Pick this one apart

J

justr_86

Long Time Member
Messages
4,090
What if...... Utah split its hunting units up in half so we would have 10 instead of 5. I dont know where or how this is just a big if. same number of tags statewide just half in each area overall. Less rifle tags. more smokepole and archery tags. Dont all hunt at the same time. leave archery alone and muzzy have an early season and a late season for rifle do the same and have them run for a week then off a week and then run the second "late" hunt. that cuts down the number of people on the mountain. Less stress on the deer, hunters. more fun for everyone and nobody loses anything. right?
cutting the size of the units will make the hunter pick a spot and hunt it instead of driving the roads on 100 mile loops looking for a 2 point to shoot out of the window of the truck. this might help make people a little more picky. oh and all hunts should be over by the 31st of october.


I know this is a broad idea but it may get some of you older more knowledgeable people going and get a good idea to take to the DWR and get something going instead of having it out on here.
thanks guys/girls I for one am ready for a change.


Kenny
 
The state must have read your mind already justr, but did even better.
Next year the big 5 units will turn into about 20+ units ;-)







48288e6577d023b6.jpg
 
Thats great I am a little out of the loop since I moved to NM a few years back. Any ideas on if they are planning any new LE units or will they all be considered LE. I guess I am asking do that have any plans that you know of for new units with higher age class goals?

Jordan
 
I like that idea but am a little nervous as to how the state will run them.

Does anyone know exactly how the state is going to manage the smaller unit?? If one of these units does not meet the buck/doe ratio or does not carry medium to large bucks are they going to shut it down?? If they shut it down are they going to spread the tags for that closed unit around to the other unit??

I feel that policy would work well but I am worried that other units will get additional pressure and thus negating any benefit from shutting down other units for a year or so.


?Here?s to the hero's that Git-R-Done!!?
 
They'll even it out across the board, they realize the wants and needs of the sportmans and the needs of the herds as well.
It's all still in the works, but it should be good.
(cross your fingers)









48288e6577d023b6.jpg
 
20+ units? how is that going to work. each mountain is a unit? and canyon too? Do you have any more info I'm curious now.
 
The big 5 are going to be broken into smaller groups and better "micro managed" in each individual unit.
I really don't have all the details or specifics on it yet, it's still in the works and receiving input.

I am on the shed antler committee, and this was brought up in our meeting at the DNR office on how to manage the state's shed antler issues by region, so that's about all i know for now.
The big 5 will still be there as far as a "region" is concerned, but will have "units" inside those regions.

As far as how they will run each unit, i wouldn't even dare speculate, but they are on top of it and working through some very critical issues.

I encourage you too get involved in the RAC meetings and voice your opinions while this is still open for discussion and debate.
Dates and agenda's are on the DNR website.





48288e6577d023b6.jpg
 
>and are they going to leave
>archery statewide?

YES!!!There is NO VALID reason to make archers be limited on where to hunt. The sole purpose of picking a region/micro unit is to prevent over garvest. There is NO evidence that archers are a risk for over harvest. Dedicated hunters WILL see some changes under the new management plan. How to 'limit' the number of DH per unit is still being worked out.

As for the 20 or so micro units, just look at the boundaries for doe permits, those will be the same boundaries used for the buck permits.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
sounds really good to me. is there anymore reading material on this from the state? can you hook me up with a link?
 
No link, the deer committee is still hammering things out, I am sure once they feel like they got the kinks worked out, there will be a public input phase before the proposal(s) go to the RAC's for approval.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Pro
I do not wish to get into a battle about who kills wounds more etc. Bow, Muzz, Rifle. All have an impact some more some less. As I have asked in the past to anyone show me any scientific study showing that bow hunters do not wound STATISITCAL just as many animals as any other weapon. Tell then I just call BS on the whole thing of less IMPACT. Yes, less harvest but less impact?????.

I Bow hunt and quit enjoy it. However I am not in favorer of a state wide bow hunt for a month. If we are going to micro-manage in some fashion lets do it for all hunters. If bow has a smaller harvest rate and it does. Make the bow hunter pick a unit as well as the muzz and rifle hunter and then hunt just that unit. You could give more bow tags for each unit if the concept it accurate(less harvest). The impact for each unit would be much more measurable and acurate than state wide if this was done.

As to the first post that started this thread I love the concept of having five hunts in a season. I like even six hunt times, two bow like 10 to 14 days, two muzz like 4 or 5 days and two rifle 4-5 days

MORE CHOICES AND LESS PRESURE IT SEEMS LIKE A WIN, WIN.

Rock 5150
 
how is the archery hunt hurting the herds. As you say we have a month to hunt and still only have a 15-20 % success rate. I seriously doubt even 10 % of the hunters out there wound an animal each year. micro units for archery is absurd.

alpinebowman

>>>---shots that are true pass right through--->

National guard archery staff shooter
 
>how is the archery hunt hurting
>the herds. As you say
>we have a month to
>hunt and still only have
>a 15-20 % success rate.
>I seriously doubt even 10
>% of the hunters out
>there wound an animal each
>year. micro units for archery
>is absurd.
>
>alpinebowman


The archery hunt does not hurt the herd any more than any other hunt. The time frame talked about is a month = impact.

As I said pick a unit and hunt it... just like the other hunters. This would give you more archery tags for each unit if the success rates are as you say and control the (IMPACT total # of hunters over time spent in field) on each unit. That is all.
It would seem that you make anecdotal assumptions about wound rates. Statistically is it any higher for muzz or rifle? If so show me. I do not think wound rates vary that much. Harvest rates yes, but not as much as you think for general session mule deer when you look at the number of muzz/rifle hunters and there success rates. No question more animals are killed but a lot more hunters as well.

Why is micro units for bow Absurd? Please explain.

What do you think of having more seasons? I would like to hear.
Rock5150
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-07-08 AT 03:51PM (MST)[p]>>and are they going to leave
>>archery statewide?
>
>YES!!!

Further proof some archers are greedy fVcks.

The pressure from ML and rifle hunters and even non-hunting atv riders is just too much for the deer so lets enforce limitations! Ok fine, lets change the units to micro manage them better, so they can limit hunting and PRESSURE from hunters to better aid the deer, but hey, those 12,000 archers + 4k? Dedicated hunters can just do what they want, they are just angels I guess and have no impact whatsoever and can go where they please.

You all want to micro manage units by limiting hunters, then LIMIT ALL THE HUNTERS. It makes ZERO sense to determine some micro unit XYZ can only handle 500 hunters, then limit tags to 500... but then allow the possibility of all 12,000 archers being able to hunt that unit.

Make laws and changes if its felt they are need BUT MAKE IT FAIR TO ALL HUNTERS AND APPLY THE RESTRICTIONS TO ALL.


-DallanC
 
easy there dallan. I'm an archery hunter and I would agree that archery has less of an impact. that said, I can see points from both side archery hunters and dedicated hunters are not immune to this new management program we take deer too, just less of them. The statewide archery is cool. I can do without it if it is better for the deer. The numbers and areas deer were taken would be alot easier to keep without it being statewide. Last year the deer I took was in southwestern Utah and I live in northeastern Utah. Just a lucky trip that I threw my bow in for. Not the best thing to do on a management standpoint. It would be cool if it was able to stay but I would let it go for a healthier deer herd.


I didnt think this plan up trying to make it better for any one group of hunters. I wanted it to be better for everyone involved. We all want bigger bucks. I'm just trying to get input to get a solid plan to help the dwr out. If nobody else will take anything to them I will.
 
Alpine hurt is more than just hitting an animal with an arrow its the pressure involved the time spent in the hills and anything that takes from the natural way of life for a deer now im not singleing out bowhunters its everyones responsibility who hunts but there is more to hunting and than just the shooting part of things and thats something to look at as well.

Bury me in the hills so i can fertilize the grass and grow bigger animals for the rest of ya
 
DallanC and others, what was/is the purpose of picking a Region? Correct me if I am wrong, but it was/is to prevent OVER-HARVEST of bucks in certain areas/regions. The studies done both by the DWR and archery groups show the distribution of archers w/o restrictions is balanced already. Therefore, the ONLY reason to restrict archers to units is to appease rifle/muzzy hunters who see this as a us vs. then thing instead of what is best for the deer herds. Spoiled? Come on, Utah archers have the WORST season dates in the west, rifle hunters, at least for LE hunts have the BEST season dates, so who is 'spoiled' here?

The wound rates for archery/rifle/muzzy are virtually the same, I know it sounds great to say that archers wound a bunch of animals, but there is NO evidence to support that. Harvest rates are close for all three weapon types, but that is with archers having the 'perks' they get. take away those perks and the success rates will plummet.

Again, other than being whiners, what biological reason(s) is there for limiting archers to units/regions?

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>Again, other than being whiners, what
>biological reason(s) is there for
>limiting archers to units/regions?
>
>PRO

Pro

If all other things are close with all weapons ie kill rates wound rates etc.
Why should bow get a month? NOT WHY NOT!!!

As to the extra's bow gets who is to say the same would not happen with bow as has been reported to have happened to the rifle on the five day hunt. They say as many deer are killed in 5 days as in 10 so why not 14 days instead of 28 days.

Biological reason: LESS IMPACT.

ON NONE LE UNITS THINGS ARE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT.

Whiner sometimes
Biologist most of the time
Hunter all of the time.

Rock 5150
 
Rock, I don't even know what you are trying to say. Archers in most/all states have longer seasons than rifle/muzzy hunters. This is NOT unique to Utah. Since you are a "biologist most of the time", what biological purpose would be served by shortening the archery season? Comparing shorter rifle season dates to shorter archery dates as if there is a linear line is off base. Rifle hunters do NOT need to get within 40 yards, which takes TIME to pattern an animal and over come the MANY elements that affect success.

I ask again, why shouold archery season be shortened and limited to smaller areas? What are the BIOLOGICAL beneifts of change. I have had MANY discussions with DWR biologists on this subject, and not a SINGLE one sees any data that supports shorter seasons or more restricted areas to hunt. Go figure.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Pro I have to disagree with you on this one. I think archery should have to pick a unit and also have a shorter hunt than they have now. I have been to places where the archery hunt is more populated during the archery than on the general rifle. The deer are pressured for a month long. Also the archery equipment continues to get better and better and along with that we give archers statewide tags and a month to hunt?? I am no expert and don't claim to be, but that is what I have seen, and I believe the deer would benefit from less pressure.
 
Pro,
When are you going to wake up and see that "Impact" does not mean "HARVEST". "IMPACT" is human pressure on the deer impacting their natural behavior. And yes one month of bowhunters trying to sneak within 40 yards does have an impact on deer behavior even if an arrow is not released. You mentioned Utah is very unfavorable to bowhunters. I know of no other states that let you hunt 90% of the state for 4 weeks.
 
Bragabit

Right on.

Pro
As has be said, by me and many others Impact-pressure what ever word you would like to use. That is biological, environmental again what ever word you would like to use. As I have said I bow hunt and quit like it. However, pick a unit and hunt it just like every body else.
 
What "IMPACT"? You guys ever hear of the Wasatch front. it gets "IMPACTED" from mid-August through November. Guess what, it has as healthy of a herd as ANYWHERE in the west. And monster bucks to boot. You want "IMPACT", how about all the recreational NON-HUNTERS out there from memorial Day through Labor day. What about the "IMPACT" rifle/muzzy hunters have while scouting? Show me where there is EVIDENCE of this "IMPACT" you all speak of. The DWR biologists do NOT see this "impact", nor does ANY study done on the topic. The data shows MOST archers stay close to home and not a single Region saw numbers of archers that warrant restrictions. Now, dedicated hunters DO have an impact on harvest numbers in certain regions. That is why the DH program is being looked at along with the micro-managing plan that will be put into effect for the next 5 years.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I know Pro, bowhunters are so sneaky the deer don't even know you are there. You probably don't even sh*t in the woods. Even if you did it would'nt stink so it wouldn't matter. I never said rifle and muzzy hunters don't impact deer while scouting and so do non hunters that is just common sense. I don't agree with a month long hunt but I am past that it doesn't bother me. It is the statewide access that bothers me. You have said in two differant post that bowhunters stay close to home and they need time to pattern a deer and make a perfect stock. I agree so if that is the case why do you need access to the entire state. One specific region should be sufficient.
I think it is comical that you want to put restrictions such as shorter hunting seasons and smaller units on the muzzy, and rifle hunters but you are not willing to follow the same rules. Seems that it is you that is making this a fight bow vs. rifle/muzzy hunter
 
"I ask again, why shouold archery season be shortened and limited to smaller areas? What are the BIOLOGICAL beneifts of change. I have had MANY discussions with DWR biologists on this subject, and not a SINGLE one sees any data that supports shorter seasons or more restricted areas to hunt. Go figure."
PRO

How can anyone in their right mind think that if you cut the bowhunt down by two weeks and limited the pressure on certain overhunted areas that it would not benifit the deer herd. I don't want to hear about the rifle and muzzy hunt at all just answer that question Pro. How can shortening the season and limiting the pressure not help the deer herd? It may not be a drastic benefit but even you can't arque that it would benefit the deer herd..
 
Pro- you answered your own question fairly well.I think everyone tends to disregard the fact that bowhunters actually do harvest. So the success rate is lower than on a rifle hunt, it still exists. I won't argue if the bow/rifle/muzzy seasons needs to be shortened or lengthened, or have more or have fewer or be limited to smaller areas. But the fact is, Utah has no real scheme for deer management right now apart for the LE areas, and thus no data and no realistic way to get it.

I guess I don't understand the biological (or any real) argument AGAINST limiting bowhunters to a specific unit? Why not bite the bullet, manage individual units/herds based on some desirable outcome or condition, and then actually have some data to answer the questions- What is the success rate for archery in this area? Should the season be shorter(longer)? Should there be more(fewer) tags in here? Or- hey, turns out no-one bowhunts in this unit- whe can expand the rifle tags some. Or Hey- if we dropped 10 rifle tags here, we could offer 40 more bow tags--

I don't see the negative in Utah catching up with the rest of the world and obtaining for themselves the ability to manage harvest in the slightest way. The last post made a good point, and I'll re-articulate the question for the "Pro"- how can a directed informed effort to distribute the volume, duration and timing of hunters in the field not have at least a chance of accomplishing it's desired effect??
 
"I think it is comical that you want to put restrictions such as shorter hunting seasons and smaller units on the muzzy, and rifle hunters but you are not willing to follow the same rules. Seems that it is you that is making this a fight bow vs. rifle/muzzy hunter."

When have you EVER heard me advocate shorter hunting seasons for rifle/muzzy hunters than what is already in play? I also am not a huge fan of micro-units, but that is what the general public is demanding. So, tell me again how I am making this a bow vs. rifle/muzzy thing.

I am STILL waiting for the biological reasoning behind TAKING away days/areas from archers. I have heard/read a bunch of hyperbole and little else. If it is "impact" you are all worried about, lets get rid of ATV's first, then we can talk about other "impacting" factors GREATER than a month long archery hunt.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I'll be honest Pro, I agree with a lot of what you say on here, but I think you need to put yourself in check every now and then. You're like the guy who starts to work at a law firm and hanging out with lawyers and pretty soon he's giving everyone legal advice, and ultimately he starts to think he's a lawyer too.

It seems like you assume all the 11000 other people on this forum are total idiots for you to save from their own ignorance. Why wouldn't you assume there are some guys on here who know a little bit about this too, that have graduate degrees in Wildlife Management and Experimental Statistics- that have spent a middle-sized lifetime managing ungulates. I bet there might be a guy or two like that hanging around too, and I for one like to keep myself open to what folks are telling me.

Ok I get it, DNR biologists told you there was no "biological" reason to manage archery harvest. I think it's a misguided stance, but OK I'll bite, there is no biological reason. What is the "biological" reason for having the seasons as they are now???? What is the biological reason for anything we do in the management of bucks and bulls?? Any does in Utah not getting bred? and doe's in Utah getting screwed to death?

What's the "biological basis" for your tagline... Maybe you should read it a couple of times.


"Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah, unless doing so affects me and my little parade then it's stupid BS and should be opposed vehomently"
 
>I am STILL waiting for the
>biological reasoning behind TAKING away
>days/areas from archers.

I dont give a damn about the days, keep what you have now for all I care. But they are changing regions to be able to limit harvest and manage hunting pressure better.

This cannot succeed if you are still going to let a group of potentially 16,000 hunters go anywhere they want. IT COMPLETELY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE MICROMANAGED SMALLER UNITS.

As stated above, there is NO biological or other reason to leave archery statewide. Let archers draw a tag for a micro-unit just like the other weapon types, hell let them keep the wasatch as a 2nd hunting area... but they CANNOT be allowed to hunt where ever they please and wreck whats trying to be accomplished by going to micro-units in the first place.


-DallanC
 
You guys keep saying impact of hunters but I can tell you I hunt the front quite a bit and I will be up there after a week and a half and the deer are hardly affected by the hunt. them rubbing there velvet off hurts me more than the hunters. Why does Arizona not make a 2 week hunt I mean they have about 2 months of archery hunts down there with a smaller deer herd with over the counter tags. You guys must think once the hunt starts all 16,000 people hit the hills and are camped there for 30 days. I bet a majority of the hunters make it out 8-10 days if they are lucky to hunt the entire season. Hell I hunt for 4 months and I only log 25-30 days in the hills. I am sure most of the impact deer see is quads running around which happens all season long on most units.

alpinebowman

>>>---shots that are true pass right through--->

National guard archery staff shooter
 
Don't worry about my name too much, cause I love to rifle hunt more than bowhunt...however.

Giving archers the opportunity to hunt statewide will hopefully push more people to bowhunting. Why is that good?

-More archers means less people competing for Rifle and Muzzleloader tags.
-Archers have far less success
-People moving to archery means more opportunity to hunt.

So...I am all for programs that entice people towards less effective ways of hunting. Keeping it statewide, keeping the hunt long all do just that.

Most states are in line with Utah. For example in Idaho I can hunt Deer with a bow from Aug 1st-December 31st. Now that is a long season.

Just my thoughts.
 
kysersosay wrote: ""Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah, unless doing so affects me and my little parade then it's stupid BS and should be opposed vehomently" "

I haven't even bought a deer tag since 2001 until this year. So, get off YOUR bucket and pay attention. Thanks for the 'lecture', coming from someone who shows little/no desire to do some research on a subject and then 'lecture' someone who has, funny stuff. I may be wrong more than I am right, but NOT on this subject.

bowhunt hit it right out of the park, you rifle/muzzy guys should eb wanting the 'perks' to stay for archers, it means LESS people competing for 'your' tags. It also, due to lower success rates and LOWER IMPACT on the animals, helps quality/quantity of animals. DallanC, say what you want, but you have NOTHING to support the claim that archers hunting statewide will have ANY negative 'impact' on deer numbers. The TRUTH is bowhunters don't like company, so they will not over-crowd on their own. I will be the first to support archers picking a unit when the evidence SHOWS they are having negative 'impacts' on areas/units that are struggling, just pony up the EVIDENCE and I'll climb on board. Until then, I see little more than a us vs. them child's game!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
bowhunt- well put.
I have to keep going back to the wasatch extended unit. Its hunted for three solid months. Not to mention its also used DAILY by non-hunters year round. The animals also winter in a very active area. They are being "impacted" on 365 days a year. Look at the health of the herd, look at the size of the average buck! Thank goodness I can hunt it!
I have herd numerous times we as hunters need to let the small ones live, or cut tag numbers, in order to get bigger bucks. Or in other words not harvest as many deer every year. That is exactly what bowhunters do, not harvest as any deer every year.

Why on earth would you limit a group, if doing so has no benefit to the big picture?
I say make bowhuting as enticing as possible. I wish we had double the amount of archery tags. The more people that can hunt every year and have the littlest effect on animals is the best case sinerio.

Is the goal not to promote a healthy hunting future? The way I see it is by giving archers a statewide hunt: one, It does little to impact the health of the herds, two, it also incourages more people to bowhunt. More bowhunters = more open rifle tags, and more revenue for the state. Its so easy to see, black and white.

ARCHERS, KEEP TRUCKIN
 
Pro-

I am sure you know more about this than I. However, it seems to me, it is difficult to have good hard actual data, if your giving so many archery tags and allow those holders to hunt vertually state wide.

The reason you won't find any biological reason, in my opinion, is you don't have reliable data to test.

So, my opinion is there is no answer to this question.

Think about this whole thing as if the Utah folks who are in charge were taken to court over the management plan for mule deer. It seems they would have a huge unknown in the planning system.

Also, the folks down in Arizona must have some reason for making part of the state's archery mule deer a drawing? Don't know if they are looking for good data or have actual data to support the change.

I have read that some of those areas that were changed in Arizona were very crowded!

Just some food for thought.
 
Heres another one for you nonbelievers. Lets knock all the dirt off it and make it simple.

Take two identical units, issue the same amount of tags to each. One unit is all rifle hunters, the other all archers. Give the rifle hunters 10 days, give the archers 30 days to hunt. At the end of those hunts which one will have more bucks left on it to GROW BIGGER for next year?
Black and white folks.
 
If a guy gets tired of arguing with a stump and walks away from it- I guess that makes the stump smarter (and more informed) for having won the argument. So congrats "Pro"-

My nephew plays pro baseball, any advice for him since you read so much Sports Illustrated?

Good luck in Utah boys, sounds like you're gonna need it.
 
need 4x4

Well put!!!

blazingsaddle

You said.
Take two identical units, issue the same amount of tags to each. One unit is all rifle hunters, the other all archers. Give the rifle hunters 10 days, give the archers 30 days to hunt. At the end of those hunts which one will have more bucks left on it to GROW BIGGER for next year?
Black and white folks.

If you look at the (Stats) the Harvest rate is almost the same in this state right now on the general session units for all weapons.
So tell me what is black and white.

Pro
As I said I am for more bow tags. PICK A UNIT LIKE EVER ONE ELSE. YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. WHY SHOULD THEY GET THE WHOLE STATE. Each unit can have better data (if it was collected) and then you can give more tags on each unit.

If your logic is true why not go back to all weapons the whole state.

Rock5150
 
So how is this going to affect the Dedicated Hunter program??? Sounds like they would have to do away with the program. How do they expect to pay back that much money? Anyone have any input or info. on this?
 
I don't have a problem with the dates or the number of days that the bow hunt runs. My problem is with the statewide bowhunt. We are going to smaller regions to "micromanage" the pressure and harvest. 12,000 bowhunters being able to roam the entire state makes it hard for the DWR to keep accurate information.
I also hope if this system goes into effect with smaller units, and having to draw for the tags that the state does NOT offer left over tags. If the hunters do not have left over tags to fall back on if they do not draw a rifle or muzzy tag they would put in for an archery tag to ensure they get to hunt. And that would make the odds of drawing a rifle or muzzleloader tag easier to draw.
 
One last time, the DWR has done surveys on the number of archers, where they hunt, how many days they hunt, and how many animals they kill/wound. All the data shows that the 12,000 archers are evenly dispersed throughout the regions and units within each region. All I hear is hyperbole and little/nothing else.

Rock, I am sure you are a good guy with some solid motives, but I am confused as to what would be accomplished with limiting archers to a specific micro unit, biologically speaking. You started this whole "impact" frenzy everyone is running with, THANKS ALOT, but I see little evidence of a negative "impact" that archers are putting on the deer herds that would warrant taking away statewide archery permits. The purpose of rifle/muzzy going to Regions and now next year micro units is to decrease the possibilies of OVER-HARVEST not to limit "impact". The numbers, and 'logic', say archers are NOT a threat to over harvest. So, I see this "impact" as a red herring. What does "impact" mean? Is it like "make a difference each day"? Everyone makes a "difference" and every person who enters the wild makes an "impact", but it is inane to think archers make as big of a negative "impact" as rifle hunters. One round fired has a bigger "impact" than a 100 arrows launched. One pinhead NON-HUNTER riding through a closed area makes a bigger "impact" than a 100 arrows launched by archers. Let's minimize the things that have the GREATEST "impact" on deer herds, not one with a SMALL "impact" in comparison.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
If any of you have been on the Pahvant opening morning of the general archery hunt you know that you can wipe your arse with PRO's data sheets. Evenly dispersed my butt!
Archers should be cut and limited to the micro units also.
And yes I archery hunt.

If the DWR does go to the micro units you watch they will raise permit numbers above and beyond 95000 total. Utahs deer herd will continue to suck.
On the bright side we will always have a drought or a hard winter to blame it on here in Ut.




---------------------------------------
"I needed a cheesy signature saying like everyone else"
 
> PRO you are wasting your
>time.

I see that Gordy, especially with 'brilliant' posts like NUNYA's.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I wonder what would happen to the existing limited entry units if the micro managing went state wide. If they were to be rolled into the micro units you would have a mess on the Henry's and Pauns I would imagine with statewide archery.

I think as certain units stood out and gained more trophy potential after time you would eventually have archers flooding those units as well.

Just my opinion but I think archers should be restricted to units just like rifle and muzz.
 
YA!!!

WHAT NUNYA SAID!!!

WE'VE BEEN MANAGING DEER IN UTAH FOR AROUND 35 YEARS TRYING TO BRING EM BACK!!!

HAS IT WORKED???

HELL NO!!!

WILL IT WORK WITH NEW MANAGEMENT PLANS THAT ARE NOT FIERCE ENOUGH???

HELL NO!!!

JUST SHOOT YOUR PISSCUTTERS & GET IT OVER WITH!!!

JUST LIKE YOU'VE BEEN DOING FOR OVER 30 YEARS!!!

AND THEN BRAGG!!!

YUP,I GOT FILLED MY PISSCUTTER TAG!!!

YUP,I FILLED MY MOMS PISSCUTTER TAG!!!

YUP,I FILLED MY AUNTS PISSCUTTER TAG!!!

JUST PROUD AS HELL!!!

TO NOTCH A TAG!!!

THIS IS MY NEW GUN,YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT,YOU'LL LIKE IT A HELL OF A LOT LESS WHEN IT HITS ITS DESTINATION!!!
47654abd5a8fd79a.jpg


469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
wow this got out of hand i am a bow hunter and also hunt with my rifle i like them both,but there is no way i could see the dwr going to micro units then allowing bowhunters to still hunt any of these units we wished.if so the bowhunt would be just as populated as the rifle and for the people that bowhunted could go to a premium unit every year. that would take somebody on the rifle 3 plus years to draw sorry i just do not see that happening we are all sportsman and need to stick together or else none of us will be hunting.i have a few family members that work for the dwr and right now the micro scenerio for 2009 is just a rumor
 
You may want to re-ask your family members about micro units. The DWR IS going forward with plans for micro units, and the deer committee IS drafting the details already, it is MORE than a rumor.

What 'premium' units are you talking about? LE units will STAY LE, so I am confused by this referrence.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>One last time, the DWR has
>done surveys on the number
>of archers, where they hunt,
>how many days they hunt,
>and how many animals they
>kill/wound. All the data shows
>that the 12,000 archers are
>evenly dispersed throughout the regions
>and units within each region.
>All I hear is hyperbole
>and little/nothing else.

Fine, you want hard numbers here you go. Your delusion that archers have negligable affect is FLAT OUT WRONG!

DWR's own LE harvest report, 2007 (Gen season not available yet)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/07_le_stats/deer.pdf

Highest LE Archery Deer Success rate: 84%
Lowest LE Archery Deer Success rate: 20%
Average LE Archery Deer Success rate: 61.5%


Average Gen Archery Deer, 2006

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/06_bg_report.pdf

Average Gen Archery Deer, 2006 Success rate: 22%

By comparison:

Average Gen ML Deer, 2006 success rate: 32.6%
Average Gen RIFLE Deer, 2006 success rate: 38.6!

THAT MEANS ARCHERS ACCOUNT FOR 25% OF ALL DEER KILLED IN THE UTAH HUNTING SEASONS!

You still dare to talk out of your @ss about how "negligable" of affect archers have? Unbelievable they move to micro units to manage harvests yet let the hunting segment that killed 25% of all the deer in 2006 go anywhere they want statewide.

RESTRICT THEM TO THE SAME MICRO UNITS AS THE OTHER WEAPON TYPES!


-DallanC
 
"You still dare to talk out of your @ss about how "negligable" of affect archers have? Unbelievable they move to micro units to manage harvests yet let the hunting segment that killed 25% of all the deer in 2006 go anywhere they want statewide."

Let's use the numbers YOU posted. First, take the LE numbers out of the equation, they are irrelevant for this topic, apples and oranges. Second, 14,000 archers at 22% success rate computes to 3080 bucks. 79,000 rifle/muzzy hunters at 35% success rate computes to 27,650. How the HELL does that equal archers killimg "25% of all the deer in 2006"? Where did you learn math? I comoe up with "10% of all deer killed on general areas". Big difference than what you put forth, yes?

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
The more I think about this 20+ units thing I dont like it. I think they should go to 10. If utah cant manage 5 how can you manage 20
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-08 AT 10:35PM (MST)[p]Pro,
You keep saying that the archery hunters are evenly distributed, they stay in their own regions mostly and that they need a month to pattern a deer and wait for the right time to move in for the kill. Then what is the benefit to have a statewide hunt? They could just put in draw the unit of choice and hunt it like everybody else has to.
For me if the DWR is going to "micromanage" a unit they need to have control of the tag numbers. If you make it a statewide archery hunt they don't have that control. I am not asking for a cut of tags just a way to be able to collect and use all data needed to manage a unit.
 
Because there is NO BIOLOGICAL NEED to restrict archers to a specific region/unit, NONE! The ONLY justifible reason is Timmy doesn't like Billy having a lollipop while he doesn't get one. Is that how we really want to manage big game/hunters?

Data can/is collected already. I have stated it over a dozen times already, studies HAVE been done. The conclusionS all say there is NO BIOLOGICAL NEED to restrict archers to a specific region/unit, NONE!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
I think PRO should be able to hunt anywhere he wants. He can't get anything killed with a bow any how. HA HA!

Love the Lollipop comparison. Your right on PRO. But tell me why is it the fat kids want ALL the lollipops.

And stop talkin Biology, Your not a biologist although your about as smart as the morons running the states big game.
Don't get mad PRO just sit in the corner with your sticky face and eat all the lollipops. Do you ever wonder why you get picked last on the field?
Later have a hayday with it I'm goin to work.



---------------------------------------
"I needed a cheesy signature saying like everyone else"
 
they must be keeping me out of the mix than pro cause they tell me they have not heard no serious talk that 2009 will be micro looks like they are not getting nothing from me on there birthdays.iam not talking about the le units i am talking about areas that provide good bucks that are open right. now i wish i could draw a le that quick if they changed it
 
Isaynunya,
Maybe we can get every bowhunter we know to go to MT. Dutton to hunt this year. Do you think Pro would have a change of heart? I seriously doubt that the the rest of the state gets the same amount of pressure as the Beaver and Pahvant. And if they do then there is no reason to keep a statewide hunt.
Maybe you are right Pro the Rifle and muzzleloader hunter would just like to see the bowhunters give something up. Seems like you guys are always pushing for more restrictions for us.
 
Bring em on down! Have you ever been on the Manti/Wasatch/Boulder? How many of those 'archers' are really DH's and rec folks? All are welcome to archery hunt the Dutton, you are even invited to share a meal at my fire pit.

Who is it that is pushing these restrictions on the rifle/muzzy hunters? It sure is NOT archers, we aren't the ones screaming for micro units. It is YOU guys trying to restrict ALL hunters to conform with a SMALL number of hunters wishes/demands. Take a good long look in the mirror my friend. Seems CHILDISH to say Timmy gets to stay and play while Wayneboy has to go how and vacuum, and that is not 'fair'.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Pro I can't agree with you saying archers don't overcrowd. I have seen it with my own eyes. Nunyas comments about the pahvant are dead on, whether you want to believe it or not. I know of fist fights up there on opening morning of the archery hunt, due to overcrowding. You keep saying why limit the archers, well why not? Most on here seem to see potential problems with not limiting it, why not limit it? People are still gonna hunt with their bows, even if they are restricted to a smaller area. Anyway, just wondering your reasons for not limiting archers, (other than your no need for it excuse).
 
Is there a better reason than "no need"? Think about it.

Again, how many of those archers on the Pahvant are dedicated hunters? That is 10,000 'extra' hunters that WILL be addressed with the micro-unit plan. Why not wait and verify if restricting archers is warranted/justified? Why make the change just to appease a few whiners? It is the RIFLE hunters who are pushing for these changes, so why should archers 'suffer' for a vocal minorities MIS-GUIDED wishes/demands? You want to restrict yourselves to micro-units, go for it, just don't drag everyone with you. Colorado's deer herd is not where it is because of micro-management, it is because they severely limit the number of tags issued, and they have habitat that can support that many deer.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>Is there a better reason than
>"no need"? Think about it.

LE's.

The introduction of Micro units pretty much turns the entire state of Utah into LE deer units from this point forward, because the entire point of micro units is to restrict harvest in order to manage the deer populations of that small region.

There is no difference between micro units and what an LE unit is currently. Some LE units are managed for Trophy deer ala Henerys. Some LE units are managed to just return deer populations to prior levels from a crash of some form (ala Bookcliffs). Micro units will have managed harvest to improve deer populations... sound familiar?

Micro units = LE units.

If archery's affect is zero as implied by some, why not allow statewide archery to hunt in areas like the bookcliffs or Henerys? I see absolutely zero difference between a proposed micro unit having a reduced harvest to manage the population and say the bookcliffs with respect to archery. BOTH are managed not as trophy areas, but as areas to restrict harvest in order to increase deer populations.

If there is absolutely "no reason to restrict archery" then why are archers restricted from the non-trophy LE units with their statewide tag?


-DallanC
 
"If there is absolutely "no reason to restrict archery" then why are archers restricted from the non-trophy LE units with their statewide tag?"

Because of whiney rifle hunters, 100%!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>Pro I can't agree with you
>saying archers don't overcrowd.
>I have seen it with
>my own eyes. Nunyas
>comments about the pahvant are
>dead on, whether you want
>to believe it or not.
> I know of fist
>fights up there on opening
>morning of the archery hunt,
>due to overcrowding. You
>keep saying why limit the
>archers, well why not?
>Most on here seem to
>see potential problems with not
>limiting it, why not limit
>it? People are still
>gonna hunt with their bows,
>even if they are restricted
>to a smaller area.
>Anyway, just wondering your reasons
>for not limiting archers, (other
>than your no need for
>it excuse).

I bet it is worse up around strawberry than it is down there. I am sure people get in fights for there stretch of the freaking 4 wheel trail but for the love of pete get off the roads and hunt. we can't all shoot 200" bucks from the wheelers without a fight. And I know opening weekend is crowded but by the next week the pressure is gone. The week days are great to hunt. I know not everybody can hunt the weekdays but most die hards can manage that.

Here is the kicker for you. Lets say the make the archers choose a micro unit. well the pahvant and Wasatch units have more deer to handle the pressure so guess where the tags go. they sure as hell arent going to put all of the tags in the desert. Everyone thinks all 12,000 archers are in there canyon every year. Hell I have had 20-30 archers within a mile of me on opening weekend and by Monday I shot a 160 inch buck. All I hear are people bitching about the hunt and how they can't hunt with family but her we have a great hunt were anyone can hunt anywhere with whom ever(mother father grandfather brother) and you guys want to get rid of it. And I don't want to her about grandpa is to old of the women can't do it. My wife has asthma and see hikes the hills with me. It takes longer and we may miss some opportunities but by god I am hunting with my wife and don't want it any other way. I also have a buddy who's 70 year old dad bow hunts and gets by just fine. You don't have to run the hills to kill a deer.

So anyone who complains about no more family hunting should be dead set against making bowhunters pick a region. It is the best opportunity to continue a great family tradition.



alpinebowman

>>>---shots that are true pass right through--->

National guard archery staff shooter
 
What a thread. FYI, I am not new to the forum, just forgot my previous user name and password. The following is a post to a similar thread I made to the Statewide Archery issue.

"I think the one thing that has been overlooked and needs to be considered is the increased incentive statewide archery offers to ALL HUNTERS. People are moving to archery because it provides an opportunity to hunt every year (if you don't procrastinate purchasing your tag) and allows them to hunt in their respective hunting grounds without having to worry about drawing the region. If you self centered rifle hunters feel so inclined to press the issue of having the statewide archery taken away, expect many of the not-so-dedicated archers to move back to rifle and muzzy, only further decreasing your odds of drawing YOUR desired tag. Then we can really see you all whine and cry. In the mean time, I will continue to hunt every year, regardless of where I might be because of the lack of demand for archery tags, and the rifle/muzzy guys can hunt every two to three years if your lucky.

In my opinion, archers need MORE incentive. This is a win-win for all because archers will benefit from more incentives and rifle/muzzy hunters will increase their draw odds by more hunters moving to archery for the added incentives.

Wowwww, amazing how that works. This whole idea just pisses me off."
 
Alpinebowman, Just fyi the fight was at the bottom of a canyon that is roadless, however, I will give you it was opening weekend. I don't know if strawberry is worse or not, but I know the pahvant is bad. It has been pretty bad for years. I don't have all the answers and I am not so dead set that I can't listen to others arguments. I just am going off of what I have seen. I like hearing all the arguments for both sides and I am getting some good info. I hope I have not offended anyone as that has never been my intent. Pro, where did you hear about the dwr coming up with the twenty units? Also when would this be in effect? I would like to attend the rac meeting on this subject when it hits that point. As I said I am not above hearing your arguments, I enjoy learning all the angles people see both positive and negative. Keep em coming.
 
Muley, I believe PRO is on the board to assist in writing the new deer management plan due out in 2009, so if the state is to be split into 29 micro units (I believe it will be), it will go into effect next year. From what I have heard, there is no plan to cut tag numbers further, the intent of the micro units is to disperse hunters around the State better. The Southern and Southeastern units will likely return to a nine day rifle hunt. I don't have all the details of all the proposals, but like you, I would like to attend the RAC and get as many details as soon as possible. PRO typically does a good job keeping us up to date with what is going on with regards to Utah's big game.
 
Muley, this is what I am saying everyone thinks its crowded and no matter how many people are in a place there are going to be total jackass' that will be that weather they hunt with lots of people or a few people. I hate the mentality of lets change something because a few bad apples screw up. There will always be bad apples. Seems to me a mandatory courtesy class would be in order than to.

Sorry your area is crowded but guess what you have the whole state to find somewhere else to try.

alpinebowman

>>>---shots that are true pass right through--->

National guard archery staff shooter
 
I have never understood the mentality of "over crowding", particularly with hunters. My first bowhunt, 17 years ago, was spent up American Fork Canyon, my family's traditional hunting ground. You seen a few people over the weekend, but by the middle of the week, we had the whole area to ourselves. Try going up there now, it is a madhouse. There may be a few more hunters than in the past, but most are trail runners, hikers, bikers, partiers, ATVers, Off Roaders, and every other 'ers other than hunters. The nice thing is all this activity helps to concentrate animals into areas with less commotion. I never fail to find animals, and quality at that. Get away from the roads and trails and everything is fine. Now I spend some of my time for deer down on Boulder Mountain with a friend's family that has been down there for 40+ years. I have been down there for the last 10 years or so. Every year there seems to be more and more people, but once again, get away from the roads and there is nobody in sight. I never fail to see nice bucks, regardless where I am (central, southern, northeastern). This whole idea of cutting tags or hunting every five to ten years is bogus. Sure, there may be a few more big bucks roaming around, but at what price? If you do your homework and with a little effort, there is no reason you shouldn't have a chance at quality deer every year. Those who don't want to do their homework or put forth any effort can wait to draw a LE tag and leave the annual opportunity open for the rest of us.
 

Similar threads

Founder
Trophy Bucks on the Wall - Pack Giveaway
2
Replies
105
Views
8k
Rockchuck
Rockchuck
wweaver79
Idaho HB 587
Replies
70
Views
3k
Blindnonresident
Blindnonresident
J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_2944.jpg
IMG_0828 (1).PNG
IMG_0019.jpeg
20230411_124424.jpg
IMG_7637 copy.jpg
IMG_7766 copy.jpg
20210713_115254.jpg
5AE03275-3C0D-44F2-878C-FFCA3DB2964E.jpeg
EF661D3F-78F3-4825-BE71-EC1EF267F2E1.jpeg
037 copy copy.jpg
2B004642-C892-4634-A3BA-726AE0ABA3A5.jpeg
IMG_9627.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom