I have a question? In all of the idea's that are being thrown around , where does the CWMU program fit in? I have not seen this program mentioned. I drew a tag 5 years ago and was very impressed with the hunt I had. I will be hunting a CWMU for elk this year. My 2 sons are tring to draw deer tags now and I would like to again in the future. My sons and I are now at the point that we would like to be able to harvest a top quality animal instead of hunting and getting a meat deer every year, that is why we put in for CWMU tags every year. Also, I wish everyone could come to the same conclusion that the deer population needs to be increased and that some hunting opportunity needs to be set aside for a while until the numbers are up. It seams that most people want more oppoptunities to hunt instead of increasing the deer populations. Well if there are no deer we won't hunt. Micro managing will work if given a chance. It would be nice if people were not so greedy and quit developing the land that is vital wintering range. Recently driving to Soapstone Basin we past a new develpoment south east of Jordenelle. This is going on all over the state. It seams that land owners are caring more about whats in there pockets, selling to the highest bidder and not considering our natural resources. Any way just a few of my personal thoughts. Thanks
Deer proposls, CWMU
- Thread starter mtnmn44
- Start date
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
Yeah, one thing that needs to change on the CWMU is that they need to give more public tags, 50% to public and 50% to paying customers. The deer and elk are not there property it is publics, and their private ground is not ours, so 50/50 split would be great.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,389
mtnman44-
Glad you had a great CWMU experience, that's good to hear.
Most CWMU's are great oportunities to harvest big bucks & bulls.
As far as any changes for CWMU properties, that's probably not going to happen, as the actual landowners call the shots on how they want their ranches managed.
They are given tags by the division based on acreage and the amonut of big game animals that inhabit it, but they are allocated or sold at their disgretion.
(unless there is something in the works i am unaware of)
"Ranching for wildlife" is a big business and is getting bigger.
Some ranch owners are making more money off their big game tags than the their livestock, therefore they manage their properties for more of a "trophy quality" type of a hunt.
CWMU's are getting tougher and tougher to draw these days, based on the quality of animals they are growing, versus the small number of tags available.
Good luck on your future CWMU hunts!!
Glad you had a great CWMU experience, that's good to hear.
Most CWMU's are great oportunities to harvest big bucks & bulls.
As far as any changes for CWMU properties, that's probably not going to happen, as the actual landowners call the shots on how they want their ranches managed.
They are given tags by the division based on acreage and the amonut of big game animals that inhabit it, but they are allocated or sold at their disgretion.
(unless there is something in the works i am unaware of)
"Ranching for wildlife" is a big business and is getting bigger.
Some ranch owners are making more money off their big game tags than the their livestock, therefore they manage their properties for more of a "trophy quality" type of a hunt.
CWMU's are getting tougher and tougher to draw these days, based on the quality of animals they are growing, versus the small number of tags available.
Good luck on your future CWMU hunts!!
B
birdbuster
Guest
CWMU does not automatically mean trophy quality. As has been mentioned the land owner manages at their discretion. Some manage for trophies and some manage for numbers. I've been on some that have tons of bucks but never saw one over 150. The CWMU manager was guiding at the same time and hurried in to kill bucks that we had passed. Do your homework. It's kind of like the new proposals, quantity vs quality.
Blanding_Boy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,037
The debate of private lands and public wildlife will go on and be debated forever.
Travis--you said-- "Yeah, one thing that needs to change on the CWMU is that they need to give more public tags, 50% to public and 50% to paying customers". The paying customers still pay for the tag fee to the state so I fail to see your logic there. If it went to 50% public draw are you going to pay a trespass fee to hunt private lands or do you just expect to get it for free.
Our surveys showed that nearly 80% of the CWMU landowners and operators would drop out of the program if they were required to go 50% on the deer and elk--moose and antelope is already 60/40. Because the CWMU program much of the depredation issues have gone away. So if we go back to how it was before the CWMU program the landowers have every right now to remove wildlife themselves by giving 72 hour notice to the UDWR--who will pay for that in the long run--us and the deer and elk.
Its a win win program if you ask me. There maybe some changes to the CWMU management plans based on what may or may not happen with the mule deer management plans.
Todd Black
BTO
Travis--you said-- "Yeah, one thing that needs to change on the CWMU is that they need to give more public tags, 50% to public and 50% to paying customers". The paying customers still pay for the tag fee to the state so I fail to see your logic there. If it went to 50% public draw are you going to pay a trespass fee to hunt private lands or do you just expect to get it for free.
Our surveys showed that nearly 80% of the CWMU landowners and operators would drop out of the program if they were required to go 50% on the deer and elk--moose and antelope is already 60/40. Because the CWMU program much of the depredation issues have gone away. So if we go back to how it was before the CWMU program the landowers have every right now to remove wildlife themselves by giving 72 hour notice to the UDWR--who will pay for that in the long run--us and the deer and elk.
Its a win win program if you ask me. There maybe some changes to the CWMU management plans based on what may or may not happen with the mule deer management plans.
Todd Black
BTO
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
Todd, I could be wrong but I thought they got rid of the 72 hour notice that it is now a bigger and harder process to eliminate wildlife off your ground, I think I read the article that was in a sfw magazine.
Blanding_Boy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,037
Travis?if you can understand all Utah?s depredation laws/rules you are far ahead of the game than I am.
I still read, R657-44-4. Landowner or Lessee Authorized to Kill Big Game Animals.
(1) The landowner or lessee is authorized to kill big game animals damaging cultivated crops on cleared and planted land pursuant to Section 23163.1.
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-044.htm
http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-44.php
Todd Black
BTO
I still read, R657-44-4. Landowner or Lessee Authorized to Kill Big Game Animals.
(1) The landowner or lessee is authorized to kill big game animals damaging cultivated crops on cleared and planted land pursuant to Section 23163.1.
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-044.htm
http://wildlife.utah.gov/rules/R657-44.php
Todd Black
BTO
D
dogwood
Guest
It interesting to me how we always throw developers and private land owners under the bus for developing there land, yet how many of us have a home or a cabin that sits on past winter grazing land, One of the great things about our nation is the right to own our property, and to be able to do with that property what we want (to and extent) Why is it the some of us feel entiltled to have a say what goes on with someone elses private land because it might be adjacent to public land, or winter range for our deer and elk. We call them greedy if the decide to develop it and provide for there families. Yet if it was our own we would do the same thing. Its a fact we have to face, many of these people see the vision of our wildlife and work with the DWR to ensure there will be area,s for our wildlife, Utah is a growing state, people are finding out what a great place this really is and the diversity it brings to our quality of life, is it sad we are losing wintering grounds for our herds, yes it is, but as far as the bigger picture goes it would be sadder if our personal rights where taken away from us. It is much better to work with landowners, respect there property, don't shoot there gates, there animals, don't tresspass without permission, and so on. But yet many feel they are "entitled" or "above" the land owners rights, and destroy it for the rest of us. We just have to manage our herds with what we have, For me, I say thank you to those land owners who work with the DWR to ensure our animals have a place to exsist. Thank you for allowing us to hunt your land, How many of us would love to be in there shoes! And to those land owners who make the descision to develop, I say good for you, take care of your families, but please leave a bit for our animals. Hunters, lets respect there rights, and maybe they will respect ours.
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
Todd, I am not arguing in any way, again I don't know all the laws, that is why I stated I may be wrong, but I know I read something out of sfw about land owners not being able just to kill wildlife on demand because they dont want them there.
As for cwmu' maybe 50/50 split might be extreme, but there needs to be a better percent to public draw. 10% is not much. Public ground feed the elk and deer through the summer months and some move off before the public even gets a chance to hunt them.
As for cwmu' maybe 50/50 split might be extreme, but there needs to be a better percent to public draw. 10% is not much. Public ground feed the elk and deer through the summer months and some move off before the public even gets a chance to hunt them.
Apexmtnman
Active Member
- Messages
- 591
How many of you know that some of the land posted in a CWMU is public land. If you look at the proclamation it says a CWMU consists mostly of private ground, not entirely private ground. We found this out years ago by trying to hunt BLM ground on the Paunsagaunt only to find it posted in a CWMU. There are hundreds, if not thousands of acres of public ground posted in CWMU's in Utah. I don't mind them making money off their own ground but making money off public ground and not letting the public hunt it is BS in my oppinion.
Blanding_Boy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,037
LAST EDITED ON Aug-06-08 AT 11:23PM (MST)[p]If public land is included in CWMUs (which it only can if it is land locked) then the split is greater to the public proportionally 85/15 80/20 or what ever the case maybe.
Russ, I'm surprised as well as you are with landowners dropping out of the program if it went to a 50/50 split. I guess some of them have a little better quality or an economic plan that they still feel like they could make it work having to deal with a 40% loss--not too many business can do that that I know of.
Tell me all great wise folks out there--what is fair to landowners who feed wildlife all year 24/7 in some cases. lets hear it! and please make sure to give it some thought or would you just rather sit back and grip and moan because you don't have any private land or that the public lands are over run and miss managed. What is fair for landowners who provide a significant winter and summer ranges in some areas in the state--what's fair to them? Or should they even get anything anything for providing food, cover, shelter to wildlife? Or is wildlife conservation on private land expected of them by the public.
Personally, I think we should all count yourselves lucky that we don't follow the European model and that some of you will and have received the chance to hunt on private land in this state and before the CWMU program all bet many of you welfare hunters got it for free didn't you.
Todd Black
BTO
Russ, I'm surprised as well as you are with landowners dropping out of the program if it went to a 50/50 split. I guess some of them have a little better quality or an economic plan that they still feel like they could make it work having to deal with a 40% loss--not too many business can do that that I know of.
Tell me all great wise folks out there--what is fair to landowners who feed wildlife all year 24/7 in some cases. lets hear it! and please make sure to give it some thought or would you just rather sit back and grip and moan because you don't have any private land or that the public lands are over run and miss managed. What is fair for landowners who provide a significant winter and summer ranges in some areas in the state--what's fair to them? Or should they even get anything anything for providing food, cover, shelter to wildlife? Or is wildlife conservation on private land expected of them by the public.
Personally, I think we should all count yourselves lucky that we don't follow the European model and that some of you will and have received the chance to hunt on private land in this state and before the CWMU program all bet many of you welfare hunters got it for free didn't you.
Todd Black
BTO
H
huntinco
Guest
We treat our public hunters very well. But I must admit when I here the public complain I think about dropping out of the program all together and just guiding in the general seasons.
Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
I want to add something and explain my self. I hear people say that they can't wait for grandpa or grandma to die so they can sell off thier land and have a financial gain. I believe that the some of the younger generation does not realize the importance of habitat. That is why I said that about the land owners. I do know that alot of land owners do care about wildlife and habitat. It is just slowly being taken away.
The CWMU program is not a welfare program Blanding Boy. Just because some one is trying to draw a CWMU tag doesn't mean that they are poor or asking for a hand out. I would bet that several people that put in for CWMU tags are financialy stable. I do know of several that do and land owners that do. If a land owner benifits from wildlife in any way the public should have some right to harvest those animals. I believe that the current split is a little thin for the public hunters and I believe a 50/50 split is taking advantage. Some where in between would be more appropriate. This program benifits all involved.
I thank MM for creating such a web site. Everyone should be able to express there thoughts openly. It is our god given right. I wish more people would do this. If they did there might be more solutions to some problems. Thank You
The CWMU program is not a welfare program Blanding Boy. Just because some one is trying to draw a CWMU tag doesn't mean that they are poor or asking for a hand out. I would bet that several people that put in for CWMU tags are financialy stable. I do know of several that do and land owners that do. If a land owner benifits from wildlife in any way the public should have some right to harvest those animals. I believe that the current split is a little thin for the public hunters and I believe a 50/50 split is taking advantage. Some where in between would be more appropriate. This program benifits all involved.
I thank MM for creating such a web site. Everyone should be able to express there thoughts openly. It is our god given right. I wish more people would do this. If they did there might be more solutions to some problems. Thank You
H
huntinco
Guest
Call it greed or what ever you want but if the splits did change at all I would drop out. No one and I mean no one is getting rich by operating a CWMU
Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
Apexmtnman
Active Member
- Messages
- 591
Don't tell me that the public land locked up by the CWMU's is only land locked. The Heaton ranch has public land posted that is very accessable to the public. Years ago a friend of mine checked out the old Wilcox ranch by Sunnyside to find that the lower 5 miles of fenceline that they had posted was public land.(it was a PHU at the time) Their excuse was that they didn't have a fence on the lower end of their property so they included all that BLM land to the lower fence. Thats only 2 instances that I know of I'm sure there are many more if you wanted to do some research. I've never put in for a CWMU permit, too many horror stories about when they let you hunt and where they let you hunt for me. If a landowner can sell the deer and elk that are on his property to the highest bidder fine but I don't think its fair to include the same animals located on public land just because its inconvenient to put up a fence on his property line.
Blanding_Boy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,037
You are right there are others that have public lands for trespass and posting reasons, also trades are worked out such that some private ground is made available for some public ground. Again these cases are typically for posting and trespassing issues.
They are all right here...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/cwmu/
With maps and reasons for inclusion. If you don't like it go plead your case and come up with justification as to why they should not be--its a RAC and Board decision.
Todd Black
BTO
They are all right here...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/cwmu/
With maps and reasons for inclusion. If you don't like it go plead your case and come up with justification as to why they should not be--its a RAC and Board decision.
Todd Black
BTO
Blanding_Boy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,037
mtnmn44
I would hope I never implied that the CWMU is a welfare program--if it was implied or that is what you think i said--it isn't. However it certainly provides many of us who can't afford the varying prices for big game animals that others can an opportunity to hunt these (for the most part excluded from joe smoe hunter) private lands.
I think its a very successful program (not a perfect program) but successful in that it provides benefits to both landowners and the public. As you pointed out the program keeps many of these great areas and great habitat from becoming 40 acre cabin lots. Its what keeps many of these landowners in the farming and ranching business. I just don't think too many people see it that way.
I think with the changes we made this past year will greatly improve the program.
I think if you start trying to fix the split to be more favorable to the public in getting more tags you will see folks drop out and as Justin pointed out completely exclude the public and just work under the general season hunting structure. They can still generate revenue--sure it won't be as much but certainly it will keep the PUBLIC OUT!
Thanks for your comments
Todd Black
BTO
I would hope I never implied that the CWMU is a welfare program--if it was implied or that is what you think i said--it isn't. However it certainly provides many of us who can't afford the varying prices for big game animals that others can an opportunity to hunt these (for the most part excluded from joe smoe hunter) private lands.
I think its a very successful program (not a perfect program) but successful in that it provides benefits to both landowners and the public. As you pointed out the program keeps many of these great areas and great habitat from becoming 40 acre cabin lots. Its what keeps many of these landowners in the farming and ranching business. I just don't think too many people see it that way.
I think with the changes we made this past year will greatly improve the program.
I think if you start trying to fix the split to be more favorable to the public in getting more tags you will see folks drop out and as Justin pointed out completely exclude the public and just work under the general season hunting structure. They can still generate revenue--sure it won't be as much but certainly it will keep the PUBLIC OUT!
Thanks for your comments
Todd Black
BTO
Now hold on just a minute. I understand what you guys are saying and agree that private land owners should be given some benefit for allowing public hunters on their land to hunt. I also see the point that the animals are state property, so the public should have access, so the CWMU seems like it would be a pretty good system. Here is the issue I have at this point with the program and from the above land owner statements, I am quite shocked by the lack of appreciation for the program by the landowners.
I agree that the CWMU program will not make you rich, as a landowner, but to have expanded hunting dates and tags to hand out without going through the draw gives you priviledge that apparently you have forgotten, or become so used to that I would almost consider it entitlement. In other states Other outfitters/landowners don't have this opportunity. Yes they do have landowner permits, but not the expanded seasons like in Utah. Justin, do you think you would do as well if you guided the general deer season for 8 days? There is no way you would come out financially even close to as well as the CWMU provides. The big money guys don't draw a tag, you don't get the landowners tag, now you actually have to send mail to everyone that drew like in wyoming and arizona. From what I can see the CWMU program treats the landowners better than any other state in the West. Considering the number of free auction tags and the CWMU system either the big money guys spend a lot of money lobbying or run the Utah system, it is obvious that it is not the average guy. For the expanded rifle hunts in the rut alone, as a landowner an 80/20 split should be a no brainer and if the DWR decided to go to a 60/40 split, I would be willing to wager that after a big dropoff of participants the first couple of years, landowners would trickle right back once they realized again what opportunity they have been given. Try coming to arizona and getting a dime for people hunting on your land. If I was a Utah landowner of a CWMU, I would treat every public guy that came on like a king, so that all anyone ever heard about the CWMU was how great it is and then none of this would ever come into question. If everyone did that landowners win everytime. No matter what the split 90/10, 80/20, 50/50 somebody is going to be pissed, so if I were you the land owners, I wouldn't make statements like we have it bad, we are the ones doing the service, we are entitled, it could be like in europe, I will drop out if they give the public more tags, I would say sure what can we do to keep and make the public happy about the CWMU, because believe me it isn't europe and if you get the wrong director or governor the little CWMU program can disappear in a minute, because if average joe hunter complains too much, the program will go away.
T
I agree that the CWMU program will not make you rich, as a landowner, but to have expanded hunting dates and tags to hand out without going through the draw gives you priviledge that apparently you have forgotten, or become so used to that I would almost consider it entitlement. In other states Other outfitters/landowners don't have this opportunity. Yes they do have landowner permits, but not the expanded seasons like in Utah. Justin, do you think you would do as well if you guided the general deer season for 8 days? There is no way you would come out financially even close to as well as the CWMU provides. The big money guys don't draw a tag, you don't get the landowners tag, now you actually have to send mail to everyone that drew like in wyoming and arizona. From what I can see the CWMU program treats the landowners better than any other state in the West. Considering the number of free auction tags and the CWMU system either the big money guys spend a lot of money lobbying or run the Utah system, it is obvious that it is not the average guy. For the expanded rifle hunts in the rut alone, as a landowner an 80/20 split should be a no brainer and if the DWR decided to go to a 60/40 split, I would be willing to wager that after a big dropoff of participants the first couple of years, landowners would trickle right back once they realized again what opportunity they have been given. Try coming to arizona and getting a dime for people hunting on your land. If I was a Utah landowner of a CWMU, I would treat every public guy that came on like a king, so that all anyone ever heard about the CWMU was how great it is and then none of this would ever come into question. If everyone did that landowners win everytime. No matter what the split 90/10, 80/20, 50/50 somebody is going to be pissed, so if I were you the land owners, I wouldn't make statements like we have it bad, we are the ones doing the service, we are entitled, it could be like in europe, I will drop out if they give the public more tags, I would say sure what can we do to keep and make the public happy about the CWMU, because believe me it isn't europe and if you get the wrong director or governor the little CWMU program can disappear in a minute, because if average joe hunter complains too much, the program will go away.
T
T
tuttut2001
Guest
I have had the fortunate opportunity to draw a few CWMU permits over the past years in the Northern region for deer and elk. I have always found the landowners/guides to be honest, fair and accommodating. Sure there are always those who are onery or rough, but that has nothing to do with the CWMU program and more to that individuals general attitude. You see that everywhere.
I have hunted with Fred John at Hardscrabble in the past and last year with Justin Richins(R&K Hunting). They both bent over backwards to make sure that I had a great hunt, knew the area and in Justin's case, let me have extra days to complete my hunt. I have to believe that the rest of the CWMU's are run in the same manner.
I grew up as a ranchers grandson and know how hard it can be to make a living at it. I also know that most of them can be a bit gruff and mean. That is just what I call the "country boy" attitude. If you show them respect and don't take anything for granted, you might be surprised to see what these CWMU owners will do in return. Just be thankful that these owners/operators will still allow us have this type of opportunities. Some states are losing it altogether.
Daren T.
I have hunted with Fred John at Hardscrabble in the past and last year with Justin Richins(R&K Hunting). They both bent over backwards to make sure that I had a great hunt, knew the area and in Justin's case, let me have extra days to complete my hunt. I have to believe that the rest of the CWMU's are run in the same manner.
I grew up as a ranchers grandson and know how hard it can be to make a living at it. I also know that most of them can be a bit gruff and mean. That is just what I call the "country boy" attitude. If you show them respect and don't take anything for granted, you might be surprised to see what these CWMU owners will do in return. Just be thankful that these owners/operators will still allow us have this type of opportunities. Some states are losing it altogether.
Daren T.
it is my feeling that now that the land owners have the amount of tags they do, if herds should increase, and permit numbers were able to be increasedit should be on a 2/1 basis.for instance the owner already gets 20 the public already gets 3,if numbers were to go up the following year it should be in this manner22/4,24/5,26/6 etc.how do you guys feel about this.just a suggestion to feel things out here
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
Todd,
You take a one sided point of veiw since some of your work with BTO is on CWMU's, so it is a prejudice statements and onesided arguement for you, if you were not on a financial gain from it then you would fight to give more public opportunity.
Now if the private land was only housing elk and deer for year round, then do the hunt in middle july to end of August before the elk and deer are migrating anywhere, then you would be taking care of the residential animals, but to go from August to end of October and some in middle on November you are taking a lot of migrating animals, animals that feed on public ground, and again most public wont be able to hunt them, maybe some archery hunters before they move off on private, therefore a better split off, 20%-30% public if the CWMU can hunt as long as they are, if not have the July August hunt then.
Now another point overlooked, most of these grounds are already recieving some kind of compensation, such as CRP programs, how can they not farm the ground have it in crp and collect money and then lease it to cwmu and get more gain? I can see a landowner complaining if they are working the ground an taking a loss, but crp they are not taking anykind of loss.
You take a one sided point of veiw since some of your work with BTO is on CWMU's, so it is a prejudice statements and onesided arguement for you, if you were not on a financial gain from it then you would fight to give more public opportunity.
Now if the private land was only housing elk and deer for year round, then do the hunt in middle july to end of August before the elk and deer are migrating anywhere, then you would be taking care of the residential animals, but to go from August to end of October and some in middle on November you are taking a lot of migrating animals, animals that feed on public ground, and again most public wont be able to hunt them, maybe some archery hunters before they move off on private, therefore a better split off, 20%-30% public if the CWMU can hunt as long as they are, if not have the July August hunt then.
Now another point overlooked, most of these grounds are already recieving some kind of compensation, such as CRP programs, how can they not farm the ground have it in crp and collect money and then lease it to cwmu and get more gain? I can see a landowner complaining if they are working the ground an taking a loss, but crp they are not taking anykind of loss.
I agree 100% with birdbuster on this one. My brother drew a CWMU deer tag about 7 years ago and we were seeing bucks around 160-180 every day. I drew the same CWMU tag three years later and the biggest buck we saw in 7 days would have scored maybe 140. The NUMBER of deer we saw every day did not decrease, but the quality of bucks we saw decreased. Be careful when relying on numbers from years past. That was my mistake and I ended up taking just a 140 buck. The land owner obviously was not managing for bigger bucks considering we saw 300 head of deer each day.
Blanding_Boy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,037
LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-08 AT 02:28PM (MST)[p]Travis?
My bisas as you state has nothing to do with BTO?I purchase anywhere from none to 4 or 5 CWMU permits a year and most of them are not on spring creek. I don't gain from it at all believe me.
However it has everything to do with my job and acting as the sec/treasurer for the CWMU association for the past 5+ years.
I was in your shoes 10+ years ago I would have sided with you on many of the same issues. However, as I have become more educated about the program understanding what the private land issues are and were here especially in the northern region the CWMU model seems to me to be a very good model to address some of these issues.
If you have not, you ought to watch the video (which BTO did pro bono) on the CWMU?s web page I think it will give a bit more to think about. http://www.cwmuutahwildlife.org/ its just over 20 minutes long.
Also your statement "most of these grounds are already recieving some kind of compensation, such as CRP programs, how can they not farm the ground have it in crp and collect money and then lease it to cwmu and get more gain?" May be true of 1% of the total acreage in the CWMU program so certainly not 'most'
Todd
My bisas as you state has nothing to do with BTO?I purchase anywhere from none to 4 or 5 CWMU permits a year and most of them are not on spring creek. I don't gain from it at all believe me.
However it has everything to do with my job and acting as the sec/treasurer for the CWMU association for the past 5+ years.
I was in your shoes 10+ years ago I would have sided with you on many of the same issues. However, as I have become more educated about the program understanding what the private land issues are and were here especially in the northern region the CWMU model seems to me to be a very good model to address some of these issues.
If you have not, you ought to watch the video (which BTO did pro bono) on the CWMU?s web page I think it will give a bit more to think about. http://www.cwmuutahwildlife.org/ its just over 20 minutes long.
Also your statement "most of these grounds are already recieving some kind of compensation, such as CRP programs, how can they not farm the ground have it in crp and collect money and then lease it to cwmu and get more gain?" May be true of 1% of the total acreage in the CWMU program so certainly not 'most'
Todd
D
Deadduck
Guest
Wow...........what a bunch of misinformed, uneducated, just plain stupid people.
The CWMU program is the best thing to come along, for us average hunters, since cold beer!!!!!!
I have killed a 78" antelope, a 368" bull elk, and have hunted over 30 other times on property, than I otherwise would not have access to.
Is there problems with the program.....there are problems with every program....but the benefits out weigh the problems, by a huge amount.
The bottom line is that the CWMU program allows us to hunt property, that we otherwise would not be able to hunt....PERIOD!!!
I am such a proponent of the program, that I actually joined the CWMU organization. I have met with the operators, with the landowners, and with the Department of Wildlife officials. All of these people are interested in OUR success with the program.
I am a member of this organization, so that I can represent and help preserve, and enhance this program.
I do not own property, I am not an outfitter, I am just an average hunter, who has had many, many successes, and opportunities with hunting, that I would not have had, without the CWMU program.
Please take the time to understand it, and to become educated about it, before you start knocking it.
The CWMU program is the best thing to come along, for us average hunters, since cold beer!!!!!!
I have killed a 78" antelope, a 368" bull elk, and have hunted over 30 other times on property, than I otherwise would not have access to.
Is there problems with the program.....there are problems with every program....but the benefits out weigh the problems, by a huge amount.
The bottom line is that the CWMU program allows us to hunt property, that we otherwise would not be able to hunt....PERIOD!!!
I am such a proponent of the program, that I actually joined the CWMU organization. I have met with the operators, with the landowners, and with the Department of Wildlife officials. All of these people are interested in OUR success with the program.
I am a member of this organization, so that I can represent and help preserve, and enhance this program.
I do not own property, I am not an outfitter, I am just an average hunter, who has had many, many successes, and opportunities with hunting, that I would not have had, without the CWMU program.
Please take the time to understand it, and to become educated about it, before you start knocking it.
I am the Sportsman's Rep on the CWMU Committee. The rule for the CWMU Program was just re-written last year and should give Utah public hunters more opportunity, more securities. It is still not perfect, nor will it ever be.
CWMUs now must offer a minimum of 5 days to hunt.
All November CWMUs must offer the November option to all public hunters.
CWMUs must now give a minimum of 2 days to anterless hunters.
CWMUs must also meet antlerless ratio harvest goals.
There should be an additional 20 or so public bull moose tags given over the next 3 years.
Public hunters will have access to all areas on the ranch which are accessible by paying customers within the CWMU's management plan.
Public hunters should know what the dates of the hunts are before applying.
If someone has a major problem with a CWMU, then please file a report and the CWMU Committee will be informed so we can try to deal with the problem. There are many issues which can be easily fixed if people just take the time to report the problem and fill out a form.
There will always be a contingent of people who hate whatever is done in this life. The CWMU program is no different.
-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
CWMUs now must offer a minimum of 5 days to hunt.
All November CWMUs must offer the November option to all public hunters.
CWMUs must now give a minimum of 2 days to anterless hunters.
CWMUs must also meet antlerless ratio harvest goals.
There should be an additional 20 or so public bull moose tags given over the next 3 years.
Public hunters will have access to all areas on the ranch which are accessible by paying customers within the CWMU's management plan.
Public hunters should know what the dates of the hunts are before applying.
If someone has a major problem with a CWMU, then please file a report and the CWMU Committee will be informed so we can try to deal with the problem. There are many issues which can be easily fixed if people just take the time to report the problem and fill out a form.
There will always be a contingent of people who hate whatever is done in this life. The CWMU program is no different.
-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
U
UThunting
Guest
I don't see where 50 50 is right but Justin don't tell me if they change it 1% you will drop out. Come on how would you be able to hunt as many hunters with only the gen season right now you can hunt Sept 1st to November 15th in most of the CWMUs I don't see you giving that up any time soon but I also don't see the CWMU changing any time soon.
I think that most CWMU operators that say they would drop the program are just playing there bluff they know that if they said they would stay if it changed that the DWR would change it and they would lose some money..
Justin dont get me wrong I think that MOST CWMUs are a BIG help to wildlife.
But just like you saying you hate it when the public bitches about CWMUs, I hate it when CWMUs start saying there going to drop out of the program if there is any changes..
UThunting
Clynt L Citte
Willard Utah
I think that most CWMU operators that say they would drop the program are just playing there bluff they know that if they said they would stay if it changed that the DWR would change it and they would lose some money..
Justin dont get me wrong I think that MOST CWMUs are a BIG help to wildlife.
But just like you saying you hate it when the public bitches about CWMUs, I hate it when CWMUs start saying there going to drop out of the program if there is any changes..
UThunting
Clynt L Citte
Willard Utah
B
birdbuster
Guest
With the CWMU program the public has gone from zero access to some access. The ranches did their thing just fine before the program and would without it. The good CWMU's would harvest the same number of animals because their numbers are based on biology and not money. The sad fact is that the general public makes a mess of your property and many are irresponsible in many ways. Now throw in attorneys and why would anyone allow the public on their land. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. "You gave us 10-15% but now we think 50% is fair." I would also like to see what percentage of CWMU's are actually on late fall range. Most that I am familiar with are the summer range as well. Bottom line is in my opinion the CWMU program is a huge benefit to the public as it stands.
U
UThunting
Guest
birdbuster
Yes the ranchers did fine before the CWMUs But they would not do fine without it. They have seen the $$$ and now they dont want to lose it, I do not blame them in any way.
Do I think it should be 50%? Hell No.
Do I think its fair now? Not really
I think it should be 15% plus what ever % of public property is inlisted in the CWMU so if a ranch has 10% public property even if it is land locked they should add another 10% making it 25%if the CWMU has 0% then it would be 15%
I would also dis-agree with the 0 access before the CWMUs I know of CWMU that did allow some people on there ranches before the program.
Dont get me wrong I have a freind that has a CWMU and I can see benifits in having these propertys managed better with the CWMUs
UThunting
Clynt L Citte
Willard Utah
Yes the ranchers did fine before the CWMUs But they would not do fine without it. They have seen the $$$ and now they dont want to lose it, I do not blame them in any way.
Do I think it should be 50%? Hell No.
Do I think its fair now? Not really
I think it should be 15% plus what ever % of public property is inlisted in the CWMU so if a ranch has 10% public property even if it is land locked they should add another 10% making it 25%if the CWMU has 0% then it would be 15%
I would also dis-agree with the 0 access before the CWMUs I know of CWMU that did allow some people on there ranches before the program.
Dont get me wrong I have a freind that has a CWMU and I can see benifits in having these propertys managed better with the CWMUs
UThunting
Clynt L Citte
Willard Utah
B
birdbuster
Guest
UT, I would agree that if a CWMU had a significant proportion of public ground added and not exchanged that the public should get more tags. That should be part of the review process when it is created.(and may be) One size doesn't fit all.
H
huntinco
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Aug-13-08 AT 09:05PM (MST)[p]Ok guys if it was all about money then I would drop out of the program. I take four deer and four elk on each CWMU. Tell me I can't get that done in the general seasons! And, if I did not take two public deer and two public elk hunters, I could sell four addition hunts$$$ and save myself $1,000 that goes to a guide for time and fuel to handle each public hunter. so yes, I would drop out of the program if it changed and I'm sure you can see why. I love hunting, hunters, and the great outdoors more than money. I feel I'm rich because I get to live my dream and I love it. We pride ourselves in treating our public hunters just like any paying client so that have nothing but good things to say about us and the CWMU program. Happy hunting and good luck this season.
Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,433
I agree with the more public ground-state or school trust ground-any fed ground, that the tags for the public should be increased for lose of hunting opportunity on public ground in the CWMU boundary.
I have had great experience's on a CWMU with my dad's moose hunt and then his bull elk hunt and even some antlerless tags over the years.
Steve and Garret are stand-up guys.
I have chatted with Justin a couple times on the phone about a CWMU option over the years and he is always up front and pleasant....I have even sent guys to him for hunts they are interested in as they are non-ressy.....
If some of the CWMU folks wanted to drop out of the program then that would be of personal choice not from any modified rule/tag changes.
Robb
I have had great experience's on a CWMU with my dad's moose hunt and then his bull elk hunt and even some antlerless tags over the years.
Steve and Garret are stand-up guys.
I have chatted with Justin a couple times on the phone about a CWMU option over the years and he is always up front and pleasant....I have even sent guys to him for hunts they are interested in as they are non-ressy.....
If some of the CWMU folks wanted to drop out of the program then that would be of personal choice not from any modified rule/tag changes.
Robb
Ticks N Tines
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,647
">CWMUs now must offer a minimum
>of 5 days to hunt.
>
>All November CWMUs must offer the
>November option to all public
>hunters.
>CWMUs must now give a minimum
>of 2 days to anterless
>hunters.
>CWMUs must also meet antlerless ratio
>harvest goals.
>There should be an additional 20
>or so public bull moose
>tags given over the next
>3 years.
>Public hunters will have access to
>all areas on the ranch
>which are accessible by paying
>customers within the CWMU's management
>plan.
>Public hunters should know what the
>dates of the hunts are
>before applying.
Where are these rules located in the proclamation??? This is great if this is really true.
I think that the CWMU program is awesome! I have hunted many properties for antlerless animals and had a chance to look the areas ver for big bucks and bulls while doing so. Some CWMUs are hidden gems in Utah and offer some great hunting with fairly good drawing odds. In most cases there are under 100 applicants for most the tags. As long as you do some research and talk to the operators, you shouldn't go wrong. The problem I see is people that put in for a CWMU without knowing anything other than it's located in a good area. Some CWMUs have strict rules that you must follow, some people don't like that, but they have to understand that it's not a LE, it's private land.
5 days is plenty of time to look over a bunch of land and animals. If you don't like the rules of the CWMUs and how they work, than wait 13 years to draw a LE tag. Quit Whining!!!
>of 5 days to hunt.
>
>All November CWMUs must offer the
>November option to all public
>hunters.
>CWMUs must now give a minimum
>of 2 days to anterless
>hunters.
>CWMUs must also meet antlerless ratio
>harvest goals.
>There should be an additional 20
>or so public bull moose
>tags given over the next
>3 years.
>Public hunters will have access to
>all areas on the ranch
>which are accessible by paying
>customers within the CWMU's management
>plan.
>Public hunters should know what the
>dates of the hunts are
>before applying.
Where are these rules located in the proclamation??? This is great if this is really true.
I think that the CWMU program is awesome! I have hunted many properties for antlerless animals and had a chance to look the areas ver for big bucks and bulls while doing so. Some CWMUs are hidden gems in Utah and offer some great hunting with fairly good drawing odds. In most cases there are under 100 applicants for most the tags. As long as you do some research and talk to the operators, you shouldn't go wrong. The problem I see is people that put in for a CWMU without knowing anything other than it's located in a good area. Some CWMUs have strict rules that you must follow, some people don't like that, but they have to understand that it's not a LE, it's private land.
5 days is plenty of time to look over a bunch of land and animals. If you don't like the rules of the CWMUs and how they work, than wait 13 years to draw a LE tag. Quit Whining!!!
The changes will go into effect for the 2009 seasons. And it is a 5 day minimum, not just 5 days.
-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
