CWMU Program

[SWAGshootn]

Let's try and keep this thread positive and without name calling.
Obviously there is a difference of opinion in this program. There are merits on both sides.
Todd/ Blanding Boy.... I ask of you to answer some of our questions. You are the Executive Director of the CWMU Association and also and Operator, so you are in a unique position to answer with this perspective.

According to the Winter Meeting of the CWMU Association.....

Wade Heaton, President of the CWMU Association reported:
Most of the phone calls Wade receives start with asking how the hunting works on CWMUs and then the person tells him how public hunters get shafted. We still have to change public perceptions (hiding the good bulls, etc.). Mostly people don't have the facts, their expectations sometimes aren't realistic. He spends 2/3 of his time promoting rather than explaining. The current perception is behind the times with reality.
One of our goals is to start tooting our own horn. Stand up and don't be embarrassed. Show how much good we are doing.

Question:
Please explain how the current perception is behind the times??
What are the expectations of hunters that are unrealistic?
Do hunters get full access to the CWMU?
What are your thoughts on restricted access?


Terry Messmer said there was a survey done in 1998 and repeated later that showed there was no difference in the hunting experience (success) between public and paid hunters. Even though the data was equal there was still the perception that public hunters didn't get the best deal. There was no change in the perception between the two surveys. It might be a good idea to repeat the survey to see if attitudes have changed.

Question:
Could this study be published on your website?
If another study is done, who is the entity who would collect the data and would you be willing to have an outside agency collect, examine, and publish the data?

Wade said that our program has come a long way to overcome most problems but still need to overcome bad attitudes. Maybe because people just expect that if you pay for something it is better. Treat public hunters well and make sure we are fair with equal opportunity (animals, time, access). Be flexible and good with communication. Also be available to answer questions. Not a lot of complaints last year so most people are doing well.

This comment from your President is exactly what people want!!!

Question:
Could it be written in your bylaws, public draw hunters get X amount of days as a minimum and full access to the CWMU property?
Pros and Cons from the Landowners perspective, of going to a 75/25 split of bucks and bull tags? (I did ask for pros?. Not just Cons)

Terry Messmer worked with people around the state and really started the program that eventually became the CWMU. We owe Terry a huge credit for getting things rolling. He has also done studies and helped organize the board. Terry explained how the program was started in 1994 with Legislature that wanted to improve wildlife habitat and keep it from being sold for houses. CWMUs have helped stop the conversion of wildlife habitat to other uses. The program has had to rise up at times to stop bad changes (e.g. changes in splits) that would stop the CWMUs from being economical or fulfilling its purpose.

Question:
How can you as an organization provide data to the general public on how you keep and improve wildlife habitat and keep it from being sold for houses?

Scott McFarlane from UDWR is now the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator at UDWR.
Last year there were 3013 private and 484 public Bucks & Bulls tags making about 14% of tags going to public hunters. Public antlerless tags are a little higher percentage. CWMUs are comprised of 97% private land. Scott sent out a letter explaining that you have to go through him to change the number of antlerless tags even if the biologist has requested it. Many hunters are not returning the survey because they have already told someone about the hunt. The survey has to be sent to DWR regardless of other surveys being done. Asked CWMUs to report harvest to him. Last year 800 permits were surrendered (not all of them were CWMU) but they were turned back because of unrealistic expectations on the part of hunters.

Question:
How can we start and publish hunter surveys for CWMUs?
When a hunter turns in his tag, what exactly were his unrealistic expectations? Can we publish this?

Ken Clegg reported?.
All of our reports and data depend on CWMU operators sending in data. We want all data including the good, bad, and ugly.

The CWMU Program has good, bad, and ugly.

Now Todd, here are a few questions I hope you will answer from my previous post??. I ask these as an opportunity to ?Toot your horn?, ?Catch up our perception with reality?, and most of all ?Give us the Facts?. I modified and deleted some questions to keep things more objective.

This year the CWMU Program is up for review. I am wondering if you know the approximate dates?

Was the public involved with establishing the rules of the CWMU?

Do all CWMU operators allow access to their entire property?

If not, what do you think about limited access?

In your recent showing on KSL with Adam Eakle, you mentioned that both the public and landowners have interests in this program. The public owns the elk and landowners own the property. I agree with this statement. There has to be a balance. So...
Have you ever heard of...
YOU POUR... I CHOOSE?!?
It seems to me the landowners poured the glass and then choose which glass they wanted! Does that seem fair?

Todd, you mentioned the public has the roughly the same amount of days (60) as the CWMUs do. Can you explain your conclusion?
Here is mine?.
The public had these dates in '13 to hunt.
Aug 17-Sept 13
Oct 5-17
Oct 30-Nov 7
Not sure those dates = 60 days?? More like 49
CWMU OPERATORS actually had Aug 17-Oct 31 and some get till the 20th of Nov. That equals 76 days if you are counting with a possible 20 added to that number.

Which elk tags are more coveted? Bull or cow tags?
Most cow tags by my estimate, and I could be wrong, can be had for less than 3 points.
Most LE bull elk tags can be had for somewhere between 10 and 19 points.
With these objective numbers, we can assume LE BULL elk tags more coveted.
So the CWMU OPERATORS are giving us 10% of the most desirable tags and 100% of the less desirable tags? You pour, I choose?

How would the landowners feel if tag numbers were reversed?

Now I have heard your point about landowners selling their land and wildlife habitat being lost. I agree and we need to address this concern. But not at the cost we as the public are paying now.

I have told you before of my experience of land that once was private and now is a CWMU. We used to gain access for elk and deer for a $1000. We had assess to the whole piece of property. Now the land is a CWMU and they want 3500$ a piece. $7000 total. We lost a great piece of land access.

You mentioned in your post, one of your motivations was to gain more bull tags for the landowners of the new land you are acquiring to be a part of DLL. Did I understand that correct

The CWMU program has been a good program at times and at other times has been a little controversial. Even your own people in the association agree there is ?the good, bad, and ugly?. I think both sides public/landowners see things from their own eyes and don't see the other side. I believe in your CWMU meeting last year, you mentioned to the landowners that they need to do a better job educating the public on the benefits of the program. I hope equally the public educates the landowners on their position.
In Conclusion, I agree the answer is not to strip the landowners of the tags and lose the program. They provide a valuable resource. They have a lot invested. The good CWMUs, Deseret being one of them, continue to lead the way on how to operate but we need to come up with a better, well defined program that serves both entities.

 

[llamapacker]

You've failed in your initial premise of keeping this positive. You set up a no win situation, and defame a lot of hard working landowners in the process.
No government program is perfect. Let me repeat, no government program is perfect. If you had any interest in improving the program, not eliminating it, you would take a different approach.
Bill

 

[deerslayer88]

I don't feel that the intention was a loose loose situation. I feel he wants the pros and cons from the CWMU operators perspective. I also would like to hear what they think, and I would like to mention that, if they are expanding the CWMU by gaining more land with the inclusion of these land owners why not ask for more overall elk tags and give those few tags to the new owners that are being included. Instead of lowering the state tags and upping the private tags. I feel these are valid questions that deserve a valid pro and con answer. Maybe the Deseret CWMU feels they can not support more elk tags even with the expansion, or something like that. I am sure that letting us know will do more good then bad!

 

[elkun]

money money money, what else did you want to know,,,?

 

[BillyBoB]

After reading the OP I was thinking that there needs to be more open discussions about concerns,questions,confusion that I think, alot of the public share. Dialogue between the landowners and the public.

Sure we know government programs are not going to be perfect. Let me repeat that. Sure....we know government programs are not going to be perfect. Does that mean we shouldn't try to fix any parts that need fixing? I would think most agree that there are some issues that need adressing. Some more bigger than others.

Well I think the OP was intended to open a dialogue to the hunting community to throw questions out there. I think there are alot of hunters that don't know alot about the CWMU program.

There have been several attempts to start a dialogue on the topic and it always turns into a frenzy of name calling and bashing.

Whether you are for it or against the program, state your reasoning. In detail if possible. If you have any questions for Todd, ask.

I spoke with Todd at the last expo for a half hour hitting him up with questions. I just introduced myself and began chatting. We have also shared a few emails back and forth.

I recommend anyone who has questions or concerns to voice them.
I believe that the program needs some work. Yes it's not perfect and it won't be. But it has some issues that I think if discussed, could be corrected. I also think there are some who might have some good suggestions to help with some of the issues. It just needs to be discussed and I commend the OP for starting the dialogue.







Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[BillyBoB]

I've got another question and a suggestion for Todd.

How bout someone spend some quality time on the CWMU section of the DWR website giving better detailed information about each CWMU unit, the hunts they offer, age data, mandatory surveys from all hunters on CWMU hunts both private and public with detailed info on their hunts. Dates,guided or not,what species they hunted,the hunters name and most importantly a grade is given for their specific individual experience. Detailed harvest info. how many days they hunted. EVERYTHING! AND THEN PUBLISH IT on the DWR website. I want to read stories. Gather enough intel to help me decide whether if I want to invest more of my time on that unit.

I'm tired of reading typos on boundary descriptions or incorrect info on boundary descriptions. It seems as if someone just quickly put SOME info out for the public to read instead of spending some time gathering info and nicely and correctly presenting it to the public.

I see alot of info on almost every unit that has "N/A" on alot of data. pictures and detailed info should be listed for every unit. If there is specific outfitter or guides that work with specific CWMU units....list them so I can pull that outfitters website up on the internet and look at pictures or get the phone number so I can call them to ask more specific questions.

Is this at all possible? To have someone gather some information, make some changes and adjustments to the CWMU section of the DWR website to make it alittle more user friendly to give us better ideas on whether we want to invest in more time dealing with that specific CWMU unit?

Also, I'm hearing more often and I have experienced it first hand with calling a CWMU operator and getting the impression that the operator doesn't want to be bothered or doesn't have the time to answer questions. That issue needs to be addressed.
If those landowners/operators don't want to make it a positive experience for the hunter whether it's a paying client or a public hunter, get them off the list of units. I think there should be a grading system put in place for all hunters to grade the unit and it should be made public to see and if the unit operator doesn't make a good enough grade, they should be kicked out of the program.

Has there ever been an operator or unit kicked out due to negative behavior? Maybe there should be a hotline to call specifically for CWMU program. A number to call to report bad actions or behavior. Just an idea.

Nobody wants to be treated like crap by some inpatient operator after investing many years of collecting points and wanting to make a wise decision on where to spend those points. I think all info should be user friendly and easily available to ANYONE who wants to gather info an ANY CWMU unit. It would need to be updated frequently and not just once a year or every other year.








Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[slamdunk]

I have been following these two threads and can see the frustrations on both sides of the fence, but this question leaves me shaking my head...."Was the public involved with establishing the rules of the CWMU?"

I can't help but ask why or who (landowners) in their rightful minds would ever let a general public group come in and help "establish rules" on how they are going to run their private CWMU lands....are you serious??

As a guide for 20 years and involved in many top CWMU's, including Deseret, these lands, habitat, livestock and game animals are "groomed" if you will the way the owners want them to be, which are a far cry better than 90% of all the public lands are. You don't go on CWMU's and see trashed and filthy campsites, ATV tracks going off the roads, beer can's carelessly tossed out the windows, etc: etc: like you do on all the public lands.
Landowners are prideful people and their lands are generally their livelihoods. They all know how the general public treat their public lands, why would they even consider allowing a handful onto their lands assuming the worst?
I'm not saying all public hunters are guilty of this, but I can guarantee you it's the perceptions and general consensus of landowners, that's why their lands are fenced and locked tight.......to keep us out!!
As a general rule, we as public hunters do not like seeing private lands and fences that keep us out, and private landowners don't like seeing public hunters on their lands.

Working together is the key, but seeing the constant bickering and entitlement issues from the public hunters year after year only continues to push both entities in the wrong direction.
Private landowners do NOT have to let public hunters onto their lands at all, nor will they allow for the general public to "establish rules" on their lands.
If you owned 150,000 acres, would you let the public tell you how they will hunt your lands? No......

 

[Zeke]

Slam is onto something here!
We have to remember that this land is private. The public is welcome under the terms that the owner agrees to. The general public should not be the ones setting the policy on private land hunting anymore than the public can tell you that you have to let them in your home and how long they'll stay.
I don't hunt private land, I don't apply or hunt in CWMU's but it's pretty clear to me that the key work is PRIVATE.
Zeke

 

[elkfromabove]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-13 AT 12:21PM (MST)[p]The biggest problem I noticed from my 3 family experiences with public tags on CWMU's is the inconsistencies from one CWMU to another (or even within a CWMU).

Our Hardscrabble cow moose hunt with Fred John as the operator was a disaster, ie: hunt dates were in November which was beyond the printed schedule and there was a foot of snow with lots of 3 foot drifts; roads were not plowed nor even cleared from fallen trees and we had to hand saw four of them to get to where Fred's son told us the moose had moved to for the winter - they weren't there; we weren't allowed to hunt the west side of the main canyon road which was reserved for private elk hunters; the last day we were allowed to hunt, Fred had a cougar hunt on the main road with all the barking dogs, horse trailers and rigs (he had plowed that road); AND in four days of hunting we never even saw a moose track (or elk track and only one deer track), let alone any animals, nor had the 4 public elk hunters we met.

Our 2 experiences with Heaston East (Kennecott) doe hunts were mixed. The one with Terry Thatcher, the operator, was negative. We were not just given only one day to hunt, we were given only 4 hours to hunt, shoot, locate, field dress, and drag two does to the main road. We got one of them taken care of, but the second one went into a swampy stand of cattails and bulrushes and we weren't able to find it in the amount of time we had, and Terry wouldn't wait or allow us to come back the next day. However, the second experience with one of Terry's partners was everything we could ask for. We went in his rig because my dad's two wheel drive truck wouldn't climb the slippery hill. We found the does rather quickly and my daughter was able to kill one close doe, but her scope fogged up for the longer shot and our "guide" loaned her his gun which was all she needed. Then he field dressed the closest deer while we field dressed the other one and he helped drag both of them to his Jeep. And also helped load them into my dad's truck.

If anything, the CWMU Association needs to police their own ranks and set more definitive standards which would allow the operators to speak for the group as well as their own CWMU and would improve PR immensely.

BTW, we tipped only one of our hosts. You guess which one! Also we reported both negative incidences and it appears to have done some good with Heaston East, but I have no idea whether or not it did any good with Hardscrabble.

 

[SWAGshootn]

Llamapacker...
Sorry if you feel I am trying to defame landowners. Not sure how you come to this conclusions. I am simply trying to ask questions to clarify and educate myself. If you would like to explain in detail to help do so, I welcome it.

Deerslayer88...
Thanks for seeing the meaning behind my post. I wish more people could read this post with an open mind and soft tone rather than SCREAMING AND ANGER!!!!

Elkun....
Yes we know money moves the world but your answer is neither a question nor solution to the problems.

Billybob....
Thanks for your comments you have added. And thank you for some solutions. This is what we need more of.

Slamdunk.....
I couldn't agree with you more on what you said about landowners being very proud of the land they own and the value it holds to them. They do groom it and develop it in a very planned and calculated way as to get exactly what they want from it. The general public does as a whole abuse the land. It only takes a handful to ruin it for the majority.
As for the public being involved....
I might have worded my question poorly so I hope I can clarify what I was meaning.
I agree that objectively, if I was a landowner, no public person or group should or would dictate how I manage my land... UNTIL I start asking for special treatment from the public. If you want to leave the CWMU program and live by the rules established for the general public, then no one should tell you how to manage your land. But when you ask for a variance in season and weapon types from the public including the DWR (who should be representing the interests of the public) then you should be governed by those who have stewardship over the laws and property ( i.e. animals).
This is what I believe.

I hope this answered your question.

Ultimately, I like your last comment about bringing us together rather than pushing us apart. It is only thru dialogue and compromise can we work together to make better a government program.

I hope other questions I have posed can be explained and talked about.

 

[1911]

Program kicks a$$ if;

You are a landowner,
A tag broker,
A guide,
Have the money to lock in your tag every year,
Especially if the above applies and you are a non resident.

In summary, if you have some personal gain you're gonna love and love to sell the program. It has done nothing short of making a large number of tags logistically more marketable thus increasing their intrinsic value all the way down the line. Right or wrong, different or indifferent, it is what it is, the inevitable. Just don't spray dog chit with gold Krylon and pretend it is something it isn't.

 

[Birdman]

Every year the CWMU program goes through the racs very seldom if ever does anyone stand up to comment. Seems to me that the proper place to push for some changes would be at the racs or WLB. The division does keep track of the ratings given by both the groups of hunters and those ratings are taken care of by the division. If CWMUs dont play by the rules they are shut down and not renewed. Seems to me if you want changes take the issue to the people who can make changes.

 

[slamdunk]

Lol.....nice shot .45!!

 

[BillyBoB]

Birdman,
I'm guessing that there are several reasons why nobody speaks about it at the RAC meetings. Maybe some think it's a lost cause and it won't do any good.

I know many hunters that are not very educated about the CWMU program. Some I've talked to have never heard of it.

Someone mentioned how some hunters who are disrespectful towards landowners property can be a few bad apples out of a bunch. The same analogy applies for the operators in the CWMU program. Just like the landowner locking up his property because of some bad apples, some respectful hunters aren't going to want to invest years(time) and money(points) on doing business with crappy operators in the program also. There are some bad apples in the program and that info needs to be easily accessible. Is it fair that the landowner locks up his gates to keep littering hunters off his property? Hell yes! I've been that hunter picking up after slobs who just got done littering on some private property. So I understand. But to be fair the public hunters deserve to know which operators are good,fair and respectful and worthy of someone who has invested alot of time and money who is looking for a memorable hunt.



Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[BillyBoB]

Thanks elkfromabove for sharing your experience with names of those who you had contact with on the units and what species you hunted. Your post is a good example of what I'd like to read on the CWMU program page.

I don't want to do business with operators who automatically make assumptions that I'm like the hunters who they've had bad experiences with. Just because there are some bad apples out there doesn't mean all the apples are bad. I know that there are some great landowners/operators in the program as well and those operators are the ones I want to do business with.

Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[eyecrazy]

i just dont see why we have to give any tags to the cwmu program let them sell land fees to hunt on there property they will still make the money maybe not as much but still. then they will treat everyone the same because jimbob will pay the same as anyone else with a tag let them cater to the people with the tags.
the only time it will change is when only the rich can hunt. and it is going there fast.

 

[BillyBoB]

I think the program is a good thing and it does give oppurtunity to hunt private land. Therefore, it should stay and they should get tags. I think the majority want the program. But they just think it needs some adjusting. I know several of you shop at the big sportsman/hunting stores like Sportsmans warehouse and Cabelas. I like to go online and read reviews on items before purchasing. My decision on purchasing an item weighs heavily on what others have said about that specific product that I'm interested in. I'm sure many of you do the same. It would be nice to have the same type of thing available to hunters to look at to see what CWMU unit in the program they might want to use.

Have you ever wanted to do business or purchase something from a business that treats their customers like crap? I DON"T! I want to buy things from stores or people who are good people and treat me with respect. At the same time though I can't expect to recieve good customer service if I'm being a jack a$$ to the employees and not getting what I want. It's a two way street.

Operators and hunters both have alot to lose. They have time and money invested into something that they don't want to waste away. Why can't they work together to help each other out?

Todd,(Blanding Boy)how do we work something out with the DWR to work on getting accurate, up-to-date, full information,reviews, pictures and stories available (displayed) on the DWR website and presented in a user friendly fashion for those public hunters so they can start figuring out which CWMU unit operators/ landowners we want to conduct business with to start help lowering the total number of hunters who ONLY apply for premium tags because they are afraid to risk so much on the CWMU units????????????????????????????


Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[Gator]

CWMU should have it in writing that if your information isn't up to date and correct you lose a tag or two that year, I bet things would be updated quicker and more truthful then.

Maybe CWMU need to have a service/Law enforcement that checks on these things and if they aren't up to date and giving a ideal service they should be held accountable to the CWMU board and fined.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[huntin50]

Many CWMU's have a lot of deer and elk that winter on their lands. It is not so simple to say screw CWMU's. If herd numbers are decreased on CWMU's it will affect population numbers for public lands around CWMU's. I have not hunted on CWMU's, they have their benifits. Hopefully they can make adjustments on the bad CWMU's to make it a win win situation.

 

[Deerlove]

What percent of the operators even own the land there CWMU is on?

 

[deerslayer88]

For the most part they own some portion of the land, at least thats what I have been told. Also Blanding boy (Todd). Was quick to answer my questions about Deseret, he was kind and friendly. I have no clue why people are bashing him, stating smoke and mirrors on the other forum. He was respectful, answered everything and stated to come back with more questions when they arise. I say someone is pi**ed off at him on a personal level that has something to do outside of the CWMU his is over.

 

[BillyBoB]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-01-14 AT 09:38AM (MST)[p]Zeke. Your post makes sense to me and I agree with what your saying to a point but you have to remember that these landowners choose to be part of this program. They are not forced to be in the program. They are not forced to deal with public hunting tag holders. These landowners know very well what they are getting themselves into. The benefits of doing so must be great. The money I'm sure alone is worth it. The problem is that some of these landowners act and treat the public hunters as if they are being forced to have to deal with them when it was the landowners/operators choice to be in that position in the first place. Thats the problem.

People just want to be respected. These public hunters who spend alittle bit of money and years waiting for a good memborable hunt, don't want to deal with rude,disrespectful errogant self righteous landowners/operators.

Most public hunters that even discuss hunting on CWMU units talk about how they want the oppurtunity to be fair and memorable. That's all.

I think if there was a published customer service reviews and published satisfaction rating for all these units in the program, maybe peoples attitudes would change. Especially if they know that their actions are going to be noted and published for all to read about and/or if there was some form of punishment for bad reviews made from the public.



Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[BillyBoB]

Bashing and ranting is what I'm trying to avoid on this thread. I'd prefer there be nothing but positive statements,ideas,stories, and educating. Todd has been welcoming and great with discussing different ideas, sharing his opinions.
I feel like he sees both sides and wants things to be fair across the board. I'm still wondering when the program is up for review. Todd did say this 2014 year. But I don't know which month or if there is evena date set.
If you do know the date, please share.



Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[deerslayer88]

I never though you were trying to bash on him or any CWMU, I just noticed some were and wanted to make it public the man was fair and gave straight answers. Heck he sounded like he was 100% honest and not trying to blow one over. If I don't draw my Buck Antelope tag this year, I am going to be trying for a doe on Deseret.

 

[Gunnie3035]

General season landowner tags are a much bigger drain on the resource than CMWU's will ever be. At least the CMWU owner/operators actually care and somewhat contribute to the overall welfare of the herd. Landowners receive free tags and sell them at a premium rate and contribute nothing.

 

[treedagain]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-14 AT 08:29AM (MST)[p]Deerslayer88....MOST of the CWMU's are leased ground. The operator does not own 1 acre. This is based on the 20 or so CWMU's i have 100% knowledge of prior to them joining. Whoever told you this does not know or is putting up smoke and mirrors to hide the fact these are not a MONEY MAKER...contrary to the fairy tales these are NOT some family/ deals...$$$$ talks




>For the most part they own
>some portion of the land,
>at least thats what I
>have been told. Also Blanding
>boy (Todd). Was quick to
>answer my questions about Deseret,
>he was kind and friendly.
>I have no clue why
>people are bashing him, stating
>smoke and mirrors on the
>other forum. He was respectful,
>answered everything and stated to
>come back with more questions
>when they arise. I say
>someone is pi**ed off at
>him on a personal level
>that has something to do
>outside of the CWMU his
>is over.


How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait

 

[Deerlove]

Tree that's my point, we have the bean counter telling us about "their" property and they don't even own it.

 

[ParadiseHunter]

I'll bite and list a couple of positive things I see from our property being in a CWMU.

Full disclosure my dad is a land owner and our property is in the CWMU program and I get a deer tag every year. I am very fortunate.

I imagine our CWMU is a little unusual in the fact we do not sell any of the tags we get. We use them all for family. We usually shoot about 3-5 deer a year and the state hunter has always gotten one as well, or at least wounded 2 animals before we said that was enough. We could fill all the tags but we are very selective on what we shoot. Over the last 7 or 8 years (the time our property has been in the CWMU) the deer herd has gotten significantly better on our property and on the ground around our property because we are not shooting very many deer. I see this as a big positive. There are also more mature bucks each fall.

The other positive for us is the significant decrease in trespassing. In the past if a person was caught the animal was taken and they were given an 80 fine and a misdemeanor. Now if they are caught with an animal. The fine is the value of what the CWMU tag could have been sold for $2,000 to $3,000. The larger fine seems to have deterred a lot of people from trespassing.

Another positive is we get to hunt later in the year up to November 10th and so does the lucky state hunter who draws the tag. We allow the hunter 5 days of hunting (there choice) anywhere on the property they wish to go.

A state (public) hunter gets to hunt some beatiful ground he would otherwise have no access to with the chance of getting a very respectable buck.

 

[BillyBoB]

ParadiseHunter,
Do yo care to share which CWMU unit you are talking about?
I personally know another person who's property WAS in a CWMU unit and they dealt with their tags in the past, similar to how you explained your situation with your tags.

So it still might be unusual but I've heard of it before.








Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[BillyBoB]

treedagain...
You posted "The operator does not own 1 acre. This is based on the 20 or so CWMU's i have 100% knowledge of prior to them joining."
Do you mind sharing with us your list of 20 or so CWMU units that you have knowledge of that lease all their property to an operator??????
Thanks for your responses on this topic.


Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[Apexmtnman]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-14 AT 05:17PM (MST)[p]In the old proclamations it used to say CWMU's were "made up primarily of private land" but not anymore. Twin Peaks- Goose Creek CWMU is 2/3rds private ground,(5,128 private, 10,400 public) and Grouse Creek CWMU has 23,040 public acres and 30,352 private acres. That's 28,168 acres of public ground locked up so you and I can't hunt it, in these 2 CWMU's alone. CWMU's should consist of all private land, no public land should be included period. And don't tell me it's landlocked because that's BS.

 

[Birdman]

When public land is included in a CWMU it is because the public land is landlocked with no access to get to it. That land can not be hunted by the public.

 

[elkun]

bird man , then that land should be closed to all hunting,,,, (notjust the public,,,,, ,

 

[Birdman]

Elkun, Just bringing up the way that it is. I did not make the rules. If you do not like it go to the board and try to get it changed. I did not do it. Didn't mean to get you upset.

 

[deerslayer88]

Well the people I have talked with own more than one acre just for your information. Yes some public land in on their CWMU Private 22810 Public 760, so yes some is included but in this case its land locked and leased. From my sources there are like 4 land owners combined in this CWMU, and they do a good job at getting the hunter their animal.

 

[Apexmtnman]

BS Twin Peaks is accessible from the Nevada side and many others post public land that is very accessible.

 

[mulecreek]

There is a very well known and creative man from Montana that has found a great way to access landlocked public land. Helicopter. According to him it is not insanely expensive either.

Does anyone know if the CWMU operators have to pay a royalty on the hunts they sell to the state?

 

[Birdman]

All that I know is at the Wildlife Board Meeting this fall when that question came up the answer was that public land that is included in a CWMU is landlocked by private property. That was the answer. Now in Montana you may be able to use a helicopter but in Utah there are strict rules on that.

 

[Apexmtnman]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-14 AT 11:44AM (MST)[p]They can say anything they want, doesn't make it true. Being truthful isn't one of their strong suits.

 

[Ticks N Tines]

>When public land is included in
>a CWMU it is because
>the public land is landlocked
>with no access to get
>to it. That land
>can not be hunted by
>the public.

Not the case Birdman. Much of the Public land included into CWMUs is "accessible" from public roads and you have every right to jump the CWMU fence. Public land is usually used to make a more definable boundary for the CWMU. When the public land is included, the CWMU is required to change the split ratios or provide trade lands to make up for the lost hunting land. CWMUs that include public land can still be accessed, but the species the CWMU hunts cannot be hunted on the land.

This process has been one of my biggest questions about the program.

Who decides when public land needs to be absorbed into the CWMU?

Who decides if the trade lands are equally valuable to the public?

Why do the trade lands not match the same acreage as the lost public land?

Where are the maps and locations of the trade lands? How does the public find out about them?

Why does it say in the CWMU rule that domestic elk ranches are not elegible to participate in the program, but yet Rulon Jones is part of the CWMU program?

These are just a few questions I have had on my mind for several years. So far nobody has been able to answer any of them.

 

[Birdman]

All the above is brought before the wildlife board. The division makes the proposals and the board decides on it. The problem is all you guys sit here and complain about what is going on but no one goes to the Board and makes their concerns known. Thus the board hears the division and with no objections from the public it passes. So of you have a gripe, man up and go before the board and make your feelings heard.

I am not in support of one side or the other. I go to the meetings and learn how it works. Now I tell you what is said and some think I am crazy. I know how the system works. Just telling you guys if you do not like what is going on, go to the board and get things changed.

 

[Utah400Elk]

Birdman,

I am not a Utah resident anymore so I don't have a dog in this fight. That being said, I have tried to get things changed in Utah and tried to go through the process. Many times the RACs and the Wildlife board appear to be a rubber stamp process. Many people fought like crazy to stop the Expo. Most of the people in the audience at the RAC meeting I attended were against the idea. It didn't matter what the people wanted, the RAC was simply a rubber stamp in the expo process. The system, IMO, does not work! Again, I am no longer a Utah resident so I will not argue the value of the CWMU program or the public land inclusion but to say there is a system in place voice your concerns (and have them addressed) is not entirely true.

 

[mulecreek]

>The
>system, IMO, does not work!
> Again, I am
>no longer a Utah resident
>so I will not argue
>the value of the CWMU
>program or the public land
>inclusion but to say there
>is a system in place
>voice your concerns (and have
>them addressed) is not entirely
>true.

Just because they said no does not mean the concern was not addressed. Kind of like a prayer. Sucks to have a system like that but that is what Utah created.

 

[Birdman]

First of all the Expo had nothing to do with the Wildlife Board. The Expo was a business and just like you or anyone else you can have a show at the Salt Palace or anywhere you want about hunting and the Wildlife Board does not have a say. They only had a say on some of the things that would take place at the expo such as the draw tags. The auction tags were already in place and can be auctioned off where ever they want.
Now as far as a rubber stamp, in the last two years there have been people, ordinary people, that have stood up and made proposals to the Wildlife Board that the Board ordered to go threw the rac's that this year are now law. Again very few people attend the Wildlife Board and even fewer make proposals.
Some of the proposals that have been made are now law or going through the RAC's again this year. When you say a rubber stamp, I just don.t see it

 

[Utah400Elk]

Birdman,

I should have said the convention tag portion of the Expo. Like I said, Utah can do what they want. I will simply apply as a non-resident and let the Utah residents decide what they want for from/for their state. In my time in Utah, the process seemed to be a rubber stamp. If things have changed great if not...

 

[treedagain]

most of the CWMU's in western box elder county contain 1000's of acres of accessible public ground. all available for the public hunter for spike elk hunting. but instead the DWR is padding the operators pocket with $$$$ and excluding the public from the ground to hunt...none of these propertys have the continuous acres to allow them a CWMU... I thought the CWMU's CREATED opportunity not take it away.

smoke and mirrors, slight of hand.


How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait

 

[Apexmtnman]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-14 AT 03:53PM (MST)[p]Birdman
I've been to RAC meetings, I've seen the process, If you stand up and voice your concern as a Utah resident and hunter you might as well talk to the wall. The RAC only listens if you are a representative of SFW or BGF, they could care less what the average Joe hunter has concerns about. I've seen it many times, if you have a concern you might as well just sit down and shutup because they just don't give a sh!t about the average hunter. And if you think all the public land is landlocked in the CWMU's, think again, do a little research before you perpetuate a lie the DWR has told you.
A CWMU with 2/3rds of its total acreage being public land is total BULLSH1T no matter how you look at it.

 

[WOW]

It's all just a recommendation with the RAC or the Wildlife Board. They do whatever they want. I've rode with a biologist counting deer in the winter range in one unit 2 years in a row and we seen less than 9 bucks per 100 does both times, and most of the bucks were 2 points. And the unit is supposed to have a 17 per 100 population he said. I asked him why there was no real change the amount of buck tags for the unit. And he said he gives them his reports and recommendations. and the Wildlife board desides what to do. Like he said it is just his recommendation...

 

[llamapacker]

The level of ignorance and disinformation on this thread is appalling.

Perhaps if you want more information about the CWMU process, or anything else in front of the wildlife board, you could spend five minutes away from the keyboard and actually talk to someone at DWR. You might actually learn something.

But don't just expect them to make changes because you asked. Become informed, look at the issue from all sides, and make an informed request. I've seen a few things acted upon and real progress made through this process. I've seen many more ignored, quite often because the idea was stupid (my word), and sometimes there was other factors driving the departments objectives.

Just think for a minute about the people who show up and ask that all hunting be stopped, or that cute lions be left alone, or any number of other insane ideas. Not all the DWR does is good, and we will have many disagreements about the right middle ground. But it is still better than the fickle mind of those driven by weird personal agenda.

But at least get informed. Clearly some CWMU are in it for the money. Some aren't, but we hear little about them. Some (most?) private land owners (Hunt Oil, comes to mind) lease their property to an operator to manage their hunts. The manager himself may not own the land, but that doesn't make the land "public". The operator pays a lease fee to the landowner, and clearly intends to make a profit by selling and guiding hunts on the property. It is called a business. Yes, they have to tolerate a few public hunters to earn that right from the state, and some operators are more accommodating than others. Welcome to the real world. I wish all these people were stand up kind of guys, but I even suspect some on this thread would disagree with me or anyone else about when they have been treated right by the operator. My personal assessment is that about 75% I have visited treated me right, and 25% treated me wrong. I've been on roughly 20 CWMU's, always as a "free" public hunter. I'm not sure I experience any better ratio out in the field during the general season. Most hunters I meet are friendly, but we've all seen the guy who shoots a deer you have been stalking for hours from a country mile away, or barges into your setup with little regard.
People are people, get over it.

Now if the sole intent of this thread is just to fill the ether with more disinformation and slander, get on with it...
Off my soap box.

Bill

 

[BillyBoB]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-14 AT 08:01AM (MST)[p]WOW...I've been away for a couple days due to work and came back to this...

I was hoping I'd see some stories of personal experiences with specific CWMU's. I still want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly. llamapacker... If you have been on 20 CWMU's, then you'd ba a great person to hear stories from. Hearing that 75% of them treated you good and 25% were bad is not as specific as I was hoping for. I'd like to hear how they treated you good or how they treated you bad. WHICH ONES TREATED YOU GOOD OR BAD. If you don't want to share it on this thread, you can always shoot me a PM.
I've been to one RAC meeting and I felt just like alot of other hunters that are saying on this thread. That they felt like they were talking to a wall. I felt the same as they did. I felt like they didn't care at all for what I had to say and I was wasting my breath. The board memebers minds were already made up before anyone spoke. That could be why so many don't say anything or even attend the RAC meetings. Maybe they've been to enough to figure that it was a waste of time and gas. Who knows. But it is a problem.

Not getting the result I wanted doesn't mean thats why I thought they didn't listen or care. You can tell when someone doesn't give a crap what you're about to say. They didn't hide it very well. My teenage son who attended that meeting with me could easily see that what you had to say, didn't matter. It's aggravating to witness.

I still hope that many will join me and voice there ideas and suggestions to the board when it is up for review this year. Todd has emailed me telling me that it will be up for review this year but I guess there isn't a date set yet. I hope I can be given a notice so many can attend. I know I will.

Or if you have ideas or suggestions that you'd like to share before the RAC meeting, email Matt, the sportsman?s rep to the review committee. While sharing them and bringing them up at the RACs is an option, you can always email Matt now. Matt's email? [email protected]

Just remember to keep your ideas and suggestions fair. We all have interests but we need to look at the interests for all. Having things be fair requires some give and take.





Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[8mmMag]

Just a quick question about CWMU Elk tags. Is the ratio of Elk tags issued out on a CWMU really 8.5-1 or 9-1 Private to Public. Just looking for factual information here, thanks for any help...

 

[Blanding_Boy]

As a landowner/operator of a CWMU when it comes time to fill out your application/COR you select/choose one of the following when it comes to private/public split for deer and elk
90/10 (private/public)
85/15 (private/public)
60/40 (private/public)

If there are public lands within the CMWU boundary, you still choose the above but the % of public tags is increased (added to the public split) by the proportion of total public acreage. As an example DL&L has 6.8% public (BLM) lands within our CWMU boundary. As such, our public split is 17% (public) for elk and elk, having selected the 90/10 split.

For pronghorn and moose, we (landowners/operators) do not get a choice, it is a 60/40 split by rule. But the above still (public land splits) applies. Again in the case of DL&L (Deseret CWMU) the split for antelope is actually 53/47 private/public split.

Hope this helps

Todd

 

[BillyBoB]

I wish I was more educated on the split difference so I don't have much of a fight with that other than saying it should be fair.
What I have the most to argue about is the hunting surveys or (Customer Reviews) be published for all to read.

It's really sad that I can learn more about a stupid 20$ toaster at Walmart.com, reading customers reviews online THAN going online to DWR Utah website and reading detailed information and stories about hunts. Oh wait!..... there isn't any reviews! Go figure.





Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."

 

[hossblur]

I appreciated the honesty previous by the gentleman who uses the tags for himself/family. By giving out one tag, they buy his family rut mule deer hunting. You were honest, thanks, but that is exactly what irritates the public. I hunt on private land. The Dwr yearly tried to convince the owner to go CWMU(I didn't know that was their job). Instead, he allows pretty much anyone who asks to hunt his ground, and he owns the alphalfa fields the deer/elk winter on. In exchange he has to hunt the same seasons as everyone else. In short, CWMU's should not be allowed to include public land, if you landlock public with your CWMU, you should be given the oppurtunity to PURCHASE(not lease) the acreage, otherwise it is open to helicopter. Second, CWMU SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO WAITING PERIODS. I SHOULD NOT be able to help add to point creep, but if I don't draw just go buy a tag. IF YOU HUNT LE/CWMU it should not be different. If I draw Deseret I wait 5 years to put in for elk again. Buying that same tag should have the same wait. CWMUs have become a way for government(DWR) to pick winners and losers, government is not supposed to do that, regardless. I don't like the season dates lasting 1/3 of the year either, but without them there is no incentive for the landowner.
As for the guy with 150,000 acres being told what to do, NO ONE DID. He can get out of the CWMU, apply for tags for himself, and sell trespass fees for hunters who draw OTC/LE tags. He joined the program for GUARANTEED YEARLY return buisness. Without the CWMU the landowner is running a competitive buisness in which supply(tags) and demand(people that drew a tag) would dictate price. Without guaranteed tags, the landowner sells access(which he can do without the CWMU), but depending on who drew the tags, it would also control the cost. Denny Austad would have to play the draw/wait game same as me.

CWMUs were set up soley to allow the creation of hunting buisness. It allows for guaranteed tags, and GENEROUS season dates. Not having the CWMU would create COMPETION in both landowners(controlling your animals so those who drew tags will pay trespass fees), and with guides. Denny Austad isnt going to have Doyle on retainer is he is getting those UNSUCCESSFUL letters like everyone else. Ever notice how there isn't a single outfitter/guide opposed to the system.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

 

[llamapacker]

Hoss,
You need to be careful what you ask for. Many landowners would love the opportunity to buy public lands. I'm not interested in converting our public lands to private through sale to CWMU's. Truth be told, there is value to these public lands besides hunting.

CWMU's were NOT set up solely to create hunting businesses. Far from it. That has been a side effect, for sure, at least in some cases. But the real objective was to have a way to manage the animals living on private land, in a way that at least gives some opportunity to the public.

The same land owner you vilify in the beginning of your post does not have to give/sell/allow any public hunters onto his land if he is not in the CWMU program. He can hunt his property every year, all by himself during the general season, if he turns down the CWMU program. And he can have a 100 or more of his extended family join him on the hunt if he wishes, or keep it all to himself. When he joins the CWMU program, he must allow some of the general public to hunt there.
There are countless landowners, some with large holdings, that are not part of the CWMU program, and do not sell /allow any hunting. That is their right as private landholders. The DWR generally encourages them to join the program so it can institute professional management of those herds, which at least occasionally have a deleterious effect on neighboring properties and habitat. And in the process, some public hunters get an opportunity to hunt on these lands, once enrolled in the CWMU program. It can be a win for all.

But this is sort of like asking if the glass is half empty or half full. It is truly a matter of perspective.

Since I don't own any hunting land, sure, I'd love it if all landowners welcomed me free of charge. Ain't gonna happen, however. Most CWMU participants earn a modest return by selling a few tags, while allowing an even smaller number of public hunters onto their land. And even the very large properties, like Deseret, that make what appears to most of us to be A LOT of money off their tags, considering the size of their landholdings, still makes a tiny percentage of their profits from the sale of tags. Even a million dollars is chump change to the Warren Buffets of the world.

It is fashionable as of late, especially with the current administration, to encourage everyone to look around and think the rich / landowner/ business owner is greedy and out to screw the little guy. Class envy has become almost in vogue, because somebody ALWAYS has more than you. And when you get the access you want, you will be in the position of defending that access from somebody else, who now wants what you have.
And even more likely, when we as a society keep demanding more and more from those with the land, they are quite likely to take their ball and go home. Remember, nobody has to be in the CWMU program, and many large land holders are not. If it is not a win /win for both the landowner and the sportsmen, the program will disappear.

Bill

 

[hossblur]

I didn't villify the man, far from it, he is one of the FEW honest participants in the program. He openly admits that he does it for peronal gain. He didn't come try to blow smoke that he was involved to create public access, or opportunity. He wants to hunt the rut, they give out a tag, bingo.
My problem is two fold. First, public land is PUBLIC LAND. I can't include the park in my back yard as part of my personal property and exclude people from it. If the CWMU wants to include that acreage, they can buy it, NOT at greenbelt, agri zone price, but at recreational/industrial prices. IMO you shouldn't be able to have land in the green belt if you run a commercial buisness on it, but thats not what we are talking about now.
I partially agree with what you said about the ORIGINAL intent of CWMU's. But lets be honest, thats not what they are today. The vast majority of CWMU's are controlled by people who own ZERO land. They aren't about access, or even controlling wildlife on private land, they are SOLELY a commercial buisness. I am not anti buisness, FAR FROM IT, but I am honest, the modern CWMU is about hunting as a buisness, and I don't buy that the operators are just barely getting by, I have both family and friends in agriculture, there buisness varies yearly, they live in a competitive environment. The CWMU live in nirvana, unlike the rancher who breeds, feeds, houses, etc, the CWMU is GIVEN a product which they then sell. I work for Smiths, they would LOVE the government to GIVE them groceries that they could then turn around and sell at 100% profit.
For those with a short memory, before CWMU's there were outfits that leased ground and sold trespass fees. They weren't given tags and guaranteed buisness via no waiting periods.. That is MY #1 complaint with the BUISNESS that is CWMU, its 100% government(DWR) welfare.
Please don't lecture me about class warfare. Government, when involved with buisness SHOULD be about leveling the playing field. You want to buy that Deseret tag, GREAT, then wait 5 years and you can buy another. I am not about doing away with the CWMU. They can have the tags, have the long seasons, but they SHOULD NOT get to include public land(I pay for that land, if I want to parachute into it, ITS PUBLIC LAND. Their clients should not get to bypass waiting periods just by scratching a check, UNLESS, I can scratch one to buy my way out of LE waiting periods. For all the talk, I see alot more CWMUs coming on board then there are leaving.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"