victory for elite hunters? Utah Deer Plan

bowhunt

Long Time Member
Messages
3,190
Overhaul of deer regulations called a victory for elite hunters
By brett prettyman

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published Dec 20, 2010 08:05AM
Updated 40 minutes ago Updated Dec 20, 2010 08:04AM
The moment, critics say, represents everything that's wrong with the way Utah sets its wildlife management policy.

Byron Bateman, president of the powerful lobbying group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, had just finished speaking before the Utah Wildlife Board as it pondered the state's most dramatic changes to its deer-hunting laws in two decades. Bateman then walked up to Jim Karpowitz, director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and handed him a check for $391,000.

Later that day, the board passed the sweeping overhaul, regulations that were largely crafted and promoted by Bateman's SFW. The changes, which go into effect in 2012, will reduce the number of deer-hunting permits by at least 13,000 annually and dramatically increase the cost of a general-season hunting tag in Utah.

Critics charge that opportunity for the average hunter is being lost at the expense of the well-heeled, who are more interested in trophy animals and believe these new laws are the best way to produce more. And everyone, beginning with the DWR's top big-game biologist, agrees the changes do nothing to address the plight of the state's dwindling deer herds.

The money Bateman paid Karpowitz was the state's share of money that SFW collected auctioning conservation hunting tags, and groups commonly do present checks at Wildlife Board meetings. Nevertheless, for many hunters watching the handover, it was validation that special-interest groups have the Wildlife Board's undivided attention and not always for the right reasons.

"That didn't do much to help public perception," acknowledged Rick Woodard, chairman of the Utah Wildlife Board. "But it was money due to the DWR and had nothing to do with the vote. It was done in poor judgment."

"It doesn't matter what the money was for," said Bart Hansen, a representative of the group Utah Wildlife Cooperative, which opposed the changes SFW promoted. "The timing was intentional."

The new regulations, which passed the board by a 4-to-2 vote, not only restrict the number of permits but change the way the state is divided for hunting from the five current regions into 29 smaller units. The buck-to-doe ratio that biologists target as they manage the herds was changed as well, from 15 per 100 to 18 per 100.

That means hunters may see more bucks, according to Anis Aoude, DWR's big-game coordinator. "But it won't help the population overall," he said.

"We did what was best for the resource, for the deer," Bateman said. "The DWR manages every aspect of the deer but the number of people hunting on each unit. We can't expect the hunters to spread out evenly over five regions. This won't fix the herds, but it could be a good start."

Bateman is proud of the work SFW does on behalf of wildlife conservation and said he is unsure how the latest discussion became an opportunity-vs.-trophy debate.

"People always attack what we try to do," he said, noting the check presentation was done to demonstrate SFW was fulfilling its commitment under the conservation permit program and, acknowledging the timing, said he had a flight to catch later.

"We are an easy group to target, and we get accused of a lot of things," Bateman said. "We stand up for the resource; that is our mission."

The Utah Wildlife Cooperative's Hansen has a different take, saying the new regulations risk discouraging existing hunters and make it difficult for youth to get involved in the sport.

"There isn't one anti-hunting group out there that could come up with a way to eliminate 13,000 permits like SFW just did," Hansen said.

Dennis Austin, a retired 30-year DWR biologist and author of Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners , said the current system does indeed give special-interest groups a lot of power.
 
The fourth paragraph down describes my sentiments exactly. I feel too much emphasis has been put on shooting giant mule deer than it has been on the resourse its self. I also feel that those who are pushing to change things are trying to change it for the wrong reason. It seems as though there are many that feel that they should be able to shoot a thirty inch deer or at least have that opportunity with little effort. And the fact that they cant walk out on a general season area and find multiple 160-170 class bucks, then there is a shortage of bucks out there. Just my opinion though.
 
There was a second page to the article that was missing. Here it is.




By brett prettyman

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published Dec 20, 2010 08:05AM
Updated 60 minutes ago Updated Dec 20, 2010 09:24AM
The moment, critics say, represents everything that's wrong with the way Utah sets its wildlife management policy.

Byron Bateman, president of the powerful lobbying group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, had just finished speaking before the Utah Wildlife Board as it pondered the state?s most dramatic changes to its deer-hunting laws in two decades. Bateman then walked up to Jim Karpowitz, director of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and handed him a check for $391,000.

Later that day, the board passed the sweeping overhaul, regulations that were largely crafted and promoted by Bateman?s SFW. The changes, which go into effect in 2012, will reduce the number of deer-hunting permits by at least 13,000 annually and dramatically increase the cost of a general-season hunting tag in Utah.

Critics charge that opportunity for the average hunter is being lost at the expense of the well-heeled, who are more interested in trophy animals and believe these new laws are the best way to produce more. And everyone, beginning with the DWR?s top big-game biologist, agrees the changes do nothing to address the plight of the state?s dwindling deer herds.

The money Bateman paid Karpowitz was the state?s share of money that SFW collected auctioning conservation hunting tags, and groups commonly do present checks at Wildlife Board meetings. Nevertheless, for many hunters watching the handover, it was validation that special-interest groups have the Wildlife Board?s undivided attention and not always for the right reasons.

?That didn't do much to help public perception,? acknowledged Rick Woodard, chairman of the Utah Wildlife Board. ?But it was money due to the DWR and had nothing to do with the vote. It was done in poor judgment.?

?It doesn't matter what the money was for,? said Bart Hansen, a representative of the group Utah Wildlife Cooperative, which opposed the changes SFW promoted. ?The timing was intentional.?

The new regulations, which passed the board by a 4-to-2 vote, not only restrict the number of permits but change the way the state is divided for hunting from the five current regions into 29 smaller units. The buck-to-doe ratio that biologists target as they manage the herds was changed as well, from 15 per 100 to 18 per 100.
That means hunters may see more bucks, according to Anis Aoude, DWR?s big-game coordinator. ?But it won't help the population overall,? he said.

?We did what was best for the resource, for the deer,? Bateman said. ?The DWR manages every aspect of the deer but the number of people hunting on each unit. We can't expect the hunters to spread out evenly over five regions. This won't fix the herds, but it could be a good start.?

Bateman is proud of the work SFW does on behalf of wildlife conservation and said he is unsure how the latest discussion became an opportunity-vs.-trophy debate.

?People always attack what we try to do,? he said, noting the check presentation was done to demonstrate SFW was fulfilling its commitment under the conservation permit program and, acknowledging the timing, said he had a flight to catch later.

?We are an easy group to target, and we get accused of a lot of things,? Bateman said. ?We stand up for the resource; that is our mission.?

The Utah Wildlife Cooperative?s Hansen has a different take, saying the new regulations risk discouraging existing hunters and make it difficult for youth to get involved in the sport.

?There isn't one anti-hunting group out there that could come up with a way to eliminate 13,000 permits like SFW just did,? Hansen said.

Dennis Austin, a retired 30-year DWR biologist and author of Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners , said the current system does indeed give special-interest groups a lot of power.
The people who go to the meetings really want to say something, and they are often listened to,? he said.

And Karpowitz, the DWR director, agrees.

?The people who get involved and speak up are the ones that are heard, and decisions usually go their way. I have seen the board consistently try to do what they think the majority of the public wants,? Karpowitz said.

Karpowitz notes that, according to Utah law, the Wildlife Board?s job includes weighing the social and economic values of wildlife, not just managing the biology.

?Throughout this whole process I've been reminding the board and the public that how we hunt bucks in Utah is now very much a social issue,? he said. ?Our job as the wildlife agency is easier when we only have to focus on the biology and science end of it.?

For Hansen, ?social? means special interests. He wants to see the system changed and is willing to become the very thing he despises to make it happen.

The Utah Wildlife Cooperative ?is going to set up as a nonprofit so we can be more involved in the political process of picking the wildlife board members and try and make some changes with the ... system,? he said. ?There are too many hunters out there who disagree with SFW but aren't involved enough to know what is going on. We need to
 
I am interested in what Bart has as a plan with the new UWC.
Specifically, what kind of plans will it have in regards to habitat work, predator control, highway fencing and wildlife overpasses/underpasses. UDOT is going to have to put more emphasis on highway safety in regards to wildlife/vehicle collision problems. The state of Arizona has already been sued for not addressing the problem because of the danger to human life that could result in wildlife collision. It may end up alot cheaper to put more money into keeping elk and deer off highways and at the same time providing a means for them to follow their historical migration routes. It seems like a win/win situation.
I believe that the SFW promotes what they see as the best way to help our deer herds. They may be tilted towards having more mature bucks right now, but I believe that they also are in the trenches when it comes to put their money where it counts-- habitat improvements. I personally would like to see more of the money put into predator reduction programs.
If any of you on here don't understand the direct correlation between the decline of mule deer numbers across the west and the ban of 1080 poison for predator control, then you simply don't understand what this fight is about. Talk all you want about the other problems like habitat, highway mortality-- until we do a better job at predator reduction, we may all just be spitting in the wind and throwing jabs at each other that in effect will have little to do with increasing herd numbers.
When you hear that there are 2500 to 3000 cougars in the state and they average one deer kill a week-- you better believe it. then on top of that, take into account what coyotes take, especially in regards to fawns-- you can start to get a real picture of the real battle. The pie is only so big, if we want a bigger share of it, we have to reduce the competetion numbers.
 
Well, most on this site know I've been a supporter of SFW for quite some time, and still do believe they do some great things. I just get worried that their idea of "quality" is very few tags, very high success rate hunts, and huge animals for most who draw. I have no problem with huge animals and high success rate, but the cost.....VERY FEW TAGS.....is what I don't like. I worry that their long term goal is to make deer hunting in Utah like the elk hunting.

Because their business, for the most part, is sustained by conservation tags and expo tags, I worry that they could put growing or maintaining their business above what's best for not only all sportsmen in the state, but also their members.

Sure, I could be wrong, and hope I'm wrong, but we all know that money can cause people to do things that they might not otherwise do.

I have asked myself, if conservation tags didn't exist and expo tags didn't exist (or if SFW didn't benefit at all from them), would those behind the scenes at SFW still support highly limited elk hunting, tag cuts for deer, and auction tags on antelope island, or auction tags at all???
I hate to say it, but right now I think that money changes their views on what they believe is best for Utah sportsmen and SFW members. I hope I'm wrong, but right now, that's how I feel.

Don, John, any of you guys running the show at SFW, please, come on and talk. I know you guys were upset because some on here get personal, but those guys are idiots. Ignore them. The rest of us do. I'll try to delete idiot posts when I see them.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-10 AT 07:00PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-10 AT 06:51?PM (MST)

"but those guys are idiots. Ignore them. The rest of us do. I'll try to delete idiot posts when I see them."

Be very careful Mr. Founder. Us idiots believe in free speech.

Based on what I read in these forums 90% of your subscribers are idiots.

Me included!

Slick
 
Im not a Utahn, but it sounds like a victory for youth hunters and regular hunters to me, the ones that are complaining are the elite hunters.
 
Could you explain to me how cutting out 13,000 tags and raising the price is a victory for youth hunters and regular hunters?

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
According to most, we have gone from 600,000 deer (more or less) to 302,000 deer (more or less) in the last 35 years.

I have what I believe are two honest questions for every deer hunter in Utah and otherwise.

Question 1.
DWR and Wildlife Board have known our deer have been declining and why they have been declining since 1976 (and before). That is 35 years. How much longer do you want this trend to continue?

17621976.jpg


Question 2.
If we have been restoring habitat, killing predators, building underpasses, hiring dedicated hunters, doubling the DWR budget (in the last 12 years), and yet the deer continue to decline, reduced huntings number but tripled the days we hunt them, HOW MANY DEER DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DECLINE TO BEFORE WE TAKE THE HUNTING PRESSURE OFF.

Lets suppose that current hunting opportunity (pressure) has absolutely nothing to do with fawn survival. ie: BUCKS DON'T HAVE FAWNS! (I have a question for the folks that keep asking that question. HOW MANY DOES HAVE EVER GIVEN BIRTH TO A FAWN WITHOUT A BUCK? ) But lets suppose your right and we don't need but a few bucks to bred the does.

Would you take hunting pressure off when the State's herd size is:

600,000?

500,000?

400,000?

300,000?

250,000?

200,000?

150,000?

100,000?

50,000?

25,000?

10,000?

5,000?

1000?

0?

Come on folks, where is your line in the sand? It's easy, pick one. When do YOU say Whoa?

I chose my line at 400,000 but could not find support until this year, at 300,000. To me, we are at the point of not return. You don't agree? Have the courage to tell us when you will say enough is enough?

Treat this like a mule deer SURVEY!!!!!! Can't be any less scientific than some others we've seen used as of late.

DC
 
by having a less crowded higher quality experence, more young people will get into hunting and stay with the sport, when you are selling an experence to someone, it helps if its a good one. Regular hunters with limited time and money will have a better experence, (albeit, maybe not every year) The prime age, hightec gear packing hunters with lots of time are complaining because they can't hunt everywhere every year. Mule deer hunting is a lot like commercial fishing in the ocean, despite increasing numbers of bigger more modern ships, the catch of desirable species is declining, that should send a message about the resource, but I still hear those big ships complaining.
 
Well, if all you want to do is make stupid comments that are meaningless, then just post nothing at all. I'm not going to "be careful". You can have your free speech, just don't share it here if all you want to do is take crappy personal shots at people. Sounds like that's what you want to contribute, and if that's the case, then go elsewhere.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
DC, first: THANK YOU for the package I received today! I am at a loss of words. The wife has already started looking for a frame worthy of such a present. I am humbled and grateful for your generosity.

Answer to question #1:
Deer populations have been in decline in ALL western states, not just Utah. That tells me its not a Utah problem, but rather a mule deer problem. What I mean is; there are numerous studies/trends that are consistent in concluding that there are many limiting factors facing mule deer today. Only in very rare cases have I seen where buck:doe ratios are even a secondary limiting factor.

Answer to question #2:
First, it would have to been shown that hunting pressure was a major contributor to the decline. Since I see our neighbors to the east and to the west with far less hunting pressure, but with deer POPULATIONS that are in every bit, or MORE, as much of a decline as Utah deer populations, I tend to doubt this to be much of a factor at this point. Second, I think the timing of the pressure would have to be looked at. Pressure at different times of the year are not all equal in potential effects on the deer population. And, ignoring non-hunting pressure that is now year round in many areas (seems to be higher in areas that are currently struggling...just saying)is a mistake as well, IMHO.

So, long answer; I don't think there is a line to be drawn, as I see other limiting factors that MUST be addressed BEFORE we worry about hunting pressure on the MALE portion of the deer herd.
 
That story really makes me SICK to think SFW actually walked up and handed them a check and then they voted towards SFWs favorite option. I sure would like to go up and hand the division a check for 400000 and tell them everything I want and have it granted only problem is that my plan would to be get rid of all the special interest groups!

Good job SFW way to put yourself up on a pedestal way above the rest of us and show us your almighty power right in front of everyone as to the rest of the board you should be ashamed and in 4 years when our herd is worse expect the rath of hell!!!

To Don and John I would recommend you not input on this thread as its not going to go anywhere good and Founder knows that!!!
 
I understand all your saying and all you have been saying but we still need to answer the fundamental question, don't we? For 35 years we've tried to stop the decline, yes or no? Have we? Yes or no?

Having tried and failed at all of the studies, surveys, dedicated hunter plans, 5 region plans, hunter cap plans, habitat restoration (100 million worth), harvest surveys, deer counts, cougar studies, bear studies, elk studies, fired Directors, hired new Directors, fired biologists, hired new biologists, mule deer trends studies, down, down, ever down. Small bumps up then larger drops down. Look at the DWR data, no need to take my word.

We say we care about deer and biology. How much do we care? We have gone from hunting deer for a few days a year to pursuing deer from the middle of August until the end of October (longer on CWMU) Hunting pressure most certainly effects over deer numbers. So......

How many deer do you want in Utah before we reduce hunting pressure. SImple question?

Regarding the package, you are welcome, Bart I know you love mule deer and deer hunting, no doubt about it, so do a large number of your fellow hunters, right now we care more about the deer trend and we are pressing for and will continue to press for growing the herd by adjusting every thing that pressures deer, including you and I.

Some day, when your line in the sand arrives, you will understand what is motivating those of us that already decided, enough is enough, we're screaming Whoa right now.

DC
 
Lumpy-
I would have to guess that Utah's current carrying capacity is somewhere between 400-450K. I feel this # could rise if we keep up the habitat restoration projects and give them time to work.
I personally think that 300K should be the limit. If I remember right we were down to 280K deer not too long ago.

Now having said that I don't feel the best management is to look at the state deer #'s as a whole. The best way to look at it is unit by unit, and let the experts make an educated guess at what each units carrying capacity is.

On another note-
The previous post about "recent changes are better for the average joe and the youth"
This post is spot on and he follows up to list the reasons why.
I would like to add the following;

-Average hunters can't afford to buy a hunt. Guided or private.

-Tags are set aside for youth hunters

-Recruitment is down

-The average age of the hunting society is now 45+

-The average age of of the hunting society in the 80's was 27

-The facts state that recruitment is down

-I feel that better quality hunts will keep new recruits interested

Don't get me wrong I do feel the importance of a healthy herd, but what happens to hunting in general if in another 30 years we can't retain our new recruits.

Micro management can improve both herd size and quality if approached properly.

-Keep the hunting permits to a manageable # within units.

-Keep populations at objective by moving tags to overpopulated areas.

-Utilize multiple seasons to keep hunters spread out even more.

-Implement mandatory online harvest surveys for all hunts

-Keep hunters moving through the point system by combining the points
(a guy may not be able to hunt the Boulder unit without sacrificing his points, so if he really plans on hunting the Henrys he may be hunting his 4th or 5th choice).

-In my opinion most humans fear change and this is more evident the older they get.


Let me know what the flaws are with my perspective. Tell us a different scenario that could help improve current situation more.
 
The problem I have, 2lumpy, I have yet to see any concrete evidence that hunting pressure on the MALE segment of the deer population has even a small impact on deer numbers. When I see limited entry units, even the acclaimed Henry unit, that are well below population objectives, along with the states most often referred to as examples of success, I have serious doubt that reducing the number of permits being a means of increasing deer numbers. Also, realize that a reduction in permits odes NOT mean there will automatically be a reduction in harvest, in fact it is just as likely to result with HIGHER buck harvest. Fewer hunters in the field often leads to higher success rates.

And, to clarify, I am LESS concerned about what was passed than I am with HOW it was passed. I am 100% convinced the RAC/WB process is deeply flawed and is NOT a venue that gives voice to the 'common hunter', nor does the opinions/studies of professional biologists hold much water. This is where I am the most unhappy. I saw it with the statewide archery in 2008, I saw it with the elk management plan that upped the harvest age objectives, and now with ignoring the existing mule deer plan (that was in part drafted by SFW) for something that the majority of Utah hunters did NOT want/support. Even if you like what was passed, can you say that the system is working as it is supposed to, meaning the public (not just special interest groups) have a voice?
 
slcmuley, how do you increase hunter recruitment by reducing permits? This is truly confusing to me. In order to recruit hunters, they have to be allowed to actually HUNT!
 
Not trying to stir issues here, but here is my input. The changes made are definately a step in the right direction. I have read a bit of what people are saying, and I also have an opinion. I spend as much time as most on the mountain and in the field. I live right here in central Utah, and this is what I have observed. In the past when the winter months arrive, most of the deer have migrated down to the fields and lower, easier accessible country. The regions have been way too big, especially to manage deer, here's why. The last couple years, there have been some big storms hit just before the season starts, which alot of the deer run to the fields. It seems a vast majority of hunting pressure comes with it, and the youth, yes the youth, wanting their first buck, and all the hunters that feel pressured cause of short seasons, shoot every buck there is. With making the units smaller, and more of them they can disperse the hunting pressure a bit. What I am seeing now is one hell of alot of does without fawns. A buck has to start out as a fawn. We don't have the bucks needed to breed our does. If the DWR thinks we have 18 bucks to every 100 does, think again. Just go drive the fields around and see whats there. Maybe one or two to every 100 does is more like it in our area. I wish they would manage it more like Wyoming with 100+ units to more intensively micro manage the areas needing it. It works, go hunt Wyoming and see, it makes you feel sick about what Utah has. I think we have some of the best country in the world for deer, and all other hunting. We just way overhunt it. Sorry if you want to increase numbers of deer, you can't kill them all, so you have to decrease permits and spread them out.
 
I believe that this whole propaganda was nothing more than a very poorly thought out (KNEE JERK REACTION) put forth by the UDWR who was pressured by the WB who was influenced by special intrust group's. That being said I don't believe the option passed by the WB on Dec 2, will do anything to grow overall deer herd's in Utah I'm not going to get on here and say I have all the answers and can tell you what is best for the deer herd and what's best for every deer hunter in the state of Utah. However I can tell you this after attending the WB meeting I walked away DISGUSTED and had a very sick feeling in the core of my stomach as to what took place. Truly I would like to thank those who showed there pure arrogance and ignorance for all to see because I believe it is going to hurt your creditability in the long run. Quit frankly I think it is sad to see Utah's general season deer hunt headed down the same road as our elk hunt. I agree there may be a few more trophy class bucks running around but at what expense especially when it does nothing to promote the overall deer number's in the state. I'd like to say that I am wrong but I don't think so. I think you will see certain units become trophy quality relatively fast but all and all you won't see herd growth in number's and these area's will be next to impossible to draw a tag for. More than likely once a unit gets to objective with buck to doe ratio's it will pretty much stay at that with no effort put forth to grow the overall herd numbers to promote a healthier herd and to create more opportunity. I think we will see number's stay around 250,000 to 300,000 and we will have alot less chance in drawing a tag for our old stomping grounds and traditional hunting heritage. It sickens me that it has come to this and my children won't have the opportunity to hunt as I did because of someones greed and lust for trophy's. Like it or not thats my 2 cents as to what is happening and to what will happen. Oh and by the way they won't stop cutting tags or opportunity at 13,000 tags no matter what everyone will never be satisfied with the overall Quality of the trophy class animals especially the wonderful special intrust groups when that is the hand that feeds them. Kind of funny public tags, conservation tags, Expo tags, Governor's tag. I think I read on here some were a few weeks ago not to bight the hand that feeds you HM HM HM!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-10 AT 03:42PM (MST)[p]Pro, hunter recruitment is coming from the younger generation. I could be wrong, but don't they give an advantage to youth in drawing a permit?

With that being said, I know several young hunters that are extremly dissapointed in what they are seeing out there. If things are changed in a hurry will be losing them anyway. A little success at a young age goes a long way.

ps. Will this plan magically produce trophy bucks for everyone? I don't see why everyone keeps using the phrase "elite hunters"?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-10 AT 08:52PM (MST)[p]2Lumpy!

Thanks for the Print!

I say the Herd has been declining for a good 38 years now!

I've said for many years:Isn't fawn Survival into Spring mighty important to produce more Deer rather than worrying about buck to doe ratios?(I agree,we need a healthy Buck to Doe Ratio!)

I've been strongly against Doe Shooter Hunts forever!

I've also said many times We need some Bucks to survive through out the Hunts that are in their prime(5-8 years old!)and maybe build some decent Genetics again,Sad thing is the Poachers would get them or the Opportunists would start screaming to kill them!

My voice has been basically worthless!!!

I get jumped all the time:You're not a School Boy Biologist!(Yup,I'm not a brainwashed School boy!)

The average Tards of this state would hunt Deer in to Extinction if you let them,but oh boy the opportunity!

Too bad most Tards couldn't see this comming years ago!

If We'd of had the right kind of management beginning about 38 years ago there'd be no reason for cutting permit numbers today!

Keep Up the Fight 2Lumpy!



God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
And a good BBQ!
I am Medicine And I am Poison!
 
Where in creation are you seeing verifiable populations of 5-8 year old mule deer bucks? The accepted typical lifespan of a mule deer is around 4 years and that's in areas of light hunting pressure. Everything I've read suggests the average lifespan of a mule deer is well under 4 years in areas of heavy hunting pressure. Most bucks killed on the henry's are 3-4 years old. Do they have a "genetic" problem?

How does a buck being older change his genetic makeup? Besides, buck genes are only half of the equation......

And, what exactly is the "right" kind of management?
 
"Victory for Elitest Hunters?"

Absolutely.

In 5 years they be screaming for another cut of 40,000. We'll be told the 29 unit plan didn't work because it didn't cut enough tags.

2Lumpy,

I like your run down of every ineffective thing that has been done; however, you seem to think they have done everything but cut tags. Don't forget that tags were cut over 100,000 in the 90's. What has it fixed?
Thanks for putting the article up. I thought we got into the "make a change and never look back" mentality in the 90's. The article shows we've been on this track since the 70's. At what point do people realize all the big time regulations are a dud? It's time to figure out what is really wrong.

I just wish people with all the fantasic management plans had to put up some sort of collateral if their precious plan fails. I'm tired of the endless "new and improved" rules that don't do a thing.

I'm really tired of the Captain Ahab mule deer hunters who will sacrifice crew, ship, fortune, and family to get their whale. They seem to have endless time and money to get a big deer, and when it doesn't work out their way, they think the rest of us should have a cut in tags.
 
SmellyBuck and others with the same questions. Here are a couple of questions for you so, maybe I can give you a better answer to your questions:

Two Questions:

Why did 88,000 Utah deer hunters stop hunting mule deer in between 1983 and 1993?

Notice the number bucks harvested each year during the years 1983 and 1992, yet in 1993, after a harvest of 54,804 bucks, the next season 73,236 hunters quit hunting. With that many bucks being harvested, why did 34% of hunters, all over 16 years of age just suddenly stop hunting?

Below is the a data clip from the DWR 2009 harvest report. This is where the numbers come from.

DC

3829picture_43.jpg
 
Easy there Tree!

I'm not seeing hardly any 5 to 8 year old Bucks,get the car key out of your ear!

No the Henries ain't a Herd with a Genetic problem unless you check in to the Hunters screaming for a management hunt on the Henries!(And yes they do have one!)

You are far Blinder than I once figured!

When there is a Healthy Herd,it ain't a big deal if 2 year old Bucks are doing some of the Breeding,DUH!

When you have a Herd like Our General season Herds with Pisscutters/Fawn Bucks Breeding Mom/Dinks doing the Breeding(Hardly a Buck left after the hunts that will make age 3 or 4!)You got a problem there Tree,sorry to break the bad news to you,A Spike,that his Dad was a Spike and his Dad was a Spike and his Dad was a Spike
and his Dad was a Spike
and his Dad was a Spike
and his Dad was a Spike
and his Dad was a Spike
and his Dad was a Spike
Makes for Piss Poor Genetics,have you ever figured that one out?

Just saying Tree,it'll take some Breeding Bucks with some age to them in Certain areas to Bring anything back,PISSCUTTERS doing the Breeding ain't gonna help,and Yes I agree,the Buck is only 50% of what will produce Healthy Fawns,We need Quality in Our Does as well!

The 'right' kinda management would be anything different than what we've seen in the last 38 years!

Do you work for the DWR or are you really that secluded?

Answers Please!

God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
And a good BBQ!
I am Medicine And I am Poison!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-10 AT 09:39AM (MST)[p]>Easy there Tree!
>
>I'm not seeing hardly any 5
>to 8 year old Bucks,get
>the car key out of
>your ear!
>
>No the Henries ain't a Herd
>with a Genetic problem unless
>you check in to the
>Hunters screaming for a management
>hunt on the Henries!(And yes
>they do have one!)
>
>You are far Blinder than I
>once figured!
>
>When there is a Healthy Herd,it
>ain't a big deal if
>2 year old Bucks are
>doing some of the Breeding,DUH!
>
>
>When you have a Herd like
>Our General season Herds with
>Pisscutters/Fawn Bucks Breeding Mom/Dinks doing
>the Breeding(Hardly a Buck left
>after the hunts that will
>make age 3 or 4!)You
>got a problem there Tree,sorry
>to break the bad news
>to you,A Spike,that his Dad
>was a Spike and his
>Dad was a Spike and
>his Dad was a Spike
>
>and his Dad was a Spike
>
>and his Dad was a Spike
>
>and his Dad was a Spike
>
>and his Dad was a Spike
>
>and his Dad was a Spike
>
>Makes for Piss Poor Genetics,have you
>ever figured that one out?

What is the net result of these "piss poor" spike genes?

Do they shoot blanks? Are they subpar lovers?

Is the tuck and roll in their El Camino faded and not as enticing to the ladies?

Do their offspring have a tough time eating because they are born without teeth?

Do their bodies not process nutrition into fat making them less likely to survive the winter?

Do they have a propensity to have a crooked smile, making a shoulder mount less appealing?

Congenital herpes?

Are they afflicted with come sort of cervid sickle cell?

Are there offspring harder to successfully hunt, making them detrimental to youth hunter retention?

Is the issue that they don't grow grow large antlers? "pisscutter" is the word I think you used. If this is an inhibiting factor to deer populations, then I'm fighting the wrong battle. My new goal is to get legislation passed on a federal level that makes it illegal for a citizen of the united states to be under 6' tall. Throw em all in the furnace, because short people are dumber, have inferior breeding capabilities, are intellectually inferior and have the libido of 94 year old man, not to mention they smell funny.

See you in Washington D.C.
>
>
>Just saying Tree,it'll take some Breeding
>Bucks with some age to
>them in Certain areas to
>Bring anything back,PISSCUTTERS doing the
>Breeding ain't gonna help,and Yes
>I agree,the Buck is only
>50% of what will produce
>Healthy Fawns,We need Quality in
>Our Does as well!

And quality is quantified as???????
>
>The 'right' kinda management would be
>anything different than what we've
>seen in the last 38
>years!
>


Dear Mr. Karpowitz,

In light of recent events, I'd like to propose that we halt all managements practices put in place in the last 38 years. All of your methods have been an utter disaster and have created an environment where I'd be lucky to shoot a 160 buck during the general season. I propose that instead of wasting precious time and resources on all of these asinine management tactics, dreamt up by idiot scientists and professionals, that we adopt the suggested practices of a particular drunk Nascar loving, Magnum PI lookalike from the basin. He suggests:

"Anything different than what we've seen in the last 38 years!"

Please implement this immediately or I will be really mad.

Thanks

Tree
 
2Lumpy please correct me if I am wrong. However when you see the huge decline in hunter's afield is 1993 to 1994 when the five regions came about and you had the huge tag cuts take place.My Question to you is does it look like cutting all of those hunters out of the picture solved anything for our overall deer numbers. Looks like to me it did nothing to very little but however it did piss alot of guys off and made them give up deer hunting in Utah.
 
I see the same thing.

Also, there was a 40.5% reduction in hunters afield in 94, but buck harvest went up 10%. Should we expect more bucks to be killed in 2012?
 
Ok guys, good blindered answer. Now please turn down the Jerry Garcia, let the smoke clear out, shake those dancing little colorful teddy bears out of your vision.

Now could some one please answer the questions as to where the hunters went from 1992 to 1993. More hunters are missing than any other time? Was there a huge number of missionaries that were hunters that left during that year? Did all the hunters have such a successful year in 1992 that they just knew it could not be topped in 1993. Maybe they saw the decline in deer and self monitored there activicy and backed off a year? What are your thoughts?

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
That is when they put a cap on tags and evicted the CA hunter.

The winter took a lot of deer, tag fees went up, most of the regions didn't even sell out. Hunters lost interest. Some of them have come back as every region sells out now.
 
Is that when the cap was put on after the 92 season? I thought it was after the 93 season. What happened to the 60,000 hunters from 92 to 93.

Tree,
I understand what happened after the cap. I just would like to know what your thoughts are on the 60,000 that left before the cap? Why did we lose hunters at that time? I don't know if you don't want to say or you feel that you can't say why we lost those hunters? Every person that I ask this question avoids answering it? Why is that?

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-10 AT 04:25PM (MST)[p]
Honestly, I haven't put much thought into that specific scenario up to this point, I have my ideas, but they are incomplete due to lack of information. I will do a little bit of research so I don't give you an answer for the sake of giving one.

I will ask, is there a concrete general answer to this? Did everyone or a majority quit for one specific reason? Is this quantifiable? Without digging, I surmise that any one answer to this will be speculation, unless there was a specific action that led to this occurrence.
 
Muley 73 Again please correct if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly 1992 was about the year they stopped over the counter tag sales and went to the drawing. Again I think this discouraged alot of folk's from hunting Utah. If I remember wright the DWR was in a panic cause hardly anyone put in for a tag. After the draw you had all the left over tags go on sale over the counter and the huge lines of people camped out to get a tag and alot of folks said the hell with it and just gave up.
 
So you are saying that tags were available and they where not purchased in 1993? Why not? The cap went into affect at 97,000. Never 140,000. Why did 60,000 hunters choose not to hunt in 1993?

I believe the state was growing from the years of 1983-1993 and we even allowed 14 yrs old to start hunting in 1988, we should have been gaining hunters? Am I missing something here?

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-10 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]>So you are saying that tags
>were available and they where
>not purchased in 1993?
>Why not? The cap
>went into affect at 97,000.
> Never 140,000. Why
>did 60,000 hunters choose not
>to hunt in 1993?
>
>I believe the state was growing
>from the years of 1983-1993
>and we even allowed 14
>yrs old to start hunting
>in 1988, we should have
>been gaining hunters? Am
>I missing something here?
>
>Step 1 is always the hardest!
>


The winter of 92-93 was the worst deer killoff in state history. People didn't see any deer in 1993 so they didn't purchase a tag. Whether they quit all together will never be known because in 1994 they went to the limit of 97k.
 
Some of you guys are really funny! I mean that in a good way. Some of you well...ok not so funny. But Muley 73 you must be under the age of 40 because for those of use over the age of 40, the answer for the decline is simple...oh hell my half timers is kicking in and I can't remember...but I am sure it had something to do with the way the DWR was managing poorly so thank God SFW came on the seen and reduced tags by...a whole bunch! And oh yeah created the dedicated hunter program so people could donate thousands of hours and give up harvesting deer so we could solve the (then) current crisis...oops! looks like that failed too! It always intrigues me with the internet how all of you spout off (excepting you founder) and then hide behind some "log in" like it was your secret shield.
The most prophetic quote of this whole article is this:
?There isn't one anti-hunting group out there that could come up with a way to eliminate 13,000 permits like SFW just did,? Hansen said.

Thank God they are on OUR side!!!!!
I am going to label that the "sportsman quote of the year" possibly decade and forward to everyone in my inbox. If you want a copy email me.

George McQuiston
www.flyingJoutfitters.com
 
Mr. McQuiston,
What happened to the 88,000 hunters that stopped buying tags from 83-93? We should have gained hunters during those years! The state was growning and we were more liberal with the tags, ie changing the min age to 14. This all happened before the SFW. This all happened when fishon and Peaday where scheeming on how to turn the state into a playground for the rich!

I am close to 40 but not quite there yet. I am sure I will never reach it in maturity! I did not realize my profile had been disabled, I'll fix it for you. But if you have spent much time in here you would know the many names I go by. I love them all!

Respectfully,
Cody Christensen
AKA Muley_73
Douche
A**hole
Idiot
PETA supporter
Retard (My personal fav, Thanks Elite that is still my fav post)
Arogant Prick

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Cody,
From 83 to 92 let's be honest. There ain't much of a change...ok in 86 20k hunters went away but who is counting. The bottom line is SFW was born in the early nineties of "crisis" in the mule deer population. They "invented" the dedicated hunter program to add bodies to the RAC and donate thousands of hours of man hours to the state. Please realize I mean absoultely no disrespect, but i was there with SFW in the beginning when they were for the "average joe" do you believe they represent the average joe now? I stood behind SFW and spoke to the board on behalf of SFW for the dedicated hunter program believing it would help our herds. I killed yearly and now I could only kill 2 out of 3 years. Almost 20 years later we find ourselves in a "crisis" involving mule deer population...intersting isn't it?
I imagine you are pulling your hair out because no one will answer your direct question as to what happened between 92 and 93. I was there. I was affected. I was at the meetings. I saw the results. Old age and alcohol steals my memory, but I imagine, just like today, it was the media's bad PR about the state of the deer herds that affected that year. Maybe it was just fate. Maybe a policy kicked in...I got it. Maybe hunters were pissed off because they had just recently gone to spike only...who the hell knows. More dramatic than that is the absolute cliff dive hunter numbers took after the cap of 97k was in place. Dude seriously, SFW took hunter numbers from its day in your words from 140K to 97K now they are down to 70k as someone else put it, what is your number? How many do you think should hunt? I am an outfitter. I pack in people so far from other people we don't see other hunters during the general hunt. But I drive past a lot of camps with ATV's and bonfires reaching to the sky. Would you deny these people their right to party? Would you deny these people the right to have a tag and reason to actually get off the couch and into the woods? would you deny these people the right to the one vacation they look forward to all year? Would you deny these guys the right to assemble and create fire? Seriously man...think about it.

George McQuiston
www.flyingJoutfitters.com
 
George,

I have never had a monitary link to our wildlife so that may be why we see things a little different.

The state lost 88,000 hunters because the deer herd was in the crapper! Or so they felt. The WB, DWR ,you pick, had let the herds and bucks spiral down. Yes the winter of 93 was brutal, and they had done nothing to prepare for the worst! If proper management had been in place the SFW would have never gained traction to stand on the steps of the State Capital (Yes I was there.). I have battled many many times with Don over the fact that the SFW has never helped our deer herds to my liking. I attended more RAC meetings and WB meetings by the time I was 20 than most have in the past 20 years. So I do know the atmosphere at that time. SFW is being blamed for this, but I assure you without the support of many hunters in the state Option 2 would have never been an option after it bombed a few years ago. There are average joes out there that support this, and more than a few of us loud mouths on here.

George, here is the diffence I see. I have 3 kids 18,12,8. I want to make sure there is a deer herd to HUNT for there future. I don't want to just go out and have a big party and camp! I don't want there tag to only be good to start the fire with! There has to be a line we mark in the sand and feel 300,000(maybe) is that line.

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Cody just realize that the philosophy you support is opposed by a
3 to 1 margin by Utah's G.S. hunters.




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Gordy,
First I don't believe that is the true percentage. I know that the DWR poll gave that #. Polls can word questions and leave out questions to get the result they are looking for. Secondly, right is right regardless of what the # is. I'm fine if 66% of the sportsmen dislike me for views. I have stated all along I do not take this personal as many on here seem to. I will support many ideas that have been brought up in this discussion by people that disagree with Option 2. But like I have stated this is just a step in the right direction. I will not stand quite and let our mule deer continue to decline and go the route of our pheasant hunting!

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Well Tree!

You Almost Get It!

6456stupid.jpg


4907stupid1.jpg


4907stupid1.jpg


8932stupid3.jpg


7955stupid4.jpg


4096stupid5.jpg



Oh!

Did I mention Stupid Breeds Stupid!

You'll figure it out Tree,Well Maybe!

God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
And a good BBQ!
I am Medicine And I am Poison!
 
So wiley?

Just because Most Average TARDS don't see the Big Picture you're saying it's OK to finish pounding Utahs Deer Herd in to Extinction?

Seems like the President of the United States as we speak is what people wanted,GEEZUS!

Alright!

Merry Christmas!





God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
And a good BBQ!
I am Medicine And I am Poison!
 
Agree 100% 73.. Ya got to do what you think is right.


CAT, Merry Christmas my brotha!!!!! Don't worry little buddy
the Wildlife Board is going to be a whole hell of a lot different
in the next 7 months...

I am going to do what I think is right.








2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
ww!

Let's do what We know is right! (Can We just Once?:D)

And no,I'm not saying option # 2 is Perfect!

Let's get rid of the lesser of evils way of picking management!

We need change wiley,you know we do!








God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
And a good BBQ!
I am Medicine And I am Poison!
 
I couldn't agree more CATACLAUS!!! Lets do this right!!! No more just cutting hunters!!!!




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
WOOT WOOT FOR TAG CUTS!!!!
Now a stiff increase in price should get rid of most the hum ha hunters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-10 AT 09:17AM (MST)[p]> WOOT WOOT FOR TAG CUTS!!!!
>
>Now a stiff increase in price
>should get rid of most
>the hum ha hunters.

This probably one of the dumbest posts I ever read, but it's not surprising considering the person who wrote it.

You can't fix stupid.
 
Its amazing to hear all the whining about managing Utahs deer for more quality, I took my brothers boy out this fall during the youth hunt, we found the hunting awfully poor, and I hope he does't totally lose interest. If you need an excuse to go out camping and hunting, get a cow elk tag, elk are prolific, take the family out and enjoy the harvest. Just because things are not the same as they once were, it doesn't mean people can't adapt and do whats right. In my opinion pounding the male segment of the deer herds into oblivion, is not right. Nevada went through the process years ago, Colorado did more recently, and the deer hunting in both states is much better off for it.
 
Colorado and Nevada deer hunts are much better compared to what PIPER??? The way they used to be???

So if I understand correctly you'd expect every unit in the State to be at a minimum the Book Cliffs??? Vernon???

To get there you wouldn't have to worry about youth hunting anymore
because those that stuck with the draw system would no longer be youth by the time they actually drew a permit to hunt.

Fix the problem... Deal with the issues... Cutting buck hunters hasn't worked since 1994. Hasn't worked in Nevada or Colorado
and it won't work here either.




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-10 AT 09:58AM (MST)[p] Elite, you don't know me but I know you.
 
WW, I dont hear too many NV or CO residents sayin they would rather trade places with us in UT and have our mule deer hunting.
 
I hunted Nevada and wasted 8 points on it. They can keep their management.

And Colorado I have hunted 4 times and 2 of those times were unit 10 when it was their "best" unit. Sorry fellas, it ain't what you boys say it is.



Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
2lumpy
Thanks for the gift. It went to my old house and was forwarded to my new house a day ago. Its defiantly a nice gesture.

to answer your question?? "Why did 88,000 Utah deer hunters stop hunting mule deer in between 1983 and 1993?"

I am one of those guys that stopped hunting in that exact time frame and wish I hadn't. So I am one of those guys that can sincerely answer your question.

When Utah went to choose your weapon I said screw it I wanted to hunt with all three So I put all my weapons away. Utah also made the Le units and I thought it was stupid and complicated when I had to mail in my applications before certain dates. I always missed the deadlines or I never had the money. I grew up in a very poor house with divorced parents so I didn't have the traditional Utah hunting family structure. So I was on my own to know when the deadlines were. I was seeing great bucks but thought everything was just too complicated. So I quit hunting. I however didn't quit hunting because I didn't see any deer.

Now fast forward 10 or so years I went on a hike in an archery only area. The first time out I saw monster bucks. I thought I wanted to start hunting again. Then someone told me I couldn't hunt that area with my guns. I was pissed but if that was the only way to hunt it I had to obey the rules, so thats what I did. I took my 15 year old bow out of the closet with several mismatched arrows and went hunting. I only had a few shots in three or four years of hunting. I missed everything! So I went to the archery store picked up a new bow. I found out they had these things called archery leagues and you can shoot indoors at 3d targets during the winter. cool! being able to hunt every year for 4 months is a huge perk in its self but to be able to do it on Henry quality bucks is eating cocaine laced frosting on a big piece of cake.

I now have introduced my non hunting wife to get her blue card and she is applying for the hunts. I have introduced my kids to the hunting life style and they live and breath hunting. I have introduced two of my brothers and one of my brothers wives, my sisters kids, my neighbor and his kids. They have all been converted to at least shoot a bow. some of them however hunt with a rifle but will be using a bow this year for general season. all of my family members above want to hunt and when most of them didn't draw a general tag their first or second year of applying they thought it was stupid and went to the bow. They can hunt big deer every year and they can shoot all year long. However none of them have shot anything or wounded anything but they have gone over board in purchasing all the crap to get it done. Meaning wheelers, camp trailer, big trucks, ect.

This is why with me coming out of an utter failure of a hunting family things have changed for the better. This is why I sound like an anti rifle guy. Archery is so over looked in this state as a way to still allow hunters to go out and hunt without affecting the buck numbers like the same amount of tags will affect the quality with a rifle.

"more bucks, better bucks with more tags, win win if you choose a lesser weapon"

I'm a perfect example of this and why I adamantly oppose the direction the state is headed in. "pro rifle state with very limited opportunity" all you have to do is look at the failure of a system the elk hunting is in to see this. majority of the tags go to rifle hunters and they shoot the crap out of the top end bulls. guess what the tags got cut and will get cut again and again mark my words. Its also a once in a life time hunt now and we are now forced to shoot spikes just like our deer herds. It sucks but at least with our deer herds if we get out and put in some time like you, I and muley73 do you can still shoot a big buck.

Have a merry Christmas lumpy I also hope you and your family have continued success in hunting.














The harder you work the luckier you get!!
 
"wasted 8 points" I thought just gettin out in the outdoors was enough for you? Besides I thought you've killed 2 deer in Ut in the last 15 years or something like that. So do you still apply to hunt in those states? I'm pretty sure I know the answer so it couldnt have been that bad. Unit 10 isnt the best unit its just the easiest to hunt.
 
Brutus the funny thing is I have had alot of Nevada and COLORADO boys tell me how great Utah's elk heard is and how great it must be to live there and be able to hunt them as a resident. And I have to say yes our elk herds are great but however unless you can afford to purchase CWMU tags or you like to wait 10 to 15 years there is very minimal amount of opportunity in Utah to hunt these great bull's on most all of the good unit's. Point is this is the same road Utah is headed down with our deer.
 
I'm not much of a hunter Wayne? Not sure what that means.

And "wasted" is a figure of speech. You all think that less opportunity to hunt but more bucks constitutes a great hunt.

My Nevada Experience proves otherwise. I still hunted which is the most important, but your way of managing did not grow any healthier of a deer herd which is my point.



Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
And yes Brutal I apply every year for almost every state because I want to HUNT. What is your point?

Hunting is better than not hunting at all.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Thats is my point. Must not have been that bad or why would you go back. If I thought I wasted 8 years at $150 for NV liscense a year I wouldnt keep wasting time and money.

Just curious were the deer in those states skin and bone or somehting? The deer i've seen in CO look to be in pretty good shape.
 
Tony, a little run down on Co. from 2010. Talking with many many colorado deer hunters this year, it was not Colorados finest year. That being said I have friends and myself who killed a couple 180 type bucks and a 198 buck in 2 of colorados worst units. Units you can draw every year second choice. I hunted a 5x10 buck that I had found preseason only to find him days later with one entire horn broken off. This was in a unit you can draw every year second choice. Another friend killed a 217 buck in a unit you can draw with 2 or 3 points. Another friend who hunted a unit you can draw with 2 points who killed a 31' 180 buck. Two friends who burned 5 points on a unit and passed up numerous 170-190 type deer on a 4th season hunt. Big deer are being killed every year in ALL of colorados units, even on down years. So what i'm saying Tony. If your not seeing any deer in Colorado you need to get out of the truck and hone your hunting skills. Don't show up here saying Colorados deer hunting sucks and you can have it.
Nevada is the driest state in the country. You can always expect a drought in Nevada. Poor feed for the most part, plagued with poor genetics, low deer numbers and still kicking out some monster deer.
 
>Colorado and Nevada deer hunts are
>much better compared to what
>PIPER??? The way they used
>to be???

I'm not certain what the hunts used to be like in CO,WY and NV but the success and harvest age seems to be higher than Utah.

>
>So if I understand correctly you'd
>expect every unit in the
>State to be at a
>minimum the Book Cliffs??? Vernon???

I would like to see each unit managed for its individual needs. Some areas have potential for better quality by making sure hunters don't migrate into hot-spots.
For instance (example purposes only #'s are not factual)the Beaver unit may be able to handle 2500 hunters annually. The same units quality may drop if the hunter #'s spiked to 3800 for 2 consecutive years.

The Oquirh/Stansbury is a favorite unit to the people that live close and can visit the area multiple times outside of hunting season. The supply in this area cannot meet the demand.

>
>To get there you wouldn't have
>to worry about youth hunting
>anymore
>because those that stuck with the
>draw system would no longer
>be youth by the time
>they actually drew a permit
>to hunt.


We are currently giving youths special hunts and a guaranteed percentage of the tags available. My kids draw a tag every year, but all they are seeing is yearling bucks. I fear their interests may dwindle if the quality doesn't go up.

The waiting game that you speak of is a fact of life in today's hunting. This is because of supply and demand on a natural resource. If this were fishing we could just stick more fish in the reservoir, unfortunately its not that easy >
If we continue down the current trend the average age of hunters will be 60 yrs old in another 20 years.


>Fix the problem... Deal with the
>issues... Cutting buck hunters hasn't
>worked since 1994. Hasn't worked
>in Nevada or Colorado
>and it won't work here either.

I agree there are problems and issues that need to be addressed. I am very hesitant to say what has or hasn't worked in other states.
Cutting tags must be done in some areas. Some will be more drastic than others. The part that I don't understand is why did options 1,2,& 3 require different tag cuts? All 3 options involve the same amount of huntable area.

Lumpy's post asked what is your personal threshold. >
Well to take this even further what is the threshold for each unit. When should permits be lowered and raised?


>
>
>
>
>2010 TOTALS
>P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
>UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS
>GONE
 
Again, all it is coming down to is inches vs. opportunity. Would it be fair to do a thorough survey of every potential deer hunter in the state and split the state up according to desires of every hunter. For example, if 39% wanted trophy animals to hunt vs. 69% wanting opportunity, would it be fair democratic practice for management/tag allocations to be distributed accordingly, statewide and make folks choose which boat they want to get on?

Inches proponents get LE and opportunity gets General? Pick your poison?

Just a question, not a direct result of my personal opinion.
 
When did inches become more important than opportunity? I don't get this mindset. Sure, if you look at the number of 180+ bucks killed in Nevada/Colorado, it appears they have a successful thing going on. But, looking at only one small corner of the picture leaves a lot out.
1)How many hunting permits did they lose in Colorado to get the higher buck:doe ratios? I know, I know, some so-called hunters actually think fewer hunters is a good thing, talk about an inane concept. Also, Colorado has OTC elk permits for 85% of the state, Utah does NOT.
2)How many deer do they have in Colorado now, and how many deer did they have before they went to higher buck:doe ratios? One of the biggest supposed benefits of what was passed was getting more deer in Utah, so I ask; WTF are we copying what a state that has seen 45% of their deer herd disappear?
3)Pitting hunter against hunter is a recipe for disaster. Causing division between 'trophy' hunters and 'opportunity' hunters, rifle and archery, rich and poor, helps the animals and the future of hunting how?

"We need to manage wildlife WITH hunters, instead of managing wildlife FOR wildlife"
 
Brian,

For 15 years, SFW members voted to resist going to more than 5 regions in efforts to keep the family hunt alive.

After the terrible 92-93 winter, and terrible 93 fall hunt, more than 80 thousand hunters didn't buy a tag, bad hunt.

In 1994, the 97,000 cap was put in place, and the northern region did not sell all the tags.

So, a lot of hunters simply quit hunting because it was a bad experience and camping trips don't require a license. This was going on for 20 years far before SFW, and frankly, DWR Director Karpowitz was telling sportsmen in teh 1980s, Utah would have no deer if major efforts were not taken to revense declines in range conditions, predotor control, highways. So, sfw was started to try and reverse these HUGe, long term trends.

Since then, SFW has helped the DWR raise over $60 Million to restore more than 600,000 acres of critical habitat - the experts say the positive effects of those acres will take a few more years to see the effect. 100,000 plus acres are being restored each year.

SFW has helped the DWR and otehr entitites obtain more than $40 Million to fence highways, more needs to be done.

SFW helped put in place the $500,000 plus coyote control program a year, not enough is being done.

The recnet DWR study is showing more than 45% of fawns collared DEcember are dead a year later. This does not include the 50% of teh fawns already killed by coyotes most likely from birth until December. Lots more needs to be done there.

SFW helped pass the very tough poaching laws, still some poaching going on but an $8,000 fine is a lot more of a deterent than the old $500.

So, the deer herd seems to be stabilizing around 300,000 head, it is very disappointing to not see it rebound into teh 400,000 level as was the previous goal

The monday morning quarterbacks will never give credit to what the $130 plus million has done to help "stabilize" the deer herd at 300,000. It would be interesting to see where the deer herd would be without the predator control, habitat and highway work.

Many sportsmen started an effort to see more restrictive deer hunt. SFW has never backed away from a tough issue or a fight, and we won't. The SFW leadership team of 20 statewide local committees talked to the folks and the decisoin was 60 percent in favor of 29 regions. 40 percent wanted to stay with 8 regions.

3 of the 5 RACS voted to go with 29 regoins.

so did teh wildlife board.

It is simply not accurate to say 13,000 hunters have been eliminated. That number will be determined in the spring of 2012 for the 2012 season.

And, many of those hunters who do not draw have said they would be willing to hunt less - every two or three years - if they could have a better hunt when they do draw, so NO ONE can say they have left the sport.

converserly, it has been proven 80,000 hunters left teh sport before any regulation chanbes, it was a bad experience

No add one more factor, wolves on top of the equation and 50,000 more deer hunters will either be forced out, or hang it up because of so few deer. Just go check the hunter numbers in Western Montana, down 50% and harvest numbers down 80% this year, which means even fewer hunters next year.

SFW will stay focused on doing all that is possible to invest in habitat, highways and predotor control to keep the family hunt experience to as many as possible.

Merry Christmas, founder, some answers i hope

don
 
Hey Don, over here in Wyoming the G & F's philosophy is hunter opportunity over trophy quality. Its been that way for decades and most don't see it changing anytime soon. Have you guys put the pencil to the paper to try and determine how many dollars it would take to buy off the WY G & F Commission like you've apparently done in Utard. Inquiring minds want to know...
 
Hey Don,

Did you get this information from a Cracker Jack Box????

Just go check the hunter numbers in Western Montana, down 50% and harvest numbers down 80% this year, which means even fewer hunters next year.

You may want to log onto the MTFWP website from time to time..

Final results of the 2010 general big game hunting season in southwest Montana indicate a moderate harvest. Elk harvest was up as compared with 2009 and the six-year average. Mule and white-tailed deer harvest were lower than 2009 and six-year average harvest levels.

About 12,019 hunters passed through the seven check stations with 778 elk, 212 mule deer, and 101 white-tailed deer. The overall percentage of hunters with game was 9.1.

Elk harvest was above the six-year average of 661. Mule deer and white-tailed deer harvest were below the six-year averages of 391 and 133 respectively. Hunter numbers were slightly lower than the six-year average of 13,753. And the percent of hunters with game was slightly above the six-year average of 8.6 percent.

Another article...

At the season?s end, 17,890 hunters had passed through west-central Montana?s three check stations with 565 elk, 197 mule deer, and 643 white-tailed deer. Last year?s season totals showed 20,395 hunters that reported 586 elk, 254 mule deer, and 496 white-tailed deer.

Don, I really think you need to quit with the lying...it gets old.
 

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