BRAND NEW IDEA to fix Utahs deer herd...

[coolspringoutfitters]

I was just reading a post about The DH program and how it is the new cause of death for mule deer in Utah and a REALLY good idea came to me, it was like a bolt of lightning. So, here is my BRAND NEW, NEVER BEEN TRIED IDEA... How about letting the DNR run the herd??? I know what youre thinking... They already do, but ask yourself, do they really??? Who makes up the wildlife board? How many of them are employed by the DNR??? These guys are politically appointed and they make the decisions for our wildlife... WHY????? How does this make sense? The DNR should be doing what is best for our wildlife, not doing what they are told to do by a board that is politically controlled.
NEWS FLASH... When the board voted to change the state to 30 units, we were in year 2 of a new 5 year management plan... No wonder we can't grow any deer, we can't stick to a plan for than 2 minutes... The board makes sure of that....

IF YOU WANT TO GROW MORE DEER, TAKE THE POLITICS OUT OF IT AND LET THE PROFESSIONALS DO THEIR JOBS!!!! If they had the freedom to do what needed to be done they could fix it. I don't want to hear about them being incompetent or anything like that... How would we know if they are or not? They've never been given the opportunity to show what they can do without the wildlife board changing their mind every two years.
I'm excited for the responses... Bring them on...

CSO

It's all about the good times...

 

[cantkillathing]

Because Anis already says you can manage a deer herd with 5 bucks per 100 does, If it were up to him we would have 200,000 deer hunters in the field.

 

[Deerlove]

Something had to be done, but I hate giving up tags and revenue. Revenue equals support and we have more support with more hunters. Maybe SW had it right about going to more primitive weapons etc? We need more hunter contributing $ and not killing. LOL

 

[Dikndirt]

I am not sure but is Utah the only state that allows a "Wildlife Board" consisting of non-professional politically appointed members to make the final decisions concerning wildlife management?

 

[Zeke]

This isn't a new idea but what about a tag fee increase since the tag ars being cut to increase b to d ratios?

The residents pay such a puny amount for a tag I can't even phathom it.

RAISE THE TAG FEES, not like the USPS raises the price of a postage stamp by a penny every couple years. Raise the fee... like double. It's still a bargain at twice the price.

I know some will howl like a gut-shot wolf at the thoughs of paying that much but come on guys, we live all year for a week in the deer hills!

Maybe then the DNR could do more good for the deer if it economically benefitted them.

Take the money and buy some 1080!!!!!!

Zeke

 

[big6]

zeke i am all about raising the price i know i will hear alot for this but here we go.

i will just use the resident price as my example with the whole number of tags rather then factoring in non residents.

97000x35=3,395,000

lets say you cut 17000 tags and increased the price by just a measily $15 so now a tag is 50

97000-17000= 80000x50 =4,000,000

so you cut the tags by 17000 and double your tag price to 70

80000x70=5,600,000
you are now saving bucks and the dwr is still making the anual revenue plus a couple million


BUT HOW DOES THIS HELP THE DOE POPULATION AND FAWN SURVIVAL IT DONT AND THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO BE CONCENTRATING BECAUSE SOME OF THE AREAS IN UTAH STILL HAVE A GOOD 15:100 RATIO BUT THEY ARE 5000 DEER UNDER THE OBJECTIVE

IT IS GOOD TO HAVE THE BUCK TO DOE RATIO THERE BUT WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO IF IT IS THERE AND YOUR TOTAL NUMBER DOES NOT GO ANYWHERE AND THE HERD KEEPS DROPPING

THIS IS WHERE THE EXTRA MILLION COMES IN THAT I THINK COULD HELP

MORE MONEY FOR PREDITOR KILLING
MORE MONEY FOR HABITAT
MORE MONEY TO HELP FEED DEER DURING HARD WINTERS
MORE MONEY TO DO STUDIES
MORE MONEY TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC
MORE MONEY TO HIRE MORE FIELD OFFICERS TO HELP MANAGE THE 30 UNITS
MORE MONEY TO DO TRANSPLANTS AND TESTING

ITS JUST PLAIN MORE MONEY TO HELP THE WILDLIFE


Thats just my 2cents of why i would like to see the tags go up in price even if they didnt cut deer permits they could still rise the price i know some would wine and complain but 70 dollars for a tag is not that much when you consider what else we waste our money on. hell you could go pick up beer cans on the weekend on the mountain and make that 70 in no time

 

[Grizz]

This is a great idea. Now how would your legislator react to hitting Ranchers in the head with a crowbar. These old guys think they have an exclusive right to these lands. Most of the land managers are in coalition with these guys. I don't understand why these grazing rights are not put on the open market of fair access. Instead we pay public employees as tax payers to enhance their hold on these lands.

 

[HuntinFoo]

Something needs to be done about the overall deer numbers, because they are going to hell and fast. I am all for paying double if the DWR will use the money effectively to fix the deer population problems. The tag cuts wont help the deer numbers but when you figure that 15 years ago we had twice as many deer in the state as we do now, you cant keep shooting as many bucks as you did then because there is only half as many bucks to go around, and it has caught up. If they get things fixed in 10 or 15 years then they could up the tag numbers again, but as for now we cant afford to continue on the path of the past. We need to realize that the only way for things to get any better is to sacrifice some opportunity and a few dollars, and put them in the right place to help the situation. As stated by big6 even with the tag cuts only $15 more per tag would give the DWR over a million dollars more. One less trip to McDonalds is all it would take, no one can claim they cant afford that.

 

[Tree]

UDWR estimated deer populations 15 years ago were almost exactly what they are today. FYI.

I won't argue personal observation, but that's what the data says from that particular resource.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

 

[swbuckmaster]

Im going to try and be non biased in my post. Because I do want a tag every year. I also dont want to eat my tag.

But id say the data is incorrect then/now or id say the numbers were incorrect then/now. meaning more deer then and they under estimated them or less deer now and they are trying to save their budget by over estimating them. Just my observation.

15 years ago I could go anywhere in the central or south eastern region and see 10 times the deer as I do now just driving any dirt road. 15 years ago I was one of the worst hunters in Utah but it didn't take any work to find big bucks or loads of does. Cant say the same now. You will have to work for any buck you kill now. I dont and havent hunted from my vehicle for over 10 years and the quality and the quantity of the bucks in the back country is shrinking. The amount of does I see in the back country is shrinking.

So if the division says the deer numbers are the same. then I have to ask when did our deer become nocturnal in December and January? The division says the numbers are the same. So If I cant find them in the same numbers as I could 15 years in December/ January then they must be nocturnal.

Dont take this the wrong way Im still a happy and successful hunter but there is no way the numbers are correct in my eyes.

Id say our elk are closer 300,000 then are deer are to 300,000!
Just and observation not a scientist.

 

[BrowningRage]

Accurate deer numbers would be nice. I'm not talking about total deer numbers, I'm talking about deer numbers on General Season, Public Lands...

Think about Summit County for example. Tons of private land, deer that are not accessible to the wide majority of hunters. I want to know total population numbers, as well as numbers on public land. Those are some numbers I'd be interested in seeing...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[soutahhunter]

I have not heard of one area in the state where it has been said that deer numbers are what DWR says they are. What does this tell you, yes they want to continue to do what they have always done. It is time to step up and make some major changes in these smaller units. Why can't we try different things in these different Units. Close a unit for five years and see how it does compared to other units. Really count the number of deer and only allow tag numbers that should be allowed so as to not hurt the deer herd. I know some areas in Nevada may only have 2 or three tags on it. Until the DWR is honest and admits where the deer population really is we will continue to argue about the number of tags given out. The hunters say the deer herd and bucks are at all time lows. Anis says the population is on objective and the bucks are out there, we just have to do a better job of finding them. Who do you BELIEVE?

 

[theox]

anis has a perfect name lets just say that. I have no confidence in him and if the dwr was to run by themselves he would have to leave imo. everytime i read something he says i end up shaking my head.

 

[HuntinFoo]

There is no way that deer numbers are anywhere near what they were 15 years ago. The dwr is either in denial or they are flat out lying to the public. 99% of Utah hunters that have been in the field for 15 years or longer, will tell you that the deer numbers are no where near what they were 15 years ago. I could go to places in north eastern utah back then and see 50 to a 100 deer a day with about 10 being bucks. Now I am lucky if I see 15 deer and maybe 1 buck. There is something wrong with our deer herds, and I just want it fixed. I would rather hunt mule deer than anything and if we dont do something soon it is going to get even worse and maybe to the point that we can only hunt them ever 10 years. I dont have all the answers to the problems, or even what some of the problems might be. But I sure hope that those who can do something about it will admit there is a problem, and stop denying it. I just wish they would do something soon.

 

[typicalfreak]

General units are on a decline for one simple reason... over hunting... too many gosh darn tags... Dont try to look for some other reason or idea cuz youll just be running around in circles and be scratching your head trying to find some other idea why the herd struggles. If you realize that simple fact that too many tags are issued then why look to any other reason for the problem because a tag equals a dead deer. Many tags equals many dead deer. If there is another problem, then too many tags is still a problem. Every area is different but in every area right now that struggles has far too many tags... gurantee it.

Everyone wants to hunt and the DWR knows it... and they still issue too many tags to satisfy us. Why not? for them business is pretty good. As long as we put in for tags that they issue every year theyre happy cuz they are getting paid. The DWR will always give us an oportunity to pay them to hunt a wild animal that manages itself. I took a range management class and one thing they taught us is you cant manage a wild animal directly, you manage its habitat... well shoot dang I think utah habitat is fine and dandy in most places! am I wrong?

What could the DWR possibly do to increase numbers in this situation other than cutting tags? Honestly? Think about it? Is there anything else that can bring it out of this situation? Its no secret riddle. The habitat in Utah in alot of places is ideal for deer but the deer just simply cant use it to its full potential for one simple reason... over hunting. The deer just need to be given a chance on it without hunting pressure. Hard to swallow... ya but the truth hurts! I dont think the DWR needs a dime more for what they do. They could use a few dimes less and far far less money from tags. But theyll figure a way to get your money because were willing to pay them one way or another to have the oportunity to hunt. Just be glad that youve had the privilage to do so in the past because the only fix really is to drop tags in alot of areas and thats just what might happen in alot of the up coming smaller units when they realize theyre no where near objective.

The deer decline doesnt have a secret formula or some odd reason why its doing bad. One big reason is there is just too many people that love to hunt and in utah its huge! Everyone hunts! Everyone! Its not rocket science. The DWR just issues too many tags to pay for their workers and their jobs and gives us a reason to keep paying them so we can hunt. Plain and simple. Dont try looking for any other riddle because youll just confuse yourselves in search for some other reason when there is one big reason that is king over all other reasons.

So stop complaining... the 30 units is a step in the right direction, deal with it. We Utahns can only be privilaged for so long. It seems like the only people that complain about the taste of their food is the people that have a full plate... something to think about!

 

[ridgetops]

typicalfreak, I agree with you. All this 3 day hunts, then 5 day, then delayed starts on the struggling units was BS. All it did was keep these units 3 year average just above the "RED" and kept these struggling units from going to LE. Now the proper amount of tags can be cut and we finally can have a 9 day hunt again. As far as I know, the concepts of the 5 year plan are still in place, the only thing that has changed is how they will manage hunters. Which I think will make a difference with the other things already in place.

There's always next year

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-12 AT 09:12AM (MST)[p]>typicalfreak, I agree with you. All
>this 3 day hunts, then
>5 day, then delayed starts
>on the struggling units was
>BS. All it did was
>keep these units 3 year
>average just above the "RED"
>and kept these struggling units
>from going to LE. Now
>the proper amount of tags
>can be cut and we
>finally can have a 9
>day hunt again. As far
>as I know, the concepts
>of the 5 year plan
>are still in place, the
>only thing that has changed
>is how they will manage
>hunters. Which I think will
>make a difference with the
>other things already in place.
>
>
>There's always next year

Agreed. The 3/5 day hunts were nonsense. In these units that actually need(ed) attention because of low B/D ratios, the only thing that would have a real effect is cutting tags.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

 

[Birdman]

Here is what is wrong with most on MM. They come up with ideas that will help the deer herd or something else and have no idea what and how things work. Raising the price of a deer tag will do nothing to help out the DWR. The money that the DWR gets if from the State and all the money that comes from sales of tags goes into the State coffers. Thus, raising the cost of a tag gives the state more money but does nothing for the DWR.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

I like the idea of the DWR running the wildlife. However, they are a government agency and they need supervision. The WB should comprise sportsman that are elected by sportsman. This group should be the "governing body". The DWR says they are understaffed to be able to handle the sale of conservation tags so the Con Orgs do the selling for the return of 10% of the sales. Imagine the jobs that could be created in the DWR if those funds stayed in house.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[Tree]

>Here is what is wrong with
>most on MM. They
>come up with ideas that
>will help the deer herd
>or something else and have
>no idea what and how
>things work. Raising the
>price of a deer tag
>will do nothing to help
>out the DWR. The
>money that the DWR gets
>if from the State and
>all the money that comes
>from sales of tags goes
>into the State coffers.
>Thus, raising the cost
>of a tag gives the
>state more money but does
>nothing for the DWR.

I'm not familiar with what you have stated above.

From my understanding, about 8-9% of DWR funding comes from the state general fund. License fees go into the divisions "restricted" fund, which stays with the division, but is appropriated by consent of the legislature via the Executive Appropriations Committee.

The division is one of the only state agencies that don't operate almost entirely from the general fund.So my understanding is that raising tag prices would directly benefit the division.

Just a point of possible clarification.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

 

[Tree]

>I like the idea of the
>DWR running the wildlife.
>However, they are a government
>agency and they need supervision.
> The WB should comprise
>sportsman that are elected by
>sportsman. This group should
>be the "governing body".
>The DWR says they are
>understaffed to be able to
>handle the sale of conservation
>tags so the Con Orgs
>do the selling for the
>return of 10% of the
>sales. Imagine the jobs
>that could be created in
>the DWR if those funds
>stayed in house.
>
>
>It's always an adventure!!!

I agree. No one entity should be free from oversight and we should do our best to enact rules and regulations to avoid corruption and constantly be monitoring and changing these regulations, to correct and adjust issues as they arise.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Tree is right on the money Birdman. There needs to be some new legistlation to govern and assist the DWR.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[big6]

From my understanding and this is from the lead jacka** (kaparowitz) in a conversation between he and i and a board member i simply asked how much of the tag revenue does the dwr opperate off of his answer was 90% of the dwrs yearly budget comes from tag sales and 10% from the states general pool he went on to say they are one of the few self funding governing entities in the state and they take the least amount of any entitie in the state from the general fund so if he was telling the truth raising tag cost would effect them abd also help the state by maybe funding dwr 100% thus putting 10% back to general funding