I Want Some Feedback on Fixing Utah Deer Hunting

[Founder]

Improve Utah Deer Hunting

I would like everyone who hunts deer in Utah to give me their feedback on this proposal. I've thought about this a bit, and whether it could ever become reality is anyone's guess. But, I'd like to hear what you all think.

I'm proposing a rule change that only allowed ONE deer to be harvested every TWO years.

Important Points:

* Hunters still hunt every year, but only get ONE tag per TWO year period, therefore only being allowed to harvest ONE deer.
* License/Tag fee would be double current rate, but good for two years.
* Program would include an even and odd year, ie; 2006 & 2007. ONE Tag would be valid for that time period.
* With a resulting, lower, success rate, offering Statewide hunting could be possible.

Effect on LIMITED ENTRY, CWMU, & LANDOWNER Tags:
* If a hunter draws a limited entry unit he/she must forfeit their general season tag to get the limited entry tag.
* If a hunter has used their general season tag in year 1 of the 2 year program, they would not be able to get a limited entry, landowner, or CWMU tag in year 2.
* Landowners would receive vouchers, and hunters could then forfeit their general season tag and the voucher for the landowner tag.
* CWMU purchase tags would remain as they are today, as would conservation tags.

RESULT OF PROGRAM:
* Success rate would be cut by 50% or more over a 2 year period.
* Hunters Afield would be reduced a small portion in year 1, but by approx. 25% in year 2.
* Over a two year program term, approx. 20,000 less bucks would be harvested, resulting in better quality, better herd growth, better buck-to-doe ratio.
* Within 6 to 8 years, deer populations could rebound to the point where we could go back to current management strategies.
* Limited entry deer hunt odds would improve during the second year of every 2 year program period, as hunters who have already filled their tag, would not apply for the limited entry tag.
* Could possibly make all tags statewide general season, and eliminate the 5 regions.

DOWNSIDE OF PROGRAM:
* Hunter could only harvest 1 deer per 2 year period.
* Hunter would need to purchase a 2 year license/tag, which would be double the current yearly fee.
* A handful of hunters could possibly harvest a deer in year 1 of the 2 year program, then purchase a CWMU or Conservation tag in year 2. Would be a very small number however.


What do you all think? Would something like this get Utah back to where it should be, offering quality and opportunity?

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[Muleynuts]

Man you must of had some time to think while you were in cali.I for one think your onto something here. Being you are part of the inner circle with the SFW why dont you see what you can do to get this pushed through the rac (lol). I think this is something that needs to be done fast, if we ever want to see utahs deer herds get back up to par. Most people believe our deer herds can be rebuit overnite so get to work Brian its all on your shoulders now. Let me know

Call me muleynuts

 

[Smiley]

I think you are atleast on the right track . Sounds to me like it is a good idea .

 

[ktc]

Outstanding idea! Sure, some more thought would need to go into this, but surely it sounds on the right path.

Brian, where did this idea come from? ;-)

What I am liking is the fact that people recognize that something needs to happen. Put two tags on a license, one on the carcass, and one mailed to F&G, similar to what Wyoming does with the coupon. This would accomplish 2 things. Keep track of hunter harvest, and provide a survey in which to monitor success rates and animal size, days afeild etc.

 

[DallanC]

Well you make some good points however you make a statement that I am not sure I agree with: "Would something like this get Utah back to where it should be, offering quality and opportunity?"

"... back to where it should be"

Clarify this. Back to how it was in the 80s? 70s? 50s? 1800s?

Its obvious from your sites title name, and the type of bucks you hunt / harvest you want to increase the age of harvested bucks to be more mature. I dont have a problem with that persay, but I have always been against blanket restrictions that force everyone to hunt that way.

Its been stated countless times here that if utah hunters wanted bigger bucks they need to stop shooting the small stuff. I believe that, however the fact they continue to shoot the small stuff rather than hold out for a monster shows something right? The opportinuty to hunt and harvest is more important to most utah hunters than it is to take a "big'un".

There are ALOT of big bucks here in utah, alot of them. They are just damned hard to hunt being in rough country and hard to outsmart... but each and every fall we see how many pictures of monster bucks taken here in utah posted on this site? Alot. How many smaller bucks get harvested? Alot.

No-one will ever convice me the "opportunity" to bag a big buck in utah doesnt exist, I've seen too many of them roaming around year after year.

I have talked alot with my father who grew up in Moroni area hunting since he was a kid... and while hunting was better IMO than it is today, there were not 6x6's hiding under every bush. In fact charting out the big deer hes killed over time it seems pretty constant from back then (50's / 60's) to now.

Reduced tag allocation, dividing up the state into regions, license draw for GENERAL tags have driven off alot of hunters in the past who just say "to hell with it" and no longer hunt. More restrictions like this will only drive off more hunters.

Passing a law allowing only 1 buck per 2 years? No thanks. I specifically avoided the dedicated hunter program because of the 2 in 3 years restriction. Maybe I'm the exception here, I go out hunting and I see deer, alot of them. I have no problem filling a tag and having fun. I feel my ability to hunt is already infringed on enough thank you with our current system.


Want more opportunities to hunt here in Utah? How about reducing the minimum property size to qualify as a CWMU. There are one hell of alot of properties that are just shy of the restriction so they sit un-hunted (LE areas). More CWMU's = more available tags per year for people and usually better quality herds.

I dunno Brian, you put alot of thought into your proposal but I dont think it will help overall when loss of winterrange is our biggest threat to herds, and when you have towns like Alpine trying to authorize larger scale hunts to get rid of the existing populations.

Can we ever get back to how it was in the "good'ole days"? No, I dont think so, too many roads, too much development... but really, I'm not so sure the "good'ole days" were as good as everything thinks they were, certainly not like very hunter was comming back with 4x4's or better.


-DallanC

 

[Cass]

It sounds like a good plan brian, but utah has an even bigger problem. After the olympics they are trying to get as much money as they can. I would be more than happy to sign this petition if it ever came my way.


-Cass

 

[SureShot]

I think you have a problem with your statistics. Success rates are already below 50% per year. So, in theory, hunters are shooting less than one buck every other year already. I don't think your proposal would result in success rates going down 50% from the current rates.

I also don't think you would see a significant drop in hunters in year two. What you would most likely see is hunters holding out for something nicer in year one and success rates down. More bucks carry over to year two and then you get a slaughter of 2 year old bucks instead of yearlings.

Overall, it may increase the quality of the hunt slightly, but I don't see it as too much.

I personally think the idea of splitting the state up into 25 units (or whatever the proposal is) and then managing the tags that go to each unit is the best way to improve the quality. If that means less than an aggregate of 97,000 tags then so be it.

 

[Founder]

Dallan,

I understand your point of view. I will admit, I like BIG deer. The reason I brought this up is because so many people complain about Utah deer hunting. You're right that Utah still produces great bucks, but IMO, it could be better. There are areas in this state that are in good shape, but there are more areas that are weak, not only in quality, but also quantity.

When I say "Back where it should be", I'm speaking of the herd size that the DWR believes Utah can support. Habitat is a problem, but not the ONLY problem. Fixing habitat is essential, but increasing the buck-to-doe ratio and the overall herd size is also needed.
Utah DWR has a long term objective of 425,000 deer, currently we're at about 280,000 or less.
425,000 may be impossible with the habitat in the condition that it's in, but getting to 330,000+ would make a HUGE difference.

IMO, Utah hunters shoot small deer for a number of reasons. Yes, many do because they enjoy it and want meat in the freezer. However, all to often, the vast majority shoot lesser deer because they don't want to go home empty handed.
With a deterant in place, many of those people, during their first year of the program, would let the small buck go.

I agree that Utah still has some good bucks, but they are fewer and further between than other states. This year, I have scouted Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. The best buck I've found is in Utah, but based on past experience, I feel that more and better bucks can be found in Wyoming & Colorado.

I brought this up only because hunters and biologists in Utah are SCREAMING, "fix the deer". The herd is far under objective, so regardless of how we may think of the hunting is now, it can be better with more deer.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[borntohunt]

I like this proposal, but but I can also agree with a fe points made against it.

One question for Brian and all others as well. What would be do with those all ready participating in the Dedicated Hunter Program? and what about all of us Lifetime hunters? At the age of 15 I saved up my summer income and bought a lifetime hunting license and as it states I will get a tag every year, how would your proposal deal with this.

borntohunt

 

[elk_horn]

This would also create more elk hunters for the General elk tag... not good! When they cant hunt deer they will look to elk for the first time.

 

[Founder]

Sureshot,

You're right, success may not drop to 50% of current rates. However, my theory is that 10% of hunters kill 90% of the deer. And based on that or anything close, success would drop. Just as you said, hopefully people would hold off the first year and not kill anything.
The following year, I believe the success rate would remain very close to where it is today, therefore the same number of deer that were passed on in year 1 would survive through year 2.

After 4 - 6 years, I believe the deer herd would rebound to a point where hunters are not killing 80% of the bucks every year.

Should nothing change? So many people complain about Utah deer hunting. It's at the TOP of most Utah hunters list of problems.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[JHas]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-12-04 AT 01:21PM (MST)[p]I think Brian's plan may have some credibility as a last fix measure but I believe there may be other issues to consider before the DWR takes it that far.

1. Basically as I read this proposal, you want to limit mule deer hunting in order to increase herd size. Hasn't this already been done? In the mid to late 80s approximately 250,000 hunters went afield, now that number has been cut more than in half to around 95,000 hunters yet mule deer herds are still declining. Then they split the state into hunt regions and again decreased hunters in specific units and still there is really no significant increase in mule deer numbers.

2. Decreasing hunters means decreasing wildlife revenue on both the state and federal levels. There are some that may go for another huge tag increase(such as they did on the LE elk)while at the same time eroding their hunting opportunities, but I feel they are a minority among hunters.

3. I don't know about the rest of you but it seems to me that our mule deer herd started dwindling about the same time as our elk herd started exploding. Is there a correlation? Has anyone tried to explore this on a scientific level? If not, maybe that would be an excellent suggestion from the SFW (or other hunter groups) to have the DWR conduct. I believe I've read somewhere that Idaho was in the process of conducting such a study.

4. Predators! I have seen more mountain lions, coyotes, foxes skunks and racoons in the last 10 years than I have during the previous 30. I heard from a hunter last year that was hunting cougar (with hounds) in the canyon I work in. He killed one cat and treed 6 others in one day! His comment was they need to call this canyon "Cougar Canyon" as he had never seen such a high concentration of cats anywhere. I have yet to see a DWR biologist enter the canyon to do any surveys on cougars and that leaves me at a loss on what factors they use to determine cougar quotas. As for coyotes in my canyon; uncountable.

5. Weather. 92 we lost a huge chunk of our deer herd. It seems for some reason they have never rebounded from that year. Why; drought, predators, loss of habitat, too many hunters, increasing elk numbers, all of the above? Will decreasing hunters help the rebound or is there something else we can do?

Brian, I think your plan is well thought out but in order for me to sign on I would want to get some answers to the above questions (if there are any) from those that know and if they don't know, they should be finding out. That is what we pay them to do, isn't it? It seems as of lately there have been many knee-jerk decisions made in Utah concerning our wildlife yet hunters are continually asking these same questions over and over on this site (some call them whiners). Before you submit your suggestion, ask the DWR (through your connections)these questions (and those of others) and post their responses for us all to read. An answer directly from the DWR, to all of your readers would be nothing short of extraordinary.

By the way, I think you have a hell of a site here and your database must contain a wealth of information concerning the opinions of many Utah hunters. Dump it on their laps!


Great post

John

 

[4x6]

Brian, i have put this thought out before and got slappppeeedddd down but i will put it out again, utah needs to just shut the whole deer hunt down for 2-3 years. then go back to normal except, make it either sex... there are alot of meat hunters out there who would rather take a big doe rather than a small 2 point.. but once again i'm sure this will get slamed down from every-body...... just my 2 cents!!!!!!

 

[Vek]

Don't know much about Utah, but here in Washington, the mule deer units I hunt are exclusively 3-pt or better (per side) areas. This became the rule sometime in the mid 90s. Lots of whining from the road crowd, but I'm 6 for my last 6 seasons hunted, dating back to 1994 (4-year break for college). Now, only one of these deer has been large enough to crow about (27" wide, heavy, knurly 3x5), but the others have been respectable. I consider the huntable number of deer to be pretty good. The general rifle season is shorter now, too (2 weekends and the week between = 8 days), and late season mule deer hunts (read: easier access) are limited by drawing. Doe tags are issued by drawing. One deer of any species (blackie, whitey, mule) per hunter per year period.

Most of the other western states seem to have MUCH more liberal seasons and bag limits. Back these off some, implement a 3-pt or better law, and watch your herd grow.

 

[quickdrawkinker]

Brian,
I like the way you're thinking--maintain hunting opportunities and at the same time forcing hunters to think twice about dumping a two-point so that he doesn't go home empty handed. I think your headed in the right direction with this--toss the idea of breaking the state up into smaller units to manage and I think we've got a winner or atleast a good start.

 

[COHunter]

One big downside wasn't mentioned

Colorado gets even more crowded as all the "1" tag per year people come over to get their deer fix.

 

[bobcattrapper]

Brian I know what you are saying, but I don't like the plan. First of all how are you going to make sure people are being honest? I think what will really happen is a lot of us will not get to go hunting because we get our deer and some other guy will go out and get ten.

In addition I think it will weaken hunters as a group. A law like this might cause people just to quit hunting. Also it would be difficult to teach your children about hunting and get them to like it. IMO

 

[bigbullhunter]

that sounds good but there are is a flaw that i seen right off the bat. 1) the two year rule would open up more poaching incidents. I think that if we went to 3 point or better in the units that were over hunted I.E cache unit it will also reduce success but bring up the buck to doe populations. OR we could go back to what it was like in the 50's and 60's and have the hunt 3 point or better opening weekend then either sex after opening weekend. This way if a hunter is just out for meat then he/she could take a doe. The way this latter hunt was explained to me was that not everyone wants to shoot a trophy and it would be a good hunt to have for the younger hunters and the ones getting up on the years.

Just my 2 cents

BBH

 

[desertbull]

Doesn't that mean you could only draw for tags every other year? Say you give out 1,000 tags in year 1 and 500 people fill their tag. What do you do the second year? Only give out 500 more tags or wait till all the current tags have expired efore isuuing more?

I think the idea has some merit, but it should probably be tested on a unit or 2 before being adopted statewide.

 

[Bura Nut]

Brian: Here in AZ we ended up butting heads for the last few years with our game department specifically on the doe harvest objectives for the Kaibab. What we finally had to do is to go out of pocket for a respected private company staffed with biologists etc....and present information that questioned AZGFD's existing "management model". This study was presented as concepts/strategies to increase the populations through new management practices. These practices include agressive predator control, revised browse transections and field verification of actual populations and not basing the existing herd size on 1960 population numbers. We recieved buy in from AZGFD because we fund alot of their projects the state budget couldnt. I would suggest that someone contact AZGFD and see what they are doing with your issues specifically as well as how their handling the 9th circuit court decision or Utah will be in even worse shape than you see today....... Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[2_Point]

I think it is great that We hunters keep thinking about how to improve our deer herd. But, every time a reccomendation is made to increase Utah's deer herd the subject is always about bucks. Buck deer are the least important part of the puzzle. On our ranch, we run 1 bull per 30 cows. More bulls than that and they are just eating the grass that could go to a cow giving life to a calf.

It only takes 5-7 bucks to breed 100 doe. Higher numbers of bucks do increase the overall population (by numbers), but do not increase the overall health of the herd.

In one Spring (1970's I believe), the UDWR shot around 100 doe deer in the Indianola area to see if they were pregnant. The reason for this was that the area had a 4 bucks per 100 doe ratio. The surveyed doe population were bred at a sufficeint rate. The results were conclusive that 4 bucks per 100 doe was enough to breed the doe population.

Now, I don't want to get fried, so I'll say I am for higher buck doe ratios. It provides more big bucks to chase, helps some areas fawn earlier, and provides me more "horn porn".

Brian stated that he wanted these changes to help increase the deer herd to objective, 425,000. This won't do that. We need to produce more fawns, which can grow-up to be doe, to have more fawns, which will grow up to be doe, to have more fawns..... How do we create more doe? Well we shoot predators, manipulate habitat, alter doe harvest, and pray for RAIN.

Utah is in a drought. Has been for 7 years. THe deer never recovered from the winters of 92 and 94 because the enviornmental conditions did not permit them to. After the winter of 92 hunters were cut from 250,000 to 97,000. That cut in hunting licenses did not produce a large jump in deer populations, but saved to existing deer. Buck doe ratios then were 8-11 bucks per 100 doe. Now they are 15+ to 100.

I'll probably not shoot a buck in Utah, I'm too picky. But I don't care if Joe down the street wants to pound a 2 point to enjoy with his kids and have some jerky. There are enough bucks after the hunt to do their service.
Just some food for thought.

 

[bobcattrapper]

Great points, Two Point

 

[DallanC]

Good point 2ptr


Ok guys you really want a system to increase deer populations here in Utah? Here it is:


Tax incentives to farmers / ranchers who have target populations on their properties.


I always thought it was amusing that when the whole "spotted owl" thing during the '80s in the North East made the news. It worked like this: If an endangered spotted owl was living on your property, the property was immediately reclassified as spotted owl habitat and the owner couldnt do anything to disturb the habitat. Good idea huh? So what happened? All those Christmas tree farmers would immediately SHOOT every damn spotted owl they found on their properties! They didnt want one to live there or they would loose their main source of income.

What should have happened is a major tax break given to landowners who have endangered owls living on their properties. Rather than a farmer / rancher fearing a nesting owl on his property, he would want to have as many as he could! Within a few years we'd have spotted owls comming out of our ears!

Now apply this to deer. I personally know several farmers who absolutely DETEST deer and elk. To them, THEY are nothing more than a nusence that costs them money. They pay to have fences put up, they force the F&G to pay damage costs... some of them even shoot the animals under the nusence clause (its legal).

What if instead, those people were given tax breaks for animals living on their property? Now you would have property owners creating some springs, food and shelter areas, basically habitat to support those animals. Most animals migrate so with a few rare exceptions, I doubt the animals would remain fully on someones private property year around.

Something like $25 per 100 doe days (ie: doe spending 100 days on a property, sorta like how they determine animal days in WY for private property), $50 per 100 3pt or better buck days. etc etc. Heck it might not even have to be actual tax refund money but a free tag or something that would cost the taxpayers very little.

Habitat, drought, winter and predators are the 4 greatest factors keeping our herds from recovering. We need ideas on how to deal with these issues if we want long term recovery. Right now there is very little incentive for farmers / ranchers to support wild game populations.


-DallanC

 

[bigbacks]

I think thats a great idea.but, leave the dedicated hunters to their 2 tags in three years put a smaller quota on the deds per region,to give the south a break,and maybe limit the one deer per two years to the rifle and muzzy hunters since most the deer are killed by them anyway.Then if they kill a buck in the first year let them buy a bow tag,this will help with the revenue issue. Otherwise shut er down for a couple years. I always hear about "the way it was" the only problem now is to many people I think they still had hard winters and drought back then and the deer managed,and they need to quit allowing them to develop winter range.

 

[peakfreak]

> I think you are on to something. I love to hunt and have not harvested a deer since 1995. If I'm lucky I draw every other year. I grew up hunting every year. The deer hunt was like Christmas for me. I had a hard time sleeping the night before it opened. Big bucks were all I could think about. I was lucky to get a 28" 4x4 my first year (1988) so I never wanted to shoot a small buck after that. Back then it was three point or better and it made a difference.

top reasons to make hunting better:

1. don't shoot does for a few years
2. kill every coyote possible (money for killing dogs)
3. have three point or better areas
4. put more work and money into habitat
5. cut off all poachers shooting fingers


peakfreak

 

[BigChicken]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-13-04 AT 03:47PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-13-04 AT 03:45?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Aug-13-04 AT 03:42?PM (MST)

Brian,

I don't like the idea of only having one tag in two years; statistically, I'll probably only harvest one deer every fourth year anyway (why limit "opportunity" if it doesn't effect "quality"?). The same result can be achieved by reducing the number of tags, just as Utah already has done. If the state needs to reduce harvest even more or divide into smaller regions than I'll support that too.

Since weather is the one obstacle that we have absolutely no control over we need to make adjustment to what we can: Harvest, Predators, and Competing Species. I think the state should look at each management unit and make the proper adjustments. I know they are already trying to do this but it would be nice to see them get serious with some experimental units.

Take some struggling units and close them to all hunting for a couple of years, take other units and remove ALL cougars, in others take out all coyotes, and yet in others harvest a good number of cow elk. Try different combinations of these experiments in different units and take a look at the results. Just a hunch, but I have a feeling deer populations would improve, even if the weather doesn't want to cooperate.

All I know is, bucks don't have babies and cougar crap does count as a deer during a population estimate. Factors other than the weather are hindering the muley's recovery, the least we can do is determine what these hindrances are, and do something about them. I would love to see the Division ACTUALLY carry out these tests, I'm sure they could find willing hands to help with the predator control and elk harvest and if someone doesn't want to cooperate with the closing and area; I like that removal of trigger fingers idea.

Good Luck and Good Fight,
Big Chicken

 

[30inchbucks]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-04 AT 02:50PM (MST)[p]Brian,
I wish it would work but it won't. Too many Utah hunters that hunt like grandpa. How many hunters do you honestly think will kill a deer their first year and not kill one on the second? Tags either need to be cut or seasons shortened. How about a statewide 3 day rifle hunt and that is it. Muzzleloader 5 days and that is it. Bowhunt 14 days max. Something like that could possibly work. Heavy fines on unethical Atv use. Can't have them all over the tops of 13,000 foot peaks tearing up the resource. Animals need a place to hide. Seriously, I think shorter seasons would decrease harvest enough so we could keep giving out the 97,000 tags drought or no drought. That many tags with seasons going all fall obviously isn't working. I don't know all the answers but I do know something needs to be done. And another thing how many of you have been checked on a general deer hunt?I have never been checked 20+years of hunting Utah. What does that tell you? How many deer each year are hauled in untagged? I'll bet a 10k fine along with weapons and vehicles confiscated would put alot more tags on them deer. How about a mandatory questionaire on harvest to each hunter and failure to do it is a forfeiture of next years hunting privileges. There is so much crap that could be done to better manage our game but it's not. Right now the DWR does not have a clue on how many deer are taken off Utahs mountains yearly so I don't know where they are getting their numbers. I've never been checked or been asked to fill out a harvest questionaire in 20+ years and I'm sure there are very few that have. Success rates are alot higher than the DWR's guess rates in my opinion.

 

[muleyguy]

Brian,

The idea has great merit.....but as somebody said above, we also need to increase the amount of does. In addition to your idea, all doe harvests, regardless of weapon choice, need to be halted.

The biggest problem with your idea will be the guiding/outfitting industry. They will kill any idea in short order that significantly reduces the number of buck tags available.

Please do not take this the wrong way because it sounds like you have put a great deal of thought into this, but the SOLUTIONS to the mule deer problem are rather easy; any mechanism that significantly reduces buck and doe harvests will quickly fix the herds.

The fight isn't about the idea, the fight is about the money. Less tags = less money for the guiding industry, the SFW, etc, etc. Whoever is the most politically organized wins, and unfortunately, that typically is the people who derive their living from mule deer.

 

[Foreman4x4]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-04 AT 06:34PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-04 AT 06:32 PM (MST)

There have been several good points made in this thread, but I personally don't see any worthwhile changes taking place anytime soon simply because the State and the DWR's main concern seems to be money. You guys do realize that the funds generated from license sales go into the general fund, right? If they went into a seperate fund to benefit wildlife, such as Wyoming does, and the State didn't depend on them for roads, etc., we'd be a whole lot better off.

Most of the guys I've spoken to have said they would be more than willing to forego deer hunting for a year or two if they thought they had a better chance at a decent buck, but again, I also don't think that's real fair to the guys who are after a meat buck. I don't know what the solution is, because no matter what, someone will get their toes stepped on. Myself, I wish they'd cut the number of tags right in half and double the fees.

I also think some DWR employees should be standing in the unemployment line. I know it doesn't have anything directly to do with the deer herds, but the idiots that were responsible for the slaughter of the elk on the Fishlake should've lost their jobs; afterall, aren't the biologist getting paid to determine how many tags should be issued? WTF?

One of the biggest gripes I have is with the areas that are limited to a five day hunt. Good hell, if there's enough of a problem to warrant a shortened season, shut the unit down completely! I'd wager that 80% of the deer killed in any respective unit are killed on the opening weekend.

I also agree with the post about moving the blackpowder hunt back to November. Sure there may have been a few more "mature" bucks harvested, but I guarantee there were no where near the overall numbers of deer being killed with muzzleloaders then as compared to now. Again, most guys I've talked to that have switched to the blackpowder hunt said it's because "It's a good time of year to camp". Temps in the teens and a foot or two of snow on the gound tends to keep a lot of people home in front of the TV. I used to be able to go the whole ML hunt and see maybe one or two other guys, now it's as bad, if not worse than the general rifle hunt. Who knows, maybe my views are selfish, but it sure seems like a lot guys share my same feelings.

 

[30inchbucks]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-04 AT 00:24AM (MST)[p]Foreman4X4 and muleyguy,
I would like to see some harvest numbers comparing the early vs. late season muzzleloader hunts but the problem is that the DWR don't have the numbers. They don't have a clue how many deer are being harvested yearly. If the numbers are higher for the early then I agree to move the muzzleloader back to the later time .Good point about the Fishlake elk herd and that slaughter. Also muleyguy good point about the does. We have no business taking does off of the mountains when the herd is struggling. If there is a depredation problem then the hunt should be in the valleys and the fields(private property) and not on BLM and Forest ground.

 

[Gator]

I think you should add a shorter season(like the one in SE Utah it only a 5 dya season for rifle hunters and the bucks do look like they are starting to get alittle bigger each year. Then every 5 years or so close the unit down for 3 years and just rotate this around from unit to unit in Ten years time the BUCKS would be bigger in all the units. I think it the right track Hope it happens>

 

[bobcatbess]

THE PROBLEMS ARE MULTIPLE!!!

THE SOLUTIONS ARE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE!!!

I WON'T COVER THEM ALL,I AIN'T GOT THAT MUCH TIME!!!

1-YOU CAN'T LET EVERYBODY AND THEIR BUDDIES BUDDY HUNT EVERY SEASON,EVERY SPECIES, EVERY YEAR,CAN ANYBODY SEE THIS???

2-CUT BACK ON TAG SALES,THIS DOESN'T MEAN CUT BACK ON TAG NUMBERS IN CERTAIN AREA'S AND LET THEM HUNT IN A DIFFERENT AREA ALREADY IN TROUBLE NEXT YEAR!!!

3-CUT BACK ON DEVELOPEMENT IN WINTER GROUNDS,OR SHOULD I SAY STOP IT ALL TOGETHER???

4-PUT SOME DWR OFFICERS IN THE FIELD WILLING TO PUT SOME PRESSURE ON POACHERS,EVEN IF IT MEANS MISSING BREAKFAST AT 9:00 A.M.!!!

5-STOP CONTINUOUS AND OVERLAPPING HUNTS FOR 7 MONTHS STRAIGHT!!!

6-STOP TECHNOLOGY!!!

7-STOP OVERGRAZING!!!

8-ABSOLUTELY *NO DOE SHOOTER HUNTS*!!!

9-CUT A POACHERS HAND OFF AT THE WRIST WHEN CAUGHT!!!

10-SPEND SOME MONEY TO PREVENT SO DAMN MANY ROADKILLS!!!

11-STOP THE DROUGHT,PLEASE!!!

12-START MANAGING DEER HERDS TO INCREASE QUANTITY AND QUALITY RATHER THAN FOR MONEY AND GREED!!!

13-QUIT OVERHUNTING!!!

14-OUTLAW HORNS & ANTLERS FROM BEING SO VALUABLE!!!

15-(I LIKE THIS ONE) OUTLAW EVERY ############# ATV OFF THE FOREST & BLM!!!

16-OUTLAW HIGH POWERED BOWS!!!

17-OUTLAW HIGH POWERED SPOTTING SCOPES & BINO'S & SCOPES!!!

18-OUTLAW SPOTLIGHTS!!!

19-OUTLAW PARTY HUNTING AND LETTING EVERYBODY PUTTING ALL THEIR FRIENDS AND RELATES IN THRE BIG GAME DRAWINGS!!!

20-INDUCE GENETICS BY TRANSPLANTING AND MIXING THE MATCH!!!

21-RATHER THAN EMERGENCY DOE SHOOTER HUNTS IN A PROBLEM AREA,TRANSPLANT THEM ELSEWHERE PLEASE!!!

22-KILL EVERY COYOTE YOU SEE!!!(DON'T WORRY YOU WON'T EVER GET THEM ALL!!!)

23-OUTLAW HIGH POWERED 2 WAY RADIO'S!!!

24-OUTLAW ROADHUNTING ALLTOGETHER!!!

25-OUTLAW GPS SYSTEMS!!!

26-ABSOLUTELY NO RANGEFINDERS ALLOWED!!!

27-50,000.00 FINE FOR POACHING A TROPHY ANIMAL!!!

28-OUTLAW BUILDING ROADS AND TRAILS DOWN EVERY RIDGE IN THE STATE!!!(I THINK THEY'VE WAITED TOO LONG!!!)

29-STOP EVOLUTION!!!

30-STOP KILLING EVERY SMALL BUCK IN THE STATE!!!

31-QUIT OVERHUNTING EVERY UNIT IN THE STATE!!!

32-OUTLAW UNETHICAL HUNTERS NOW!!!

33-PLEASE LET HUNTERS KEEP THEIR BONUS POINTS BUT CHANGE THIS SYSTEM SO IT IS FAIR,I'M LIVING PROOF THAT POINTS MAY NOT MEAN MUCH!!!

34-STOP OVERHUNTING UNITS UNTILL THEY'RE DECIMATED AND THE UNIT HAS TO BE CLOSED!!!

35-QUIT KILLING THE LAST FEW SHOOTERS WE HAVE LEFT IN DECEMBER!!!

THERE ARE SEVERAL HUNDRED CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE,HOPEFULLY BRIAN YOU CAN FIX THEM ALL,I'VE ONLY LISTED A FEW OF THEM,WE ARE DUE FOR MAJOR CHANGES,EVEN IF IT MAKES PEOPLE MAD,REMEMBER,YOU CAN'T SATISFY EVERYBODY IN THIS STATE!!!

THE ONLY bobcat THINKING THE LIST COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON!!!

 

[ktc]

The problems are multiple, but the problems we have control over remain unsolved.

One guy mentioned 80% of the deer are killed opening weekend. That is not the case where I go. After the third or fourth day, you start seeing guys hauling "meat" bucks out because they wanted some "meat." They look for a big one, then when they don't find it they want blood on their hands and kill something. Hunters will not police themselves and for anyone to believe that will happen is up in the night.

I find it odd that many state they haven't killed a deer for years. Why is that? No bucks? No big bucks? Are you honestly believing you are doing some good? Well, maybe you are, but usually, someone, at some point, will kill what you didn't.

The biggest difference I have witnessed with our herd is the 97,000 cap. When someone says cut it more, they cry opportunity. When someone throws an idea out to limit the amount of killing one can do, that isn't fair. What is fair? Cut the damn tags. Cut them and for those who cry about not going, too bad. Cut the tags and maybe some more difference in herd numbers will be seen as was the case back when the cap was established. Hunting is a privledge, not a god-given right.

One opposed view is that people will break the law. Well, robbing banks is against the law, so since some people do it, no need for a bank robbery law.

Another scenario is to limit access. There are very few areas where a road and ATV trail are not close by. Put some gates up. Get off your lazy butt and hike, walk, or whatever you do. If you choose to road hunt you will be limited. It shouldn't be the other way around.

 

[muleyguy]

ok, over 30 responses to Brian's idea....seems the vast majority are in favor of some sort of tag reduction......now, how many of these responses are from guides/outfitters?? My guess is very few. So, if you are a guide out there, speak up, lets hear your views on tag reductions.....