SFW Deer Proposal

J

jack_sparrow

Guest
I did a quick check on MM to see if this has already been posted but, I did not see it. If I missed it...my apalogies, and just ignore it.
This was emailed to me today. What you all think about this...





"Thanks for your inspiring support and commitment. We are in the biggest
fight of our lives on wolves, but we can win, if as Tim McGraw says, How bad
do you want it ?



Here is the basics of the SFW Proposed Deer Managent Plan.



1. Based on the DWR survey, and ONE years 2009 deer hunt application,
force hunters to apply for ONE deer unit in 2009, a Hunt A or a Hunt B.
Here are the characteristics of each hunt:



Hunt A. Basically the same hunting experience as today's general season
units. Post season buck doe ratios from 13-17. Keep five general season
units, hunters can expect to draw a tag 4 out of 5 years (all but once in 5
years), family and recreation style hunts. Dedicated Hunters and Lifetime
license holders could only obtain Hunt A tags. If they want Hunt B, they
forfeit their DH or LT priviledges. Hunters drawing Hunt A could hunt
anywhere in the region they drew - EXCEPT the Hunt B unit by units within
that region.



Hunt B. Post season buck doe ratios 35-40. Managed on a unit by unit
basis. Hunters can Expect to draw a permit ONCE every four or five years.
When they do, great bucks, uncrowded conditions.





2. After the hunters make the first years choice - 2009, then in
2010, the DWR then matches the percentage of deer in Each hunt type,
corresponding to the percentage of deer hunters favoring hunt A and Hunt B.

a. It is not number of deer units, it is number of actual deer.

b. So, if 70% of the hunters choose Hunt A (recreation) and 30% Hunt B
(trophy) then 70% of utahs deer herds would be managed in Hunt A strategy
and 30% in Hunt B.

3. From 2010 to 2015, Hunters would be required to apply for hunts in
Hunt A, or hunt B categories. They could changes regions (from Southern to
North East for example) in hunt A during this five year period, and they
could change individual units in Hunt B, but you could NOT change from Hunt
A to Hunt B during this five year period.



4. The process would be repeated for five years in 2015 - 2020. If
for example it shifted to 60% to 40% Type A and Type B hunters, the DWR
would add 10% more deer to the Type B management program.



5. The Hunt A units and Hunt B units would then be determined. Hunt B
units would probably include Paunsagunt, Henries, Book Cliffs, San Juan, and
then possibly add some Units like Pavant, Beaver, Dutton, Nebo, and South
Cache. (Whatever Number of deer required to get an equal percentage of deer
as percentage of Type B hunters)



6. Some current limited units might be thrown into the Hunt A general
season - Vernon, Thousand Lake, etc.



7. Current Deer bonus points would be converted to preference points.



8. A decision has to be made then about Hunt B units. Could you apply
for just ONE specific unit within Hunt B, or could you apply for multiple
units in order of preference like the Colorado System? This would have to
be determined by the committee as they look more closely.



9. The Hunt B tags will cost probably 5 times as much as Hunt A tags.
The DWR needs a revenue neutral process (you are only getting a tag once
every five years - thus you pay 5 times as much)



10. It will obviously take some time to make the NEW type B units - Which
ever ones are selected - 2-3 years to get some real quality



11. It would seem that those who choose Hunt B for the first five years -
the tough building years - should have some sort of preference or advantage
going into the second five years - once the quality is built, then more will
want to jump on the bandwagon.



12. Statewide Archery COULD be extended for the Hunt A general season
units. If archers want a Type B unit by unit tag, they would have to put in
for such a tag.



13. Make a law so that a Dad could let a youth under 16 to hunt with him
and take a deer on his tag. For Example, my son might choose type A and
hunt every year for a few years. IN year Four of the program, I draw a
Beaver tag in Type B. WE go hunting. I tell the son, if I see a 35 incher,
I am pulling the trigger. If on the last few days of the hunt, we see a
nice 28 incher, the son pulls the trigger, and my tag goes on my sons deer.



Within the type B units, there could be lots of flexibility on season dates
etc, because the harvest will be controlled by the number of tags issues.
The Beaver unit - if put in Type B could have perhaps an early rifle - Sept.
15, a MZ hunt in late Sept. a rifle season in late Oct. and maybe a handful
of tags in Mid November.



Once again, I think this proposal meets the DWR criteria. Simple, Revenue
Nuetral, Youth Friendly.



It is fairly simple for Type A hunters, just put in for one of five regions
like NOW, draw probably 4 tags in five years. Family friendly, lots of
opportunity.



For the more serious hunters, it can be more complicated, we are willing to
put in the time and effort to understand the regs, etc. It will cost more
to draw this tag - revenue neutral.



The youth can hunt all three weapons in Type A units. They can go hunting
with Dad on a Trophy unit and see what real hunting is like and they just
might get to blast a pretty big buck on Dad's tag, and if they are like my
son, they will go from just killing a deer, to wanting a BIG one in short
order.



Let me know what else needs to be added to this BASIC proposal.



IN the mean time, the dWR and SFW will do all that we can to fix habitat,
keep predators under control, fence highways, solve depredation."



Don
 
I guess I would go for Hunt B and pay 5 times the current amount, and forfeit my LT priviledges.

So they want to change my preference points into bonus points? dang I would have a good start... I have 4 or 5 now...

Im not sure how the proposal to let your child shoot a buck and use your tag would go over...too much like Party Hunting.

I need to study this for awhile....
 
I need to consult my attorney before I apply.


---------------------------------------
"I needed a cheesy signature saying like everyone else"
 
Quote:
(Dedicated Hunters and Lifetime
license holders could only obtain Hunt A tags. If they want Hunt B, they
forfeit their DH or LT priviledges. Hunters drawing Hunt A could hunt
anywhere in the region they drew - EXCEPT the Hunt B unit by units within
that region.
11. It would seem that those who choose Hunt B for the first five years -
the tough building years - should have some sort of preference or advantage
going into the second five years - once the quality is built, then more will
want to jump on the bandwagon.)

Let me see if I get this right Don. Dedicated Hunters and Lifetime hunters (who have sacrificied money and or time for years) should be penalized and give up their prepaid or pre earned rights because the state finally decides to manage a few units for quality. But people who start to put in now should have some sort of preference or advantage.

I think the bandwagon has been rolling for years and your just trying to jump on and get your own seat. How about people who started two decades ago should have some sort of preference or advantage.
I like a lot of things about this proposal and making a better quality hunt. But trying to change the rules after people have paid in advance is a bait and switch tactic at best and smells like a class action lawsuit in the making.
 
Question #1

What if ya draw a B tag unit year 1........are ya basically out for the next 4 years as preference points screw everyone but top point pool.

Question #2

So you can apply for Deer in this plan and/or you can apply for LE Elk or Antelope in the 'other' draw?

Thanks----

Robb
 
" 11. It would seem that those who choose Hunt B for the first five years -
the tough building years - should have some sort of preference or advantage
going into the second five years - once the quality is built, then more will
want to jump on the bandwagon.)"

These units are already pretty good units aren't they? I don't think it would be to much of a sacrifice to hunt in the first five years.

deadibob wrote,

"I like a lot of things about this proposal and making a better quality hunt. But trying to change the rules after people have paid in advance is a bait and switch tactic at best and smells like a class action lawsuit in the making."

I am a dedicated hunter also, but I didn't realize we were entitled to a limited entry tag. Why would there be a lawsuit? Your still getting a general season tag. Afterall, Isn't that what you purchased anyway?
 
What happened to breaking the state up into the 27 units? Why can't people just apply for a certain unit and a certain weapon and call it good. The demand for each unit will balance it self out after a few years. Henrys might take 10 points, something like Beaver could maybe take 5, Zion might take one etc. There would probably still be some archery or muzz tags leftover that could be drawn as second choice and still get your point.

It works for Colorado.

oakbrush
 
Maybe SFW isn't familiar with the current UDWR mule deer system. Funny thing, they have this system where if you want to hunt every 4 out of 5 years in a general unit you with higher drawing odds?you can. They also have this deal where if you want a quality mule deer hunt with higher buck to doe ratios and low draw odds?you can. They even have this deal where if you really wanted to hunt you can enter into a group which does services hour by conducting wildlife related projects and as a reward you get special benefits like guaranteed tags (limited to two out of three harvests) and you can even hunt all three hunts. Wow! What a program. SFW?s proposal sounds similar to the current status except with a few changes?Now, I get to boot people off a mountain or unit which they have hunted with their family for generations?not just decades. I get to impose my personal wants and desires on the majority. What are the communities surrounding Beaver and Fillmore going to do when you turn those units into Hunt B units? I bet your answer is?I don't care it doesn't affect me? right? All right you got me? I hunt the beaver and the pahvant and I hunt them every year all, three hunts. Now some organization wants to limit the opportunity for me and my family???...In order for them to have what they feel is a ?quality? hunt?Sounds to me like Colorado already has what SFW wants so why not hunt there?I've got this great idea?How about we give the changes the UDWR has made, a chance to take effect. Effects from changes in hunting strategies such as the five day hunt take years to realize, not just 1 or 2. Also, how about you quit proposing to limit someone else?s opportunity and instead why don't you help them by hunting in your favorite state?Colorado. If you'd like to hunt a state like Colorado and pay five times as much... Knock yourself out and hunt Colorado.
 
Sounds like a way to get more conservation tags for SFW to sell to the highest bidder.....when is it going to be enough for you guys....if you want more bucks on the mountain further limit the tags in each area and raise the price to match revenue lost.
go to 27 units. do whatever it takes. I love the comment about shoot it if it is a 35 inch buck or let your kid shoot if it is JUST a 28 incher. are we looking to make it a fish in the barrel situation? how easy do you want it to be? so if you put in for A B TAG can you put in for LE elk also? look out general bull hunters your hunt will be next....why not....that many more conservation tags to sell....
 
The plan is way to much focused on insuring "quality". I don't need the UDWR to insure I get a monster buck I want them to insure the deer herd is growing and healthy. They do that, and I will get the monster buck on my own. Plus I will be able to hunt nearly ever year.

The option B would tie up a lot of ground that could be used to spread out hunter pressure in the regions and would kick alot of people off of areas they have hunted for generations.

The net result is to reduce the number of deer tags and thus deer hunters (which is why you would have to charge more for the B option tags). Again, it just blows my mind that a sportsman organization would be pushing for less hunters.

Focus on habitat, predators, and roadkills and the quality will be there.
 
IT SOUNDS LIKE BULL SHEIT. THAT HAS GOT TO BE THE WORST PLAN I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!!!!!!

IF SFW IS PROPOSING THIS THAN I WILL NO LONGER SUPPORT SFW!!!!!!!


READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IF YOU WANT TO SEE A THE DEER HERDS INCREASE FIX THE 25,000 DEER THAT ARE KILLED ON THE HIGHWAYS EVERY YEAR. WHICH MOST HAPPEN TO BE DOES. WE NEED DOES TO INCREASE DEER NUMBERS IN UTAH!

YOU WANT TO FIX THE SIZE OF DEER AND BUCK TO DOE RATIO IN UTAH??GIVE OUT 1/3 RIFLE TAGS 1/3 MUZZLE TAGS AND 1/3 ARCHERY TAGS!!!!!

The division has said bowhunters can't manage deer herds. What they are saying is in areas like the Wasatch front we simply cannot kill enough deer to keep the deer herds under objective. We rely on hard winters, predators, cars and the division with silenced 22?s is what keeps the deer numbers under objective. This also goes for the general unit and the bs that bowhunters wound more deer than another hunter. The facts don't support this bs theory.

Rifle hunters are just too effective at killing. "That is a FACT" So on general units you kill every thing off. Unless you are restricted in numbers just like you are saying in your BS proposal.

So limit the range by making you use a muzzle loader or other primitive weapon and maybe some deer will make it another year.


YOUR PROPOSAL SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don?t give your opportunity to hunt every year up by going to a piece of crap plan like this!



Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
Here it comes fellow hunters, I hope you all can see what is happening here, the end of hunting as we know it, Step one was when we shifted to regions and reduced hunters from 250,000 hunters to 97,000, many of us lost family members and good freinds from hunting, many just gave it up, We lost the great family outings and wonderful times together as large groups of family and freinds were out enjoying the outdoors together, It wasn't about killing the biggest deer, It was about the freindships, the experiniences passed on to generations. That is gone, Some of us adapted, we still hold on to something that is within us, that drives us to the hills each fall. Now as we complicate things even more for the sake of killing a "monster" I guarantee you we will lose even more hunters, many are allready sick and tired of not drawing a tag, or drawing a tag alone, many of us see this as a way of life to be out in the outdoors enjoying the hunt, some of us still hunt to put meat on the table, but as things get more and more complicated and "restrictive" it becomes not worth it any more, Our forefathers passed this great tradition of hunting on to each of us, are we the generation that is taking it away for the sake of Trophy hunting, If hunting is just about the horns to that many of you then maybe its time to call it quits and let you reduce our hunter number down to the point that only the elite can afford it, without hunter numbers to back what we love the anit's will eat us for lunch and that will be the end of it anyway. So for those of you pushing for all this "restrictive hunting" for the sake of killing a monster every 5 years remember, that many, many generations of families passed the love of the hunt on to each other, and ours was the generation that let it slip away! I really hope not.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-08 AT 09:40AM (MST)[p]Elkoholic, as a dedicated hunter or lifetime hunter you aren't entitled to a limited entry tag. But you are entitled to hunt the Beaver, Pahvant, Dutton or one of the many other areas Don would make off limits. I'm all for quality hunting but this proposal stinks.

This guy just never quits. He's always playing an angle to better things for himself and his cronies. I wonder how many of these type A tags they would propose goes to the SFW.

The five day hunt has made a drastic improvement in buck-doe ratios and mature buck numbers where it's had time to work. I do believe we need to micro-manage units so one area doesn't have an influx of people and become a slaughter as you see in Southern Utah.

Break up the units,scale back tag numbers or limit hunter days afield in the rifle hunt,keep improving habitat, control predators,limit atv access in critical areas, stir, put on simmer for five years. Now you have the making of quality deer hunting. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, you just need to grease the hubs a little.

I think this proposal is going to be the straw that breaks SFW's back.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-08 AT 10:09AM (MST)[p]I'm not sure what to think. On one hand it stinks that we have such a long wait for a great unit for deer.
But on the other hand- Deer herds are growing, you have the chance to hunt EVERY year, and MONSTER bucks are killed EVERY year on general season tags.
I think its the peoples hunting mantality that kills us some times. Every year we see/chase/kill big bucks. On general season units. More than once during hunts we have had our spotting scopes out, looking at book bucks, out feeding, doing what deer do. And have had hunters drive past us and tell us they have'nt seen any deer and there are no deer around. We listen to them rant and rave about the division management and how they don't know what they are doing. And they want change. We humbly agree that there are no deer to be found and let them leave. So we can plan our stalk.
I think most hunters don't truly want to earn their buck. Most want the "good old days"
I believe there is room for improvement in the deer system. But its not all bad as we have it. I love that I can hunt every year in utah if I be proactive for the tag. I love that every year I can/will chase book bucks. Good bucks can be found in every corner of the state, people just have to put in the time. Hunting good bucks takes time. People these days don't have alot of time to give towards hunting, that s why they want a fish in the barrell hunt.
I guess I'm against any plan that can possibly take away my privilage to hunt every year. Its easy in my mind to improve on todays deer plan.
-Allow youth 14-17 to hunt all three hunts every year, guaranteed. (keeps hunter recrutement)
-Split tags to 1/3 archery, 1/3 muzzy, 1/3 rifle. (Or in other words, reduce the number of rifle hunters any way possible)
-Keep the 5 regions as they are.
-Quit comparing Utah the Colorado!
-continue to invest in predator control- highway fencing and habitat efforts.
-Restrict ATV use in some areas.
Deer quality will grow if more bucks live through the hunting season. If deer quality grows, rifle hunters will se it as well.
IMHO
 
My thoughts (not that anyone cares):

1- interesting proposal, after you get over the initial shock of it, it might just have some really good aspects. I do feel for those who have hunted the areas routinely that might become limited, but I am sure there are those who hunted the Henry Mountains year in and out years ago that now have to hunt elsewhere.

2- no lifetime tag holder (which I am not) should have to "forfeit" anything. If a lifetimer applies for hunt B, those privileges should be placed on hold, not forfeited. They should be able to get back the lifetime status if they choose to go back to the A pool after five or ten years.

3- My guess is the B pool would be more like should EXPECT to draw a tag every 8 to 10 years. You are not going to get those with 7+ bonus points, that will become preference points, to change their desired hunt, regardless of how much of a land grab goes into the B pool.

4- The Vernon Unit should remain a B pool option. This unit gets applied for heavily now as a LE unit, why wouldn't it remain a B pool hunt when the work (and time) has already been done?

5- Its funny how rumors get started. Nowhere has there been a plan for smaller draw units in Utah. The plan was for smaller "management units" within the same five DRAW units. Well, everyone bit, and now you can see just what smaller MANAGEMENT units might have meant = MORE LE (pool B) UNITS.
 
Just another thought:

I guess now it should be clear why the law regarding the start of the deer hunt in Utah was changed this last legislative session!

You can all piss and whine but the SFW has the DWR by the nut sack.
 
>Just another thought:
>
>You can all piss and whine
>but the SFW has the
>DWR by the nut sack.
>


Which is why people need to voice thier concerns via written letter, e-mail and at RAC meetings. Start now, before the proposal gets traction, by contacting Anis Aoude at the DWR and contacting SFW and letting them know your thoughts.
 
If SFW gets their way we will be hunting big bucks once in our life for just like we hunt big elk once in our life.

Than the division will try and cram down our throats that we need to kill more does and spike deer, just like we need to kill cow elk and spikes just to keep our herds under herd objective. Our land can only hold some many freking deer or elk.

So let's increase our herd caring capacity by making our habitat better. Just like I learned in grade school with fish, you can take an aquarium and put a fish in it. One fish is all you can have in it if it is a certain size. Now add air and a filtration system and you can put 10 fish in it. Deer are no different! We can increase their caring capacity.

We need to manage what is good for deer and what is good for elk in this state. Not what is good for SFW?s big money tags! I am also going to lump the Division as a bad guy also because they are becoming dependent on this big money.

By the way how the hell is this state managing our elk? Are we managing it by bull to cow ratio?s, are we managing it by age objectives, or are we managing it in some other way ie what is good for big money tags.

I am a big supporter of what SFW has done in the past. I still am a bug supporter in what they are doing. But I have come to an end of my rope enough is enough NO more tags for them Period! They are getting worse than our greedy government.

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
If SFW gets their way we will be hunting big bucks once in our life for just like we hunt big elk once in our life.

Than the division will try and cram down our throats that we need to kill more does and spike deer, just like we need to kill cow elk and spikes just to keep our herds under herd objective. Our land can only hold some many freking deer or elk.

So let's increase our herd caring capacity by making our habitat better. Just like I learned in grade school with fish, you can take an aquarium and put a fish in it. One fish is all you can have in it if it is a certain size. Now add air and a filtration system and you can put 10 fish in it. Deer are no different! We can increase their caring capacity.

We need to manage what is good for deer and what is good for elk in this state. Not what is good for SFW?s big money tags! I am also going to lump the Division as a bad guy also because they are becoming dependent on this big money.

By the way how the hell is this state managing our elk? Are we managing it by bull to cow ratio?s, are we managing it by age objectives, or are we managing it in some other way ie what is good for big money tags.

I am a big supporter of what SFW has done in the past. I still am a bug supporter in what they are doing. But I have come to an end of my rope enough is enough NO more tags for them Period! They are getting worse than our greedy government.

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
I'd like to know if this is a real letter or a hoax? Is this something that the SFW is really pursuing? I'd like to hear from anyone that knows the facts.

Andy
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-29-08 AT 03:46PM (MST)[p]>>Just another thought:
>>
>>You can all piss and whine
>>but the SFW has the
>>DWR by the nut sack.
>>
>
>
>Which is why people need to
>voice thier concerns via written
>letter, e-mail and at RAC
>meetings. Start now, before the
>proposal gets traction, by contacting
>Anis Aoude at the DWR
>and contacting SFW and letting
>them know your thoughts.

Definitely hit the nail on the head. Another good reason why you Wyoming hunters need to be letting the Governor and the Wyoming G&F know that SFW WY doesn't represent your values or speak on your behalf. Before you know it, we'll be fighting the same battle against these folks here in Wyoming. They already tried to push for license set asides a few years ago up here. SFW isn't going away, but you can make your voices heard to the powers that be which will help when its time to get back in the trenches. Feel sorry for you Utards having to deal with this kind of BS...
 
>Feel sorry for you Utards
>having to deal with this
>kind of BS...


Why? How many times did people try to warn them about the true motives of SFW, only to get kicked down until they gave up? Nope, I don't feel sorry.
 
Leave it to SFW to complicate things. My heck it aint rocket science! Create 30 new units than lump the current limited entry units in with those. You'd end up with almost 40 units.Apply for the unit you want to hunt wether it's the book cliffs or the beaver unit.My point is, you get to apply for one hunt and one hunt only unless there are undersubscribed hunts in which case you could apply for them as a 2nd choice. Hey, that almost sounds like what CO does and they have a lot of BIG deer.

Mike
 
">Feel sorry for you Utards
>having to deal with this
>kind of BS...

>Why? How many times did people try to warn them about the true >motives of SFW, only to get kicked down until they gave up? >Nope, I don't feel sorry.


I feel sorry for your state because if crap like this happens us Utards are coming to your state in mass numbers.

The heck with this plan

Come on Don P.
What is the real story? What is SFW really planning? This isn't going to fly! I guarantee you will have mass numbers of Utards flocking the rack meetings and probably ripping out the chairs and throwing them on the stage if you propose this BS.


Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
One more time, Colorado has 'big bucks' because they have twice the number of deer as Utah and issue the same number of tags, that means to duplicate their 'success' Utah would have to cut tags in HALF! Bad idea!! The micro managing has NOTHING to do with the 'quality' of bucks in Colorado! All micro managing in Utah will accomplish is fewer family/friends being able to hunt with each other year in year out, it will NOT help the 'quality' one bit. I like most of this proposal/draft by SFW, a few things need to be tweaked, but it is headed in the right direction, IMHO.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
90,000 tags, divided by 30 units = 3000 tags per unit.

Divide those tags over the 3 different weapon/seasons...

Of course some units will need to have signifigantly less, some could handle quite a bit more than that.

There are sub-units in this state that I know are getting more pressure than this (3000 hunters), and are still producing good bucks for the one's that put in the time.

I know that there are more tags total than 90,000 because that is just general season tags. But reducing the total overall to this amount for the first year would be a great start.

The division should be able to afford the decrease because of the up front license fees now, unless they have already spent that money.

It could work and work well.

Certain units will start to stand out while others will need to be babied along for a while, But there will still be plenty sought after units for the auction tags. Everyone would benefit.

I like that SFW is trying, but I am afaid this A and B thing would push a even wider gap between quality in the general season areas vs limited entry areas. I don't know, maybe not.

oakbrush
 
One thing I have not seen discussed about this proposal is the cost increase. Do I understand this correctly? As a resident I currently pay $75 for a limited entry permit and $163 for a premium limited entry. Under this proposal, depending on which group the "B" type permits falls under, I will be paying 5 times that much. Do the math on this, and I will be paying either $350 or $815 for a resident deer permit. I am sorry.... That is way to high for this cowboy. Then if you are a non-resident, you will be paying well over $1000 or $2500. It sounds like an "eliminate as many hunters as possible scam" to me. Shoot, you may be able to draw one of the B type licenses every year because no one will be able to justify the cost.

I hope that this is the extreme option and it will be adjusted way back from here.

Jon
 
proutdoors, sounds like you have it all figured out. Let's see, prior to 1999 CO had no real management plan in place and there deer numbers were horrible. In 1999 they cut tags and went to a micromanagement program. Within 4 years they had some of the best deer hunting in the country and maintain that today. Yes, micromanagement does nothing if it doesn't include tag cuts with the goal of maintaining a certain objective. Every friggen state in the west has some form of micromanagement except Utah. It's no wonder Utah has the worst trophy oppurtunity in the west.

Yes CO has twice the number of deer, however, prior to 99 they were as bad off as Utah.The difference is, CO stepped up and fixed the problem whilst Utah continues to whine about the loss of opurtunity.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If a guy managed a business on a macro scale the way the state of Utah does it's deer herd, that business would go tit$ up in a hurry.There is absolutely no common sense to "macro" management. None!

Mike
 
mz_0303_10025577684.gif

Smoke and mirrors. what the heck lets just make it worse and worse. Pull you head out of your A**. After this then whats next? I can't even get a tag for central region in the last 5 years the way things are right now. Propose this Propose that make my pocket fat.....Houses being built land being bought lets just exclude more land within a unit for a general season. By the time my kids can hunt what will they have. This crap just keeps getting worse. SFW did some great things at first but its time for them to get their gruby hands out of the states pocket. ITS CALLED HUNTING....IF IT WAS EASY TO FIND BIG DEER ALL OVER THEN IT WOULD NOT BE HUNTING... This proposal is for all these lazy people who don't want to work for their trophy...whats the matter don legs getting sore..can't climb the hills..Or is it you don't want to have to get out of your truck and look over the next hill to find your deer.

IF YOU UTARDS WHAT GOOD DEER THEN QUIT SHOOTING THE LITTLE ONES AND LET THEM GET BIG.
 
I think you nailed it Cabin I am all for micro managing. There must be something right about it or every state surrounding us wouldn't be doing it.
 
Come on Pro pull your head out. You can not sit there and tell me that micro does not work. Each range is different from each other, only common sense tells you that. That is why each range needs to be managed for its condition. Wasatch is different from Rock creek, Rock creek is dfferent than Dry gulch, Dry gulch is different than the Books, so on and so on and so on. You dont have to be smarter than a 5th grader to figure that one out. Micro does work, and that is what we need to do. You know what, that is why Co. has twice the deer as we do, they manage each range to what is needed.
 
I agree with ColoradoOak...I dont feel sorry for the Utah hunters that have drank the SFW kool-aid.

SFW is not at all concerned with the average guy...as evidenced by several events that have surfaced in the last 6-7 months.

This deer proposal being one...increased number of convention/auction tags...and the constant pushing of quality over opportunity.

If keeping the hunting tradition alive, recruiting hunters, and retaining hunters is the goal...you arent going to accomplish that if hunters (in particular young hunters) have to wait 5-10 years to draw a tag.

To me this is just more evidence that SFW is only concerned about quality. Of course, if I were in the business of selling hunts and catering to the high end trophy hunter (in particular those that could afford auction tags)...this is just the type of proposal and management I'd be pushing for.

You reap what you sew...

I do feel bad for the hunters in Utah that have thought this through and see that SFW is not looking out for them in the slightest.

SFW has become entrenched and will get what they want...despite what the average guy thinks or wants. Special interest lobbying at its finest.
 
"Come on Pro pull your head out. You can not sit there and tell me that micro does not work. Each range is different from each other, only common sense tells you that. That is why each range needs to be managed for its condition. Wasatch is different from Rock creek, Rock creek is dfferent than Dry gulch, Dry gulch is different than the Books, so on and so on and so on. You dont have to be smarter than a 5th grader to figure that one out. Micro does work, and that is what we need to do. You know what, that is why Co. has twice the deer as we do, they manage each range to what is needed."

Utah already manages for each ramge, they just don't issue range specific tags, but they know how many deer are harvested each year on each range. All this micro-unit HUNTER management will do is break up families/friends that used to hunt together. To think that if Utah did what Colorado did 10 years ago will get the same results is nonsensical at best. And, I do NOT want to see opportunity cut in half just so you feel good about your odds of finding a 'trophy' buck. They are HERE now, you just have to, get this, HUNT for them. Colorado is night and day different than Utah, both in terrain and hunter dynamics. Most of Colorado is OTC elk, so they can 'get away with' restricting deer hunters like they do. They also have TWICE as many deer, so they have a bigger margin of error. Why should every other deer hunter not get a tag just so your odds of finding a big buck go up? And you dare imply SFW is selfish!

EVERY region in Utah is at/above objectives, the overall population is on the upward trend even with this last winter. Colorado was affected as much/more than Utah for deer population from this last winter. All micro-managing wouold do is take AWAY opportunity from hunters, and make it HARDER to obtain a tag. The single BEST way to get more mature bucks in Utah is to grow more deerr, and that takes habitat, good weather, and work from sportsmen. Reducing tags is a band aid that will NOT cure the percieved ills of our deer herds. Even a fifth grader should be able to figure that out!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
this is getting scary now guys. lets see some overall stats from the DWR survey, and see what we the people want (we are the ones out in the hills year after year)this should still be a democracy. the way i see it people who want to hunt every unit besides northern cant hunt their desired unit every year already. how does this proposal change that? how does this proposal change our current point creep problem?i have 0 pts can i expect to get 1 good tag every 5 yrs?you have 8 pts now can you expect to get 1 tag in 5 yrs?why would the tags need to cost more they are alredy getting the mandatory license fees and the 10$ for each app.i do not support letting our hunting priveleges turn into a rich mans sport.the deer in this state belong to every one of us equally the rich do not own it more than the poor.how about this SFW price our tags accoding to your annual income kinda like taxes. now i know thats rediculous but so is this personal agenda of SFW. i agree our state needs to be managed in smaller units. some areas have great habitat but cannot handle the 5000 hunters that hunt them yearly. areas like this would spring forward all over our state.i dont really mind the proposal of dividing the tags equally between the different weapons this would definitely lower harvest, and maybe allow us to have longer seasons in the future.when i was a kid we used to get the deer hunt off from school now when i take my kids hunting with me for a week here and there they complain to me. yet 1 week after the gen deer hunt they get 5 days off for UEA what the hell. i strongly believe in keeping our youth in the future of hunting. i dont want to have to tell my kids that the rich can buy better tags than we can so thats why they can consistantly kill better deer. i realize the importance of having a few high dollar tags in each state to keep their revenue. i also believe in giving seniors some edge in getting tags before they are not able to get the job done. sorry for the rant just my 2 cents on the issue. this proposal really got under my skin.
 
I love that every time you through out all the statistics. They say this they say that. The deer herd in Utah is not growing, or should I say at objective levels. who ever is telling you that is full of bull snit. Look around with your own eyes it is easy to see. Between the bad winter we had and all the cars that are killing all the deer, you or any body else cant say our herd is growing. You have to manage each area accordingly. Real, real easy to figure out. How in the world can you say Utah manages each range. (please explain) I will give you an example so you can understand. Anthro does not have any deer at all to speek of but Rock creek has a few, they are both in the north eastern unit so tell me how they are managed for each range. That is impossible. I am not even talking about trophy animals here, I am talking any animals. It is bad and only going to get worse if we dont change something. How will family/friends be broken up. If one draws they can still all go. Who knows they might all get tags. That is why the Henries, the books, pauns, are good, cause they manage each small area and not the whole half of the state. Times are changing and we cant keep doing what we are doing.
 
Let me get this straight, because drymountain doesn't see more deer than 5 years ago there are NOT more deer in the state. Brilliant!!

Lets look at your example, supposing it is accurate, even though based on your astute 'scientific' count of the statewide deer numbers is a thing of wonder, deer hunters kill BUCKS, so over harvesting a certain area would have little/NO affect on deer population. And, unless the hunters out there are complete morons, they would adjust their hunting areas if the area they hunt holds NO deer, don't you think? That is one reason micro managing is NOT needed, hunters will adjust where they hunt based on deer quanity/quality w/o being FORCED to do so by YOU/me.

The Henries and other LE units work well for a very FEW hunters. That is NOT a wise management plan for the whole state, that would end hunting for you/me faster than PETA could ever do.

We can tweak things, we don't need to FOOL ourselves into thinking that micro-managing HUNTERS will be a magic cure. What WILL help the herds is habitat improvements along with minimizing road/winter kill. The number of bucks harvested year in and year out have little/NOTHING to do with the health of Utah's deer herds. You are confusing managing hunters with managing wildlife.

PRO

Follow along on the family/friend issue. If a micro unit allows FEWER tags, the odds of father/son/brother/sister all drawing atag for that are DECREASE, which equates to less OPPORTUNITY to hunt with family/friends.

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
"We can tweak things, we don't need to FOOL ourselves into thinking that micro-managing HUNTERS will be a magic cure. What WILL help the herds is habitat improvements along with minimizing road/winter kill. The number of bucks harvested year in and year out have little/NOTHING to do with the health of Utah's deer herds. You are confusing managing hunters with managing wildlife."

PRO


I have to say I'm with you on this one Pro.
I agree 100%


------------------------------------------------------
By the way,
I live in UT.
There are a lot of UTARDS that live here.
I have also seen quite a few WYOMORONS, NEVADUHNS, COLORADORKS, ID-IOTS and AIRHEADZONANS in my travels.
 
It seems to me the lesson other states should learn from Colorado is that the key is reducing harvest. It is increasingly clear that mule deer, like elk, perform better when breeding is primarily done by older, mature bucks. Is that happening in Utah? Cah you guys honestly say that your does are being bred during the first estrus cycle by mature (4.5 year old) bucks? I doubt it.

Colorado elected to cut harvest by approximately 50% by substantially reducing opportunity, and their buck ratios shot up from 15-17/100 does in late winter 1998(kind of like Utah) to 39/100 does statewide in late winter, 2006.

The point that seems to be missed in all of this is that reducing opportunity is not the only way to reduce harvest. Some others:

1. Less Rifle tags, more primitive weapons tags. Now this would certainly reduce opportunity for some, but greatly increase it for others, with opportunity overall remaining about the same, but harvest reduced.

2. Road closures. To me this is so obvious, yet I know of no state anywhere in the West that is even talking about this. If you are old like me, think back 30+ years to when you started hunting. More hunters, longer seasons, higher harvest, and lots and lots of mature bucks. What was the biggest difference? Huge chunks of roadless areas that provided big game populations with year round refuges from us.

3. Shorter seasons. I guess this also could reduce opportunity in a sense, for those that hunt the entire season. On the other hand, look at a big game calendar and see just how few days there are in the fall when we are not out hunting something, and it is no wonder our deer populations are struggling. The truth is, the majority of hunters back in the 50's and 70's spent far fewer days hunting than we do today, even though their seasons were much longer.

4. Provide a substantial percentage of LE tags, say 30%, to a youth only draw. I guarantee this will reduce harvest, while hopefully giving more young hunters an exciting early hunting experience. For general tags, give youth hunters the first three days of the season. Far better experience for them, and a much smarter deer population when the old guys start hunting.

There are probably others that people can come up with. The point is that when deer herds are struggling, with poor fawn recruitment and small numbers of mature bucks present in the population, harvest needs to be reduced. That is what we should be talking about.

Scoutdog
 
Mike, I agree 100% with your ideas 1 & 2, but 3 & 4 I am not so keen on.

3)Shorter seasons here in Utah have resulted in as high, and in some cases higher, harvest rates than longer seasons.

4)I doubt the youth would see lower success rates on LE hunts, except for the archery seasons, which have little/no impact on quality.

According to the numbers I have seen, Utah's deer herd as increased in population at as high/higher rate than Colorado, so the reduction in tags issued has NOT helped herd health. But, it has reduced opportunity.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
proutdoors says.... "The micro managing has NOTHING to do with the 'quality' of bucks in Colorado! All micro managing in Utah will accomplish is fewer family/friends being able to hunt with each other year in year out, it will NOT help the 'quality' one bit".

Pro I respect you has a hunter and also as someone that cares about the future of hunting in Utah, but honestly, we can't manage deer herds based on the fact that families would like to hunt together. I know that is how it used to be on the Utah deer hunt. I miss that myself, but if we try to manage our hunts to accomplish the "family outing" we are going to lose. Those days are gone and we have to adapt and move on.

When someone draws a good tag, most Utahns have their family and friends go along to help on the hunt. That is fine, but in the mean time maybe have a family reunion for all the warm and fuzzys.

Thanks,
oakbrush
 
oakbrush, it isn't about warm and fuzzys, it's about getting little Johnny out hunting. Hunter recruitment is HORRIBLE, and reducing the family's ability to hunt together will only make it WORSE. And, when doing so is NOT warranted and will accomplish little/nothing, why do it? If you want to be hunting in 20 years like I do, hunter recruitment is critical. Making it harder to get new hunters in the field will hurt recruitment.

Utah's deer herd has been INCREASING for the last several years, both in quantity and quality, buck:doe ratios are at/above objectives in ALL five regions. I'll say what I have said numerous times, the BEST and ONLY real way to improve quality long term is to improve habitat and increase overall deer populations. Back when I started hunting in the early 80's there were more deer, which is why there were more bucks. A 20% increase in overall deer equates to a 20% increase in bucks with maintained tag numbers, which WOULD result in MORE mature bucks in the mix.

I also believe, as scoutdog mentioned, giving higher percentages of tags to primitive weapon hunters, and giving deer more areas to escape to, will result in healthier deer herds with higher percentages of mature bucks. But, micro-managing HUNTERS will do little to help, and will do a lot to hurt.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Oakbrush, are you kidding me, listen to yourself, you have to manage for families/freinds to be able to hunt together or hunting will die! I am sure there are a few of you that love to hunt alone, but to be able to sustain hunter numbers for the future you have to be able to take your children hunting with you, I have 2 daughters that want to hunt, one 16, one 14, we'll guess what, they can't even draw a general deer tag, they get discouraged and loose interest and move on to something else, they have never had the opportunity to even go yet for themselves, It is sad that is has come to this, This proposal to me will turn us from being hunters into "killers" What happened to going out and earning a good buck, actually hunting for it. Now we excpect 100% success if we draw a permit, we are entitled to kill a bull or a buck aren't we, just because we drew a premium tag. We have to "kill" or it is not a good hunt any more. You know what I would much rather go back to the days when families "hunted" together, we worked hard for the deer we harvest, Size of the animal was not always the determining factor. We enjoyed the "Hunt" and the time spent together. So don't give me that crap about that doesn't matter! IT does matter, Look at the numbers of hunters who QUIT because we thought it didn't matter, I guarantee if we keep restricting opportunity our kids are done, they have so many other things to capture there attention that they won't even think twice about not hunting, So go ahead and push the knife deeper and you might as well twist it to because this will be the straw the breaks the camels back!
 
Pro, you have a lot of good points. I like MOST of the SFW proposal.
1. You choose if you want to hunt almost every year, tag A. Or more of a quality hunt tag B every 5 yrs. Longer for the better B tags.
2. The percentage of A and B tags are determined by the number of applicants who apply. It's determined by trophy hunters and the average family guy that wan't to just take his kids hunting. This percentage will change, depending on what all hunters choose.
3. You can't compare Utah with Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, and Arizona. Each state has different dynamics. Different standards/goals how they manage big game hunting. I agree Colorado has the best deer hunting in the west. Utah can't be like Colorado. I would not like to have Utahs elk managed like Colorados elk either.
I have a lifetime license, get a tag every year. I have not shot at a buck for 10 years. It's not always about killing. We need a balance of quality and opportunity. We need to recruit young hunters. Got to go.
 
Dont make this harder then it needs to be look at Colorado

1. 4 sesasons

2. More units

3. Better managment

The units we have right now could be broke into smaller units and managed a lot better

early seasons tags would be for the people that want to get out and hunt every year and there would be more tags for this hunt. these would be eary hunts that would have a smaller chance of success but would be a better chance of drawing year after year. Then we need a later season with less tags that would maybe go into early november somthing like oct 28 to nov 3. there would be less tags less presure but you might not be able to get this tag year after year. then there would be the true trophy tags mid november VERY FEW tags might take 7 to 10 years to draw but when you draw you would be in the field with a lot less hunters and the deer would be more in the rut and moving around in the snow...

Thats my 2 cents

UThunting
Clynt L Citte
Willard Utah
 
Mark my words, if we mirco manage our deer herds, we will loose hunters. Old, and new. Micro managing makes sense till one really thinks about it completly.
If Papa Joe can't draw any of the micro units he is familiar with, and if he wants to hunt, he has to travel to to an unfamiliar area, he may choose not to hunt. Do that to him two-three years in a row, and he might hang it up for good, along with his sons.

I think that a lot of peoples idea of healthy deer herds are a lot big mature bucks running around. The only thing that means to me is more bucks are making it through the hunt. I want to see more big bucks during our hunts, we all do. But at what price? If you could offer me double the amount of big bucks on my hunts, but only allow me to hunt every other year, I'll tell you to pound sand.

Everything we impose follows suit to more restrictions. Micro managing is nothing more than a big restriction, to how many people can hunt, where one can hunt, and how often one can hunt. It opens the door for hunting less and less. Lets face it as well, we don't have an elk hunt we can "fall" back on during years we can't get a deer tag.

With the deer numbers increasing every year, and buck to doe ratios at or higher than objective, Seems to me the people that are for micro managing want one thing, more trophy deer. There are other ways to accomplish this. Others have stated ways.
Road closures, more habitat, less rifle tags, more primitive weapon tags, STOP SHOOTING YEARLING BUCKS EVERY YEAR!
 
While I have always been an advocate for micromanagement I can understand both arguments. Lost oppurtunity needs to be considered. Here is what I think would be a great compromise.

1)30-40 units with set objectives that are maintained by micromanagement

2)do away with left over Lic which would reduce overall tag number and thus overall harvest

3) 1/3 rifle 1/3 archery and 1/3 muzzy. This would keep oppurtunity the same but reduce harvest.This is 100% win win.

4) Only one deer hunt can be applied for.

5) I still think numbers need to be reduced if only by 10%

6) maybe do a special drawing for the youth only

7)The A&B hunts still give me a headache, but may be the only way to keep the DH's and lifetime lic guys from filing a class action law suit. Fair is fair....these guys paid there dues.

Mike
 
Dogwood,

I am talking about the old Utah days where you have 20 people in camp and everybody had a tag.

Mom, Dad and the kids should be able to draw units to hunt together just fine under a micro unit management plan.

The Uncles, cousins, friends of a friend might have to hunt another unit. But people are still going to have tons of opportunity to take thier kids. Come on, think about it.

oakbrush
 
Pro said:
>Utah already manages for each range, they just don't issue >range specific tags

Now thats an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. It's one thing to know how many deer are on a specific range, but quite another to have a specific plan in place that allows you to meet objectives. Under the current system they have no control over managing specific herds. The only thing they can do is reduce tag numbers region wide. If the herd numbers are down on the beaver unit, there is nothing the dwr can do to prevent hunters from pounding an already struggling unit.

Consider the following: The southern region has the following deer herds.Beaver, pahavant, zion, pine valley, west desert, mt dutton, boulder moutain, fishlake, ect............

Now lets say each unit has a set objective by the DWR (which I believe they currently do)

Under the current plan, lets say, for example, that the Mt dutton, west desert, and fishlake units have fallen way below objectives. Under the current plan how do you convince hunters that they need to hunt else where until these units recover to current objectives.You can't!

With micromanagement you could reduce tags on the 3 units above unitl they were back to objective.Like it or not it's common sense management.

I am not an advocate of managing the whole state like the henry mountains, but I think there needs to be a compromise of some kind

Mike
 
That is WAY to complicated!

My proposal is:

Create small units with different management objectives. Go to preference points. Apply for ONE deer tag only. The odds will work themselves out. People who wish to hunt every year will apply for lousy units like the Cache, and can hunt every year. Those of you hard-core type will apply for the Henrys and will hunt every 20 years (if you get sick of waiting you can apply for and go hunt the Cache).

Under the current system, think how much easier it would be to draw the premium tags if all the general deer hunters could not apply for them? The deer management plan needs to be simple, not some complex algorithm that changes every couple of years and locks people in to a 5 year application plan.
 
ALSO, create 3 age class hunting units:

A) 5-20 bucks/100 does
B) 20-35 bucks/100 does
C) 35-50 bucks/100 does

DH and Lifetime holders can get a A class tag for their unit of chosing, but if they want B or C class units, they forgo their garanteed tag for the year of application. Seeems like an easy fix.
 
Cabin Fever,
I like the way you think. This doesn't need to be so complicated. DH's could all be gone within three years so that is not a huge problem. Lifetime License holder may be a little tougher. I have one, I will not give up my deer tag without a fight!
 
ALSO, create 3 age class hunting units:
A) 5-20 bucks/100 does
B) 20-35 bucks/100 does
C) 35-50 bucks/100 does

I like that idea.

Mike
 
"Dont make this harder then it needs to be look at Colorado

1. 4 sesasons

2. More units

3. Better managment

The units we have right now could be broke into smaller units and managed a lot better."

The only thing I like that Colorado does is multiple seasons. We already have the 'micro-units' in place now, all you guys are pushing for is micro-management of hunters NOT deer. There are only two possible reasons why Co. has 'better' deer than Ut., killing fewer bucks per 100 head, and habitat. I am all for habitat improvement, but I am dead against reduced opportunity.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
"We already have the 'micro-units' in place now, all you guys are pushing for is micro-management of hunters NOT deer."



Don't you have to manage hunters in order to manage the deer herd? Maybe every state in the US is wrong in this idea.

oakbrush
 
That micro-management of hunters strategy is working wonders in Nevada.

What do they have something like 10,000 tags statewide?
 
So if I never change to a Type B hunt, the implication is that I won't have a shot at a trophy deer, or "real hunting" as it was put? Is that right?
And just to clarify... A Limited Entry Unit like the Book Cliffs where a tag that I would draw 1 time in maybe 10 years cost me $180, will now cost 5 times the general deer tag($40) at $200 and that is a fee that I would pay 1 year in 5, plus forfeiting the other 4 years of hunting??? Seriously??? Thats a great money making scheme...
Its unfortunate that the proposal is obviously saying that 1 year possibly harvesting a "trophy" is perferable to 5 years of just hunting, without a possible trophy.
I don't know exactly how to feel... I know it would be nice to have some premium units, but don't we already? How many mature "trophy" bucks should any single person harvest :( I don't harvest a deer every year, and my goal is generally to harvest a larger deer than the year before. Hunting with a bow has made this extremly difficult and I doubt I will harvest a deer one year in 5, but the opportunity to do so is whats most exciting... Anticipation for the opener is the greatest feeling in the world to me. It is my Christmas, has been since I was 14 years old. Who here would sacrifice 4 Christmases just so that on the 5th Christmas you got better presents??? And by the way, it costs you the same...
 
"Don't you have to manage hunters in order to manage the deer herd? Maybe every state in the US is wrong in this idea."

Yes, you have to manage hunters, but you do NOT need to MICRO-manage them. Or, are you saying "every state in the US" is MICRO-managing hunters? If so, you missed the "nail" by a country mile!

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
they arent micro managing anything right now! all they are doing is counting deer numbers in about 30 areas.they dont adjust tag numbers,hunting days to the individual areas but an entire region instead.some areas made need to be closed to rifle hunters for a season how do we do this now.i threw in closing areas to rifle hunters for you PRO,hoping you may see the light.we may have to adjust what areas we try to draw for the better management of our herd. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT OUR POINT CREEP SITUATION?ANY TAG SHOULD TAKE YOUR POINTS PERIOD
 
>My thoughts (not that anyone cares):
>
>
>1- interesting proposal, after you get
>over the initial shock of
>it, it might just have
>some really good aspects.
>I do feel for those
>who have hunted the areas
>routinely that might become limited,
>but I am sure there
>are those who hunted the
>Henry Mountains year in and
>out years ago that now
>have to hunt elsewhere.
>
>2- no lifetime tag holder (which
>I am not) should have
>to "forfeit" anything. If
>a lifetimer applies for hunt
>B, those privileges should be
>placed on hold, not forfeited.
> They should be able
>to get back the lifetime
>status if they choose to
>go back to the A
>pool after five or ten
>years.
>
>3- My guess is the
>B pool would be more
>like should EXPECT to draw
>a tag every 8 to
>10 years. You are
>not going to get those
>with 7+ bonus points, that
>will become preference points, to
>change their desired hunt, regardless
>of how much of a
>land grab goes into the
>B pool.
>
>4- The Vernon Unit should remain
>a B pool option.
>This unit gets applied for
>heavily now as a LE
>unit, why wouldn't it remain
>a B pool hunt when
>the work (and time) has
>already been done?
>
>5- Its funny how rumors get
>started. Nowhere has there
>been a plan for smaller
>draw units in Utah.
>The plan was for smaller
>"management units" within the same
>five DRAW units. Well,
>everyone bit, and now you
>can see just what smaller
>MANAGEMENT units might have meant
>= MORE LE (pool B)
>UNITS.
>


Ive changed my mind. The more I consider this proposal, the more I realize it sucks.
 
I do not have time to read all the posts, so sorry if I repeat anyones thoughts. This proposal is way to complicated and restrictive. I may not understand it totally, but shooting from the hip I am against it 100%. Party hunting? Deer licences costing 5 times what they are now? Come on SFW, this is not a fix. I am sorry, I appreciate all the time put into thinking this through, but I believe in my little world that it misses the mark by a mile.
 
That is exactly right pro. I see less deer than I have seen 5 years ago, so there are less deer. How else can you explain it. You come out here in the basin and I will show you what I am talking about. But no you sit out there in the salt flats and tell every one what they have. I'll bet you havent even been out here in your life.
 
I am not a fan of the SFW proposal at all. I agree that at least they are trying to do something, and they should be applauded for that, but this is not the direction I think we should be going. I agree that some changes are needed, but in my humble opinion, minor changes such as Founder and others have stated ....."8-10k tags cut, road closures, season dates adjusted for lower success rate, more primitive weapon hunts, etc. to increase the age class in areas".... will have a very positive impact in a relatively short time. I believe we can decrease general rifle tags, and move most of these tags to archery and muzzy tags; thereby keeping opportunity UP while lowering harvests.
I cant see a downside, assuming that some changes to the management plan like those stated above are implemented, in giving hunters two different tag pools when applying for deer tags: A LE deer tag (with a waiting period after a successful draw),AND a regional rifle, OR muzzy, OR archery tag. If you dont draw a difficult to get LE tag, you will go into the drawing for the regional tag of YOUR CHOICE. Of course,archery tags will be the easiest to draw, then muzzy then rifle. With bonus points for unsuccessful applicants.
With a plan similar to this, EVERYONE has an opportunity to draw a "trophy tag" (I hate that term), AND/OR a chance at a regional tag if not successful in the LE draw. I am a bowhunter at heart, but we need to do away with the OTC archery tags, and make all hunters choose their weapon.
I am a HUGE fan of the DH program, and think that the DH program can fit nicely into ANY management plan by merely adjusting the numbers of DH participants by region; and possibly going to a draw to get into the program (by region) if the participation desire continues to climb.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, But I dont think things are as bad as people say.
I see GREAT deer EVERY year on general season hunts. I can honestly say that I have had an OPPORTUNITY at a "trophy class" buck just about every year in the past 10-15 or so years. My success rate on those opportunities is quite low, but the important thing is that I see these deer every year! Part of the thrill of hunting is knowing that that BIG BOY could be over the next ridge...I shudder at the idea of having to decide if I want to be an "A" or "B" hunter...I think we can be both.


------------------------------------------------------
By the way,
I live in UT.
There are a lot of UTARDS that live here.
I have also seen quite a few WYOMORONS, NEVADUHNS, COLORADORKS, ID-IOTS and AIRHEADZONANS in my travels.
 
A couple things............
1. Archery hunters must choose a region. We cannot have the entire state in the southern half on August 16th. That is reduced opportunity because there is nowhere to hunt with people on every ridge, flat, canyon, tree, etc. Don't believe me? Come see Skyline Drive in 2 weeks!
1a. Archery season needs to be shorter.
2. Micromanaging works. I don't see how this can be argued.
3. Hunter recruitment will continue to suffer if all they have to shoot at is forkhorns. Even if they can go every year.
4. I don't know the answer here, but I'm starting to get real suspicious of SFW proposals.
5. What is a "primitive weapon"? Muzzleloaders shoot out to 250 yards and bows are getting close to 100 yards. Hardly primitive.
 
Pro, I am not sure where you are getting your Colorado numbers. Colorado increased their deer herd from 475,000 to 615,000 between 1999 and 2006, a period of 8 years. During that time, they increased their buck ratio statewide from less than 20/100 does to the high 30's/100 does. More impressively, the population and buck ratios increased in virtually every unit west of I-25. In 2006, the deer herd was basically at 100% of population objective on a statewide basis.

Utah went from around 220,000 to 300,000 over a significantly longer period of time, as I recall. Virtually no change in buck ratios, and the increases were not uniform across the state, with some areas doing well, others less well. I believe the population objective is around 390,000, so still significantly below management objective.

Prior to this past winter, Colorado was the only mule deer state where populations were at management objective across the state.

As to youth hunters, I obviously did not explain my thoughts very well. I would propose, as a way to lower harvest and increase hunter recruitment, that 20-30% of the regional tags be set aside for hunters 12-17, with their own draw and bonus point system. Thier season would start 3 days immediately prior to the season for the old guys, but would run through the rest of the old guy season. There is no doubt in my mind they would have a much better experience than is available now, see deer, probably get some shots, and kill some bucks. They would also stir things up enough that I would expect a significant reduction in harvest during the regular season.

As far as I know, no Western state has considered something like this, but I think it would be an interesting approach to reducing harvest while achieving a higher rate of young hunter recruitment than we currently see.

scoutdog
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-08 AT 08:55AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-08 AT 08:52?AM (MST)

tbone30 starts off with this
?Archery hunters must choose a region. We cannot have the entire state in the southern half on August 16th. That is reduced opportunity because there is nowhere to hunt with people on every ridge, flat, canyon, tree, etc.?
?Don't believe me? Come see Skyline Drive in 2 weeks!?

First off TBONE30 I have been in your shoes. Skyline drive sucks for hunting because of the 4-wheelr access not because of over crowding on the archery hunt.

Than he states ?1a. Archery season needs to be shorter.?

Why the division already states that bow hunters can't manage our deer that means we can't kill enough deer to do jack to the deer numbers. Want proof the Wasatch front is all you need to look at. The deer numbers are going up every year. If it wasn?t for the hard winter kill we had this year we would be over objective this year.

You thought skyline was bad ?You ought to come see the front in two weeks. At least you didn't have to hike for three hours to find out someone is in your tree stand and 15 guys are running after your deer?

?Hunter recruitment will continue to suffer if all they have to shoot at is forkhorns. Even if they can go every year.?

TBONE I grew up hunting on the skyline drive during Utah?s worst hunting period the90?s. There were no deer except small bucks. It was a blast to drive around and shoot at stupid two points and spikes off your 4-wheeler. If I wanted a shot at a 4 point I learned I had to hike down into one of those canyons that didn't have 4-wheeler tracks in them. That's how I got started hunting. So get off your 4-wheeler


TBONE says ?I don't know the answer here, but I'm starting to get real suspicious of SFW proposals.?

SFW proposals are not always bad but this one is in the crapper. I think they will shoot their manhood off with this one.

Last TBONE says ?What is a "primitive weapon"? Muzzleloaders shoot out to 250 yards and bows are getting close to 100 yards. Hardly primitive.?

TBONE those primitive weapons are a lot better than the 1500 yard shots I've seen taken with a rifle up on the skyline drive spike elk slaughter.

Archery the solution for opportunity for all hunters with chances at LE quality big bucks every year!!!!
So I say make it over the counter archery for the whole state and limit rifle tags even more. Those who don't draw a rifle tag can purchase an over the counter bow tag every year and hunt. NO cap on archery tags. Every year you rifle hunters are starting to see the light because the archery tags are getting sold our earlier every year. You still want opportunity even if you have to stoop to a bow!




Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
Tbone says-We cannot have the entire state in the southern half on August 16

Correct me if I'm wrong, that would mean that all 16,000 bowhunters are hunting in the southern region right? I think they allow 18,000 rifle hunters in the southern region. So wouldn't that mean you should cut the number of rifle tags for the southern as well? Its funny how its the archers slaughtering all the deer in the southern region? Even if all 16000 hunted down there, with our lower harvest rate? CRAZY!
Also expian to me how the southern region as the highest buck to doe ratio? And is able to keep at or above objective with all 16000 archers there every year?

Even conservativly speaking we have half the archers go to the southern region thats only 8000 hunters-compared to a truthful 18000? Give me a break.

Amen to swbuckmaster!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-08 AT 10:27AM (MST)[p]I think you could accomplish a lot of the same things in a less complicated, less restrictive way.

Merge the bonus and preference point systems and make folks choose when they apply, if you draw a hunt whether it is the Hernries or the Cache you use your points. I like this, however, I DO NOT like the 5 year commitment thing, let folks change their mind if they want to. It should improve odds for both the "quality" and "opportunity" hunters.

Add 1 to 2 new LE hunts in each region. These don't even have to take away from the general season, they could just be an early or late hunt on whichever unit in the region has the highest post season buck to doe ratio the year before. They would change every year depending on the post season classification data from the year before. These hunts could be archery, muzz, or rifle, maybe that could rotate too? You could maintain the general season hunts as they are now and still add some "quality" hunting opportunities.

As far as father and son hunting on the same tag, do like AZ and allow a parent or legal guardian to transfer their tag to their minor child/legal dependent. Having two people with a rifle both hunting at the same time with only one tag is asking for trouble. I think if a parent wants to give their tag to their child that is fine, but Dad needs to leave his rifle at home.

Just some ideas as to how we might accomplish some of the same things in a less complicated way. We all have to realize that how we hunt bucks is just how we divide up the pie we have, and while it is something that is imprortant to us and that we are passionate about, our number one focus still needs to be on making the pie bigger (growing more overall deer).

Dax
 
southern HALF---also includes southeastern.
I'm all for cutting tags-rifle, muzzleloader, archery. Whatever it takes.
But, why oh why can't archers pick a region? Anyone? Poor at geography? Can't read maps?
BTW, I'm a dedicated hunter, so I hunt all waepons. Muzzleloader happens to be my favorite. Archery is fun, don't get me wrong. Trying to outwit a mature mule deer buck and get within bow range is probably the greatest challenge in western hunting right now. I just don't understand the statewide thing.
Don't get yer panties in a bunch boys, we're just having a discussion.
 
I love how if someone complains or has a contrarian idea they must be a road huntin', can't-get-off-the-wheeler-to-piss, poor B.
See if this scenario sounds familiar to ya buckmaster. Hike in well before its even thought of being light. Locate buck. Glass til he beds. Begin preparation for stalk. Jack-donkey comes bumbling down canyon and blows every living thing out. Or waltzes out on ridge skylining himself to all of Sanpete County and blows everything out.
Look, I'm just frustrated with it all. I can't believe SFW, in all their might, could only come up with something this lame.
Guys, don't judge the poster(i.e. can't get off my 4-wheeler) just because they have a different idea than you. It tends to be counterproductive.
 
Scoutdog, you said Colorado grew from 475,000 to 615,000 deer while Utah grew from 220,000 to 300,000 deer. That means Utah GREW by a larger percentage during that time PROVING my point! Colorado's deer herd grew by 22.8%, while Utah's herd grew by 26.7%, meaning Utah grew at a higher rate! This proves RESTRICTING hunters to micro-units and cutting tags in HALF does little to help the herd. It does increase the buck:doe ratio allowing for more mature bucks to be in the mix, but it does NOT help increase the population. Every biologist I have talked to in Utah says fawn recruitment isn't an issue, it is HABITAT/predators/highways/atv's that are the biggest limiters. Micro-units will address exactly ZERO of the biggest limiting factors for Utah deer. Yet, it WILL lower hunter recruitment. Utah's deer population has been steadily climbing and finally the buck:doe ratios are at/above objectives in EVERY region, that tells me Utah is doing things RIGHT. People say they want more mature bucks in the mix, the solution is NOT to kill less bucks per year, the solution is to GROW more bucks each year! Some say it isn't rocket science, I agree, but going to micro managing COMPLICATES the whole process and the benefits are minimal at best.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
Well said pro!!!
This state is increasing in deer numbers as well as buck to doe ratios across the board.
Cutting the rifle tags has helped, but I don't like that those guys cant still hunt. I say let em have a bow tag. But say they can't kill a doe with this tag unless the unit is over objective in deer numbers.

TBONE I was not particularly picking on you. You just said the right things to make my point of view. Sorry for you to bear my frustration with this plan also. No hard feelings


Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
One other point from Pro's last post is that a large portion of Colorado's herd growth came from bucks. So while they are carrying more bucks in the population, the actual productivity of the herd (does having fawns) is less than Utah's herd productivity. While carrying more bucks is great for a hunt once a year, it is a detriment to herd growth as those surplus bucks are eating the food needed by does and fawns.

Also, the Book Cliffs in Utah supported 5,000-8,000 hunters a year. Now there are less than 500 hunters. The Book Cliffs has around 35 bucks per 100 doe. To get "General Season" quality up to Colorado/Book Cliffs quality we must cut tags drastically, which will increase the wait to hunt drastically. When hunting pressure is reduced, then harvest success increases so tags must be cut even more to make up for the increased success rates.

One last comment: The Sky Is Not Falling. Utah deer herds are not as bad as some would have us believe.

-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
 
Packout said:
"One last comment: The Sky Is Not Falling. Utah deer herds are not as bad as some would have us believe.""

I agree 100%

------------------------------------------------------
By the way,
I live in UT.
There are a lot of UTARDS that live here.
I have also seen quite a few WYOMORONS, NEVADUHNS, COLORADORKS, ID-IOTS and AIRHEADZONANS in my travels.
 
This proposal is way to complicated. We need to address some minor changes, but not revamp our entire way of doing things. Our deer are coming back, (will never be the way it was 30 years ago, to many people living in Utah, not enough winter habitat, more coyotes, the list goes on and on). Lets not get crazy and do something this radical and stupid.
 
Jon,

First of all, it is AN IDEA, not set in concrete, in fact the drawings haven't even been finalized, it is an initial idea.

Specifically to your money questions, the basis isn't on limited entry fees, it is the current general season fees.

So, if the current general season deer tag is $40, then a type "A tag is $40.

The Type be tag would be 4 or 5 times that $160, or $200, and that would depend upon about how often you would draw a type B tag compared to now. once every 4 or 5 years.

So now, it isn not a rich mans scheme, but the DWR has said, whatever changes MUST be revenue nuetral. For the Type A units, no real cut in tags, no change in price. If the Type B tags cut 80% of the hunters, there would have to be a 5 fold increase (approximately $200) for Type B to be revenue nuetral

don
 
THE SFW proposal - DRAFT - was made prior to seeing the DWR survey data. The basis of the SFW proposal was an estimate that 30% of the hunters would rather hunt big bucks every 4 or 5 years, than hunt the current general season hunts every year. Meaning 70% of the hunters would rather keep the general season hunts than make large changes. The SFW estimate wasn't to far of the DWR data.

It makes NO sense at all to go to 27 units, if the end game is to still have 97,000 hunters and have 15 bucks per 100 does in each of the 27 units. that just makes hunting more complicated, and it is NO better quality than it is today.

Here is some data from the dWR recent survey of a few thousand deer hunters and they were attempted to be representative of the broad cross section of Utah deer hunters.

1. It is important for most hunters to hunt close to home
2. Hunters would like to get a buck or hunt a buck every year if possible
3. 70% of the hunters would most prefer a big buck over a medium or small buck (size does matter)
4. 72% of the hunters would be willing to accept some additional restriction to see more bucks and larger bucks
5. 28% of the hunters would rather hunt a big buck every 10 years than a small buck every year
6. 31% said they would rather hunt a big buck every 5 years than a medium buck every year.
7. 52% said they would rather hunt a big buck every 5 years than a small buck every year.

There is a WHOLE bunch more data in the DWR survey that will be out soon.

Of course everyone wants a 30 inch buck and 400 point bull every year for free, but that is not reality.

What the DWR tried to do is find out if hunters watned bigger bucks to hunt, and what hunters were willing to give up in exchange for more bucks/bigger bucks.

The number ONE problem with Utah's current system is that only about 5% of the state is managed for large bucks and about 30% of the hunters would prefer quality than quantity.

Over the next three months the DWR and the deer committee will be looking at the data, the SFW proposal - which could get changed or tweeked - many other proposals by other groups, if anyone has the guts to put an idea out on the line, and then there MIGHT be some proposed changes, or as pumaguy says, just some minor tweeks to the current system

THE ONLY REASON the legislation was changed was to allow some OPTIONS, which now there are some. without the law change, there were few changes possible.

AS far as the SFW bashers - no other sportsmen groups is doing more to improve federal range land conditions for deer, buying more winter range in Utah, doing more water developments, gettingn more funds to fence highways and build underpasses, getting funding for coyote control and othe conservatoin activities for deer than any other groups. those are the well document facts, like the facts or not.

SFW will continue to do everything possible to protect habitat and allow for larger deer herds. But the membership and the SFW board is inclined to see some more changes to increase the "quality" hunting on public lands. The DWR data shows that a broad cross section of the hunting public is willinng to make some more changes to improve quality. So SFW will be involved in that process.

SFW has a process of setting its own policies. The board talks to their membership. the board tries to come up with an idea to meet their needs. then, the idea is run by committees, tweeked, then put out to the general membership, then finally adopted by the Board. SFW is a long ways to making its final decision.

It would not surprise me to see the Deer committee come up with a proposal in November or December and then take it around the state to RACS and Boards a couple of times in spring of 2009, so any significant changes, if any, would NOT take place til 2010.

Sportsmen feedback and questions are wanted.

contact directly at [email protected] for questions.
 
so let me get this straight...30% of the surveyed hunters want bigger bucks....that means 70 yes 70% want to hunt deer plain and simple...so when did the minority become the majority. Also...number 1...people want to hunt close to home so....making several of the southcentral units Hunt B limited units will eliminate several close to home units for alot of communities (e.g. richfield, beaver, fillmore, etc etc)herd health and populations seem to be increasing and I promise there are alot of quaility deer on general units right now..you simply have to hunt for them....this proposal sucks...and I will never support anything SFW does again.
 
wrong interpretation.

70% of the hunters said they want a Big Buck.

they said a whole bunch of other things.

When asked to choose, because we all can't have everything we want, here were some answers.

72% said they were willing to have more restrictions to grow more bucks/bigger bucks - that is the VAST majority. But then it depends upon what restrictions. further refinement yields the following:

52% said they would rather hunt a big buck every five years than a small buck every year.

28% said they would rather hunt a big buck every ten years than a small buck every year.

And 31% said they would rather hunt a big buck every 5 years than a medium buck every year.

And so a bunch of complicated data means that some percentage depends upon how it is interpretted, 30-40% want to make some significant changes to have a chance to hunt bigger bucks, even if that means hunting less.

What the DRAFT SFW proposal tries to do is accomadate both types of hunters desires. the 30 % and the 70%, or 40/60.

Type A hunt is for those who want to hunt every year, somewhere near their back yard, with family and friends.

Type B hunts is for those who want to hunt a BIG buck every four or five years. They will still want to hunt with family and friends, there just might be one tag in camp, and ten people to help out, just like the LE and OIL hunts now.

Under the DRAFT SFW proposal, hunters could choose which one they want, Type A or Type B. really pretty simple.

the biggest challange is which units go into type A and which into Type B. To meet the criteria of hunting close to home, there would be some of each in each area.

Take Richfield for example. The Monroe, Fish Lake, Boulder and Manti might be Type A units. The Pavant and Beaver might be type B. A richfield hunter could go East and hunt Type A units, or West and hunt Type B units. the local hunters choice.

Before to many hunters say, it must be majority rules, and majority gets everything, just stop and think about that for a minute. If asked whether or not hunting should be allowed, the majority of some states might say NO.

America is about the rights of the individual within a framework of common society rules.
 
Don,

I am glad you came on here and explained your side of the story.

I simply disagree with your proposal completely but am very glad that we are to a point where some good changes may occur. I do not think that the DWR survey is much of anything to base deer management. We need to manage for the health of the herds. We should NOT base our decisions off of a survey that did nothing more than steer the applicant in 1 of 2 directions. Trophy bucks or baby bucks every year. There is and can be both without dividing the hunting community and greatly limiting the opportunity to hunt deer. The fact that this proposal promotes party hunting whether it is a father and son or not is crazy in my opinion.

The need for inches (as in B&C) has already ruined this state for elk. A select few will draw and get to hunt elk. I count myself very lucky to have enjoyed it twice. Most never will. If we are to maintain a OIL style elk draw, which I hope we don't, we must NOT do the same for deer. The general public deserves the opportunity to hunt something every year. We simply cannot manage the resource to meet the needs of a very select few who will need not wait to hunt every year.

The message is always, let's grow more Deer or Elk and issue more tags. The public baulks, it passes anyway, the herds grow, we unleash the cow permits and the increase of mature bull tags increases ever so slightly. This must not happen with our deer.

Let's tweak what we have. Shoot for 20 bucks per 100 does? Set some areas for 30 bucks per 100 does? We can have both trophy and general units by tweaking what we have now without dividing the hunting community and charging 5 times the value of a tag. If you are to take money out of the pocket of the DWR, find a way to replace it without impacting the hunter. No resident should ever pay more than they are paying now. That is rediculous. 5 times the permit value? Do not put that on the general public.

I will be letting "my" organizations know my feelings. I hope we all will and that we can come up with a great proposal i the end that can and will help grow our herds while increasing opportunity at hunting and also big bucks. Have a great day.

Chad
 
Don, the problem with the b tag is how on earth are you going to keep the ability to get a tag every 5 years????? the le units we have now for deer are a lot more than 5 years and are getting worse!
 
don- could you please address the point creep situation.i want my children to experience the best hunting they can, and we dont have the money to buy these tags.should they have to wait 20 yrs to recieve a PUBLIC LE tag?it is my personal feeling that if a hunter wants to wait ten years to hunt LE then thats fine but should he be able to harvest out of the general areas in the mean time?if he didnt hunt the general this would only save more bucks for the others that are willing to hunt general season year after year.i feel any tag should take your points.now on the other hand if we had smaller units and there were tags leftover after the draw a hunter could buy one and save his points.can you tell me what the pros and cons of this idea are.thanx for your recent post and explaining the original post.
 
These "surveys" are a joke.

What kind of results do you get from questions like "Do you want a bigger buck"?

I mean really, if I had a wall of 210 bucks and someone asked me if I want a bigger buck...what do you suppose I would say? No?

Also, if anyone believes that the current plan will guantee anyone a permit every 5 years...they're in la-la land. Wont happen, you'll be lucky to draw one good tag in 10 years. What management practice do you implement so that 30% of the hunters who apply for the LE units get a tag FOR SURE every 5 years?

I'll answer that...there isnt one. There is NO way to manage 1/3 of the state of Utah as LE hunts, provide a quality hunt for bigger bucks, and let 30% of the state of Utah hunt those units once every 5 years. Its a pipe-dream...at best.

This whole trophy unit crap has got to stop. The guy that gets to hunt should not be determined by the luck of some draw or who has the most money to afford an auction permit. The guys that hunt the hardest should be rewarded with better results. Thats largely what happens in general units. The guys that dont want to put in the effort, they shoot meat bucks and dream of big bucks. The guys that hunt trophy class deer...they dont kill a trophy in a general unit each year...they get one every 4-5 years and go without the years in between. The difference is, though, that BOTH types of hunters get to be in the field, every year with a permit in hand. Success is determined by self-constraint, hard work, and the amount of dedication. Success is not determined by purchasing an auction permit or getting extremely lucky in a draw.

There is nothing wrong with a few LE units for elk, deer, and antelope. But, the direction hunting is taking...its getting really difficult to defend some of it. How do you tell a person that is neutrel to the idea of hunting that the best management practice is to manage 30% of the state for "trophy" class game that you can kill from the truck? How do you defend that? It sure isnt about the tradition of hunting anymore is it? It sure isnt about whats best for the wildlife anymore is it? It sure isnt about just being able to enjoy the outdoors and bring some venison home for the family to enjoy is it?

SFW is promoting NOTHING to do with the tradition of hunting...its all about bigger, better, further, farther, faster. How can we get more money into Utah, How can we sell another 100 auction tags, and how many more tags can we get for the convention. The way to accomplish that is simply whore out the publics resources. Let a bunch of trophy hunters direct management and have another round of surveys with questions that all lead to the same place.

This an absolute joke.
 
The survey was slanted to manipulate the results. Every person who has deer hunted the state in the last 10 years should be surveyed. A small sampling is never accurate. The DWR needs to distance themselves from SFW plain and simple. I sure wish the RAC meetings were effective like they are meant to be, I have never seen an agenda that wasn't just rubber-stamped and passed no matter how big an objection the public made.

I guess it's time to go to the top. Maybe if the governor gets pestered enough by pissed off sportsmen, he will open his eyes and see what a fiasco this is.
 
elk horn,

the cause of the PROBLEM you identify is this: 95% of the state is managed for general season, but 70% of the states hunters want "better" quality, and they all apply for the 5% of the deer units managed for quality. So, the odds are terrible, and they get worse.

So, if the state changed management of some units - to more accurately manage the deer herds in conjunction with what the hunters really want, and ask hunters to then choose what they want, the odds will be a tag 4 out of 5 years for Type A hunters and a tag every 4-6 years for Type B.

If 60% of the hunters want to hunt every year, put 60% of the deer units in Type A - current general season units. If 40% of the hunters want a Type B hunt, put 40% of the deer herd in a Book Cliffs, Pauns. or Henries type management plan. BAsed on some initial math calculations, if Utah did this, type B hunters would get a tag every 4-6 years.
 
SLC Muley,

the Tag creep is a great question.

My two sons, most likely would apply for the Type A tags for the first five years. they want to hunt every year, and Type A hunts allow that.

Dad would apply for Type B, and if i draw a tag every 5 or so years, great.

A further refinement SFW has has talked about would be, if Dad has a Type B tag, he could take along a son or daughter. If the 36 incher steps out, Dad takes the shot. If the 29 incher steps out the last day, the boys get the buck, put dads tag on it.


As pointed out in my post above, matching the deer herd managment strategies more in line with hunters desires fixes the odds question.

Then, if in 5 years, say 60% of the hunters want "quality" and 40% want to hunt every year, you would shift the percentage of deer herds towards that management, or if 80% said hey, i want to hunt every year, and only 20% want to hunt every five, shift the percentage of deer managed as such.

The SFW proposal goes a long ways to trying to meet both needs - those who want to hunt every year, and those who would like a chance to hunt with less hunters, and more and bigger bucks

don
 
dead i, the DWR after asking 10,000 sportsmen 3 times to respond, got 2,500 to respond. Why the 7,500 didn't take the time to respond is the DWR's fault ?

Second, with 2,500 responses from a random survey can accurately reflect the overall desires of the 97,000 hunterss.

You can predict the outcome of the election for the president of the United States by asking 1,000 people how they are going to vote.

There is going to be lots of input and suggestions over the next 4 months, be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
 
Chad,

Tweeking the current system, might be the overall outcome.


The SFW proposal out NOW isn't the final version, it will evolve, and as you very well know, lots of otehr groups are on the deer committee, then there is the RACs and Board.

I just want you to understand a couple of things about the SFW proposal.

1. 70,000 Utah deer hunters would still get to hunt deer, under about the same conditions - hunter densisty, buck quality, and price - as currently doing so.

This is very important to SFW and to many.,

2. About 30,000 hunters are willing to hunt every 5th year according to surveys, if there are bigger bucks.

So, if you mathced 70% of the deer in the state as is, and made 30% of the state for Book Cliffs or Henry quality, or some combination therein, then about 6,000 tags a year would go to type B - think of it, the Book Cliffs are pushing 800 tags a year now.

3. Finally, we are Not proposing 5 times the limited tag price for residents - 5X $200 or $1,000 per tag. We are proposing 5 times the general season wich would be about %200 for a Type B tag. And that is about what the Resident Premium deer tag is today, is that not correct ?

At any rate, good to have lots of discussion, and several other good ideas have come to my email this moring, and we will try and incorporate them as you said Chad, to have a GREAT hunting state.

don
 
Im still not convinced you will get a B permit every 5years ... there are 58,000 hunters who have 1 to 14 points in the LE Buck draw right now... and 30,000 who have 1 to 8 points in the General buck draw. I dont like it!
 
Elk,

Elk, those 30,000 with one to 8 point in general draw are simply NOt trying to get a tag, could be asking for bonus points only, might be in the military, church mission, working overtime, etc. 90% plus who want a general season tag draw each year, especially if they apply for more than one region.

Second, Right now, there is only about 1,000 type B tags. With 58,000 applicants, that is long odds. With a shift in managment, If 30% of the state is managed for Type B, there could be around 6,000 tags a year.

then, as hunters are required to choose, About 20,000 of those 58,000 would apply for Type A under SFW system, or draw a general season tag under Robb's or Colorado system and they are GONE from the pool. that leaves about 30,000 die hards for 6,000 tags. that is one in five years. And the 70,000 or so who want type A each year, gets them four out of five years.

It would take a few years to reach equilibrium in the system.

However, you are totally right, if only 5% of the state's deer is managed for Type B hunting and 58,000 apply, it is Once in a lifetime.
 
If Utah hunters are dumb enough to accept this crap...they deserve to only hunt once every 5 years.

I know they wont be hunting once every 5 years, and thats a fact. The numbers just dont add up. In particular when you have to severely limit tag numbers to make trophy areas.

Heres what will happen. In true fashion SFW will push the agenda and get it passed no matter what hunters want. After the first 5 years when about 80% of the people that bought this crap still havent drawn...take a guess what SFW will say?

"Well, if there were MORE LE deer units, your chances would be better."

Then pretty soon 90% of the state is managed just like the elk herd is. Once-in-a-lifetime tags for deer...right along with your one elk tag.

I wouldnt buy this steaming pile of a plan if it meant letting PETA come up with an alternative.
 
Don,

Your numbers wont work...how fast did you tell us the population of Utah is growing each year? Plus, since you didnt survey even 1/10th of the hunters out there...how do you know that the other 90% that you didnt survey are going to be split 70-30? What happens if another say...40% of those that didnt respond all of a sudden want to be applying in the LE units? Do you think you're still getting to hunt a LE unit once every 5 years...DREAM ON.

The answer to every question is not always bigger is better. But, it sure seems to me that is the driving force behind SFW. I wonder why?
 
Don,

Thank you for addressing my questions. I completely understand that this is a draft. I know it will change and that a lot of other groups have input in the situation. I also know that SFW has a very heavy hand in the process, and also has guy's that wear "other hats" on the committee. It is important for you as a voice of SFW to hear what we are asking and hoping for.

I agree with your assessment of the survey. That is how everyone answered it. I want you to know that I received no e-mail or notification of this survey from any DWR or SFW contacts. I received an e-mail from a friend who told me about it. I have hunted deer in Utah every year for 20 years but I am not important enough to be contacted for the survey? I would dare say that the majority of the 97,000 hunters you mentioned were never contacted for the survey. I would also venture to say that the 2500 who responded are dedicated hard core hunters like us who naturally would like to shoot bigger deer. Not a true cross section of the general hunting public.

I truly hope the current system we have now is tweaked a bit until it meets the objectives of a healthy herd and an overall satisfaction of most hunters.

I understand the SFW proposal wants to get everyone to hunt in "their" type of unit but you and I and everyone else knows that anyone with more than 2-3 points for deer is going to continue applying for a trophy tag. Does that mean we should convert the entire state to Henry's status? NO! As dedicated sportsman who are passionate about hunting, we need to be careful we do not further alienate our less dedicated hunting friends and families. They have EVERY right to the public resource as we do. Just because we go to rac mtg's, help with projects and donate money for the betterment of the resource, does not give us ownership of the resource.

As for the price detail, Premium deer is $163.00 x 5= $815.00
OR General deer is $35.00 x 5= $175.00

Either way, there is no reason to further tax the average man to hunt a public resource. Find another way to fund it. Utah's resident prices are a joke in my opinion. I am sorry if we disagree.

I can remember when it was proposed that a guy could draw an elk tag in 5-7 years a few years ago. No it is only a very small pipe dream. The SAME will happen to the "B" type deer tags. They will point creep because more tags will not be given out to destroy the Books, Henries, Pauns, etc.

I like the discussion but I am NOT on board of the current plan or the current Draft of changes. I will help tweak it or a new plan and hopefully we can pull something together that is not so restrictive and limiting to so many.

Have a great day.

Chad
 
Don you are wrong. Surveys get it wrong time and time again. Look at the last two weeks of polling in the presidential race. Every survey has differing results. Surveys can be easily manipulated.

You Sir need to stand down. You are trying to baztardize hunting for the rich. If you didn't have an agenda or ulterior motives that benefitted you and your own pockets it would be different. But because of your position you bring too much distrust to the table. I don't know how you wormed your way in so tight with the DWR but it's a shame and needs a stop put to it.

If you had the sportsman's and wildlifes best interest at heart it would be different, and if everything you do is truly volunteered without benefitting one penny or perk then I owe you an apology but I doubt it. I would bet even the time I met you in Anchorage your trip was funded by SFW.

Unless maybe an angel came down from on high an annointed you savior, protector and benefactor of earth's wildlife.
 
so what will happen to the bonus points we currently have?and are you saying the type B hunters will not be in our general units every year?if thats the case type A units will be a whole lot better in 2-3 yrs.we need to do something more for the youth besides letting them shoot our deer if its not big enough for us. who wouldnt shoot a 28" buck on the last day for themselves.i feel like 20% of all tags should go to the youths and 20% of all tags should go to 65 yrs and older.
 
SLCMuley

I have been forwarded another survey done by outside group.

Once again, lots of sportsmen are willing for SOME degree of change.

SFW has not addressed the what happens to the current points game.

However, if sportsmen are NOT willing to make some changes - a ONE time conversion of bonus points to preference points for deer etc. there may NOT be any change.

then everyone can sit around a complain about the status quo isn't accptable.

I remember going through the elk change wars. Lots of guys stood up and said Utah didn't have the genetics to grow big bulls, or that they wanted the right to shoot a 280 point 6X6 if they ever saw one. When pined down, the last time they saw one was never.

so, some changes were made, and over time, more, and more, and more sportsmen applied for the big bull tags, and less and less bought spike tags. Might be saying there was a shift in hunters desire.

It will be interesting to see what the Mule Deer study group comes up with as a proposal.

lots of issues to address, keep informed and keep us posted if you would like

don
 

Similar threads

Founder
Mule Deer, Elk, Antelope and Whitetail Hunts in Idaho
Replies
0
Views
420
Founder
Founder
V
Looking for a great mule deer unit in Colorado for youth (my son) with 5 points (last year as a youth)
Replies
4
Views
1k
VWiddi1
V
urge2hunt
Updated Mule Deer & Bull Elk Hunts for 2024
Replies
0
Views
1k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_20151116_043958.jpg
D81CE768-215A-4A13-8EE6-007608D50CCA.jpeg
IMG_3815.PNG
D8E181E6-136E-4B9C-8ABB-B4D82A0BC988.jpeg
IMG_1852.jpeg
E946DDC2-1720-42CC-B821-CA11CCCE635C.jpeg
D63C4ECD-5E12-40C6-B839-ABEC2259F348.jpeg
IMG_7746.png
IMG_20131230_075456_134.jpg
20221210_103016_resized.jpg
40.jpg
IMG_3613.JPG
Back
Top Bottom