting the number of hunting days or the total number of tags. Management objectives can be met without sacrificing hunting opportunities.

I guess the problem I always have with managing to numbers like these is that so many times the collection of the data is flawed to begin with, resulting in management to arbitrary numbers. For example, Colorado, recently changed their population estimate of the bears ears herd from 11,000-15,000 animals to 23,000-45,000 animals. Ranchers had suspected for years that the estimates were faulty and now the DOW is admitting it. Even after their admission, I still have no confidence that they know what their talking about. I mean, the estimate changed to nearly 2 to 4 times more than the original number and the new estimate has a range of 22,000 animals! C'mon, any credibility they had went right out the window on that one and anyone who tells me that other states are any different is full of it, whether your talking about total population estimates or buck to doe ratios.

 

[gilamonster8]

Just a question. Why are the units so big in Utah?

 

[ktc]

Good question? They are making headway though. The whole state used to be one unit.

 

[swbuckmaster]

If you want more deer and better quality you simply have to cut rifle and muzzy tags. Eliminate the other predators i.e. cats, coyotes. Control poaching and cheet grass. Find a balance for the elk and deer. Deer seem to lose every time they compete with elk. Utah also has a big problem with vehicle to deer accidents this needs to be addressed. I can't drive anywhere and not see dead deer lying on the side of the road. Farmers are also taking two many deer in the winter months.

Now finding a way to do this is the hard part. Rifle hunters want two turn this into a archery vs rifle battle. I get where they are coming from I used to be a big rifle hunter. I also know how hard it is to be proficient with a bow. But I could see my chances of hunting more often on better units were greater if I could do it with a bow.

Everybody says it is the divisions fault why the deer are the way they are. Its not the division fault. In Utah it is the majority who decides. Most people in Utah are hard core rifle hunters that want opportunity. They want to hunt every year and kill the first buck they come across. There is a lot that party hunting also.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you have to give up hunting for a few years or you have to be handicapped by equipment and kill a deer every few years and still hunt every year.

 

[manny15]

i remeber reading a story in ODL about 1981, utah closing down elk ridge unit for 5 years?..extrene no?...so what are people willing to sacrafice is the Q...

you ain't seen bad till you see S, oregon and N, Ca. deer herds

 

[screamingseason]

My suggestion would to put antler restriction in play. This will help the unit create bigger bucks and also help the buck to doe ratio. Even if you put a 4 point restriction in to play for 2 years, this will still allow hunters to get out there and hunt, the division is still going to make its money, the buck to doe ratio is going to grow and you are going to get some bigger bucks on the units. Two years later you will have some good deer hunting. I just can't see to many people complaining about that.

I also think that the units should be much smaller, just like the other states. I know that this makes it a little more difficult to patrol, but the people that are going to break the regs are going to do it any way.

That is my take

 

[Bigbuck9]

I agree with t-final by allocating more tags to primative hunts that have lower success rates, you can maintain hunter opportunity or even increase it and still maintain the same or even a lower level of harvest. I don't know anything about the rifle hunts there but if they fall during a time when the deer are more vulnerable than at other times for one reason or another moving them to a differant date can have the same effect.

Antler point restrictions will not work unless you severly and I mean severly limit hunter opportunity. Most deer die when they are young from one cause or another so you migh as well kill some of them, focusing the same amount of hunters on larger deer only means that more larger deer will get killed.

Like t-said the majority of hunters don't care as much about trophy potential as they care about getting to go hunting on a regular basis. Thats why I think the majority of units in any state should be managing for maximun hunter opportunity. Then on a few of the units where there is exceptional trophy potential mangement should limit hunter opportunity to maximize trophy potential,

this is just my opinion

 

[Hunterted]

Let's keep it the same. The current managment plan is based on sound managment practices and allows plenty of opportunity and allows a guy to shoot a big buck if he is willing to work for it. The deer herd is improving lets not dump the plan just when things are starting to look up.