schoolhousegrizz
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,678
I know the application period has been pushed back about a month and a half. Have they said when will know the amount of permits for the different units and species?
Yes, good point. The proposed #’s will be available and will have been reviewed by all of the RAC’s before the deadline. Having said that, the WB could always change something last minute after the application period has closed, but hopefully that would be rare.If I remember right, the numbers may not be finalized but the proposed numbers will be available so you should have a good idea while applying.
While that is true they could change them, it is unlikely. The DWR usually has a pretty good idea of what the board will approve before they submit the numbers. I haven't followed those meetings alot but I can't remember them ever changing the proposed numbers. At least not in recent years.Yes, good point. The proposed #’s will be available and will have been reviewed by all of the RAC’s before the deadline. Having said that, the WB could always change something last minute after the application period has closed, but hopefully that would be rare.
Agree, in that sense it takes away the potential benefit of the "lucky guess" factor. But I think overall in the grand scheme it is probably better to know, than not.If everyone knows the tag allocations won’t it change people’s applications and cause point creep?
If everyone knows the tag allocations won’t it change people’s applications and cause point creep?
I think it would all end up a wash. You will get some who decide to apply based on the numbers, but we are just as likely to see others NOT put in because of the numbers, in fact, because people with fewer BPs far outnumber those with more, maybe it helps point creep for some hunts as people choose to buy a point rather than put in.So if there are more tags for a certain hunt, and everyone knows it, people won’t change their application plans?
I guess I don't see the logic in that. Why would someone not put in? Technically, they have a better shot than everyone else. If you're going to put in, you're going to put in, or should anyways your not out anything.I think it would all end up a wash. You will get some who decide to apply based on the numbers, but we are just as likely to see others NOT put in because of the numbers, in fact, because people with fewer BPs far outnumber those with more, maybe it helps point creep for some hunts as people choose to buy a point rather than put in.
It absolutely did happen on the Wasatch as well as a couple other units to a lesser extent. Around 40 tags pulled from muzzloader and another 40 or so pulled from archery. Most of those went to the mid season hunt, with a few going to the late hunt. Their reasoning was to "get the tag allocation % back in check" they had scewed the % numbers in recent years by giving more of the extra tags to those lower success hunts in an effort to reduce harvest and they felt they could give those tags back to the rifle hunts and not effect the numbers.Jake, did they really pull tags from archery and muzzy to do mid-rifle and late rifle tags? That doesn’t sound right. I thought the archery/muzzy/rifle distribution remained the same.
Another topic- Seeing tag numbers before applying isn’t going to all the sudden make more people apply. You might see a small number of people jump around pools, but that is already happening now and if it makes one hunt harder to draw, it will make another one easier. This will not impact point creep.
Gotcha. A fixing of their prior acts of messing up allocation percentages. Makes sense why they would look in line with what you’d expect.
Don't know that I would call it messing up, just trying something different to see how it worked. Nothing wrong with that.
Still could have waited another year when they could have given people a warning.
They didn't take tags from rifle hunters, they just added more to the archery and muzzy hunts when they had extra tags to give. It's not the same.Did they give the rifle hunters an extra year of notice before removing the tags and putting them in the archery and muzzy pools? I'm not sure I'm seeing the difference in 'just trying something different' by moving tags or moving them back to 'stick to the plan.' If there was nothing wrong with one, there should be nothing wrong with the other.
Either way, the largest point for me is that these types of situations should be reduced with them pushing back the application deadline, and that is a good thing.
I’m curious what the percentage of bow vs rifle actually is. I figured most hunters nowadays hunt with all 3…… but I don’t know the numbersMy point is much less about tag allocation and much more about getting the permit numbers out before people apply.
But on the other topic, if they dropped the permit allocations below what is intended for each weapon, then they did in fact "take" from one weapon type. I'd be fine doubling the archery tags if the resource can take it, but don't take opportunities away from others to do so. That is just plain selfish to suggest otherwise. Not everyone should need to become a bow hunter to be able to get a tag to hunt, especially when the VAST MAJORITY of hunters in our state are not bow hunters.
The bow hunters that annoy me are very much a very small minority, they just are loud enough you hear them and they won't shut up. Almost all bow hunters are just like me: They want to go hunt and enjoy themselves hunting and want others to be able to do so as well. But there is really loud group of small people that will never be satiated until they get what they want and screw everyone else in the process...and they just so happen to be bow hunters. Go figure!
……I’m not doubting you. But is this conjecture or have you seen data supporting it?Nope. Rifle hunters would outnumber all other types of hunters combined in Utah.
That is why most tags go to (and should continue to go to) rifle hunts.
I disagree. Most tags should go to lower success type of hunts. More tags could be given out with similar harvest numbers and that is the simplest way to reduce point creep.Nope. Rifle hunters would outnumber all other types of hunters combined in Utah.
That is why most tags go to (and should continue to go to) rifle hunts.
Give us the link to your vlog and we can at least SMASH ?the like button and subscribe to boost your following-isn’t the # of followers you have the determining factor for how cool (or hard core) you are?Man, if I could only be as hard core as you all!
#hunttolive #followmyvlog #firebull
What does this mean?No test needed-simply give a lot more archery tags (or less successful methods) and those who want to hunt bad enough will jump in. It really is the best way to address point creep if we want to get serious about that issue.
No reason to cater to the lazy or less committed and hold everyone back just because there are “more of them”.
It is addressing the point made by some that we should continue to give the bulk of tags to rifle hunters simply because rifle ONLY hunters make up the vast majority of the population (this results in very low supply of tags due to high success, while demand is ever increasing)What does this mean?
Well said.It is addressing the point made by some that we should continue to give the bulk of tags to rifle hunters simply because rifle ONLY hunters make up the vast majority of the population (this results in very low supply of tags due to high success, while demand is ever increasing)
If we really want to address point creep, the “pie” or supply has to be increased in some way. The best way to currently do that is to increase tags for methods that are less successful (archery, HAMS, etc.). If people really want to hunt, they will adapt to whatever method is needed to participate (most guys on this site fall in that bucket). If they are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt, they can continue to put in for special very limited high success rifle hunts that may take 30-40 years to draw. We shouldn’t hold back on addressing this issue just because the majority may not like it.
There really are many other ways that Utah could address point creep without making derogatory comments toward the majority of hunters in the state. I think the best way to address point creep would be put ALL deer and elk tags, including the so-called general tags and antlerless tags, in the same draw pool, but I know that is not what the majority of hunters want. The majority of hunters want to hunt deer and/or elk every year and have a chance to draw an awesome limited entry hunt. We like to have our cake and eat it too. I enjoy archery as much as anyone, but it does not make me better or more deserving than anyone else. If the majority of hunters are content to wait for a rifle tag, then that is by their own choice. Nobody has to wait 30 or 40 years to draw an elk tag if they don’t want to. One could argue that the “point creep problem” is being overplayed.It is addressing the point made by some that we should continue to give the bulk of tags to rifle hunters simply because rifle ONLY hunters make up the vast majority of the population (this results in very low supply of tags due to high success, while demand is ever increasing)
If we really want to address point creep, the “pie” or supply has to be increased in some way. The best way to currently do that is to increase tags for methods that are less successful (archery, HAMS, etc.). If people really want to hunt, they will adapt to whatever method is needed to participate (most guys on this site fall in that bucket). If they are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt, they can continue to put in for special very limited high success rifle hunts that may take 30-40 years to draw. We shouldn’t hold back on addressing this issue just because the majority may not like it.
Calling rifle hunters lazy or less committed is kind of offensive, and it sounds very Elitist. lol.The problem with this conversation is some get defensive way too easily. I am not trying to be derogatory, offensive, or elitist (at the end of the day, I am a hunter not a bow hunter, muzzy, or rifle hunter)
The major problem we face in the west is that demand to hunt has FAR outpaced supply. There are not a lot of viable solutions to increase the overall pie (especially because we can’t always control many of the factors that limit herd #’s).
One way to increase the pie is to simply give more tags to less successful weapons. This isn’t about weapon types and one group trying to get one over on another, it is about making the pie bigger
Really sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings-it shouldn’t be that controversial. ??
Read my post again-I did not call ALL rifle hunters lazy or less committed (I use a rifle on many hunts). I said we should not cater the entire system to those who are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt to changes involving weapon types because they represent a majority.Calling rifle hunters lazy or less committed is kind of offensive, and it sounds very Elitist. lol.
So, I have a question for you, hypothetical of course, If a person draws a permit that they can use any weapon and they choose to use a rifle are the Lazy or less motivated or both?
Oh, not all people that hunt with a rifle are too lazy and not committed, Just the majority of them. Gottcha.Read my post again-I did not call ALL rifle hunters lazy or less committed (I use a rifle on many hunts). I said we should not cater the entire system to those who are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt to changes involving weapon types because they represent a majority.
You can still give them the option for their special rifle hunt with the result of hunting far less, or they can take up a less successful weapon and get more opportunity to hunt more often (something for everyone). It is not complicated, but people get too caught up in weapon type and “fairness”.
Yep, you got me. Sorry to hurt your feelings.Oh, not all people that hunt with a rifle are too lazy and not committed, Just the majority of them. Gottcha.
Thank you.Yep, you got me. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
Let’s hear your solution to increasing the pie and minimizing point creep.
Again… what is your solution or approach to lessen the bleeding? I don’t need you to rehash the issue and I never said we could solve all point creep-that is not possible.Thank you.
Even if every tag was archery and the DWR tripled the permits there would still be point creep. There were more applicants this year than last and there will be more next year than this. And each successive point group has more than the one above it. Sometimes by an exponential amount. Point creep is here to stay unless you have 10,000 bucks and bulls in your back pocket.
You and others only want more archery permits because you think someone else will be unsuccessful.
If you think that giving out double or even triple the amount of archery permits is going to allow a person to draw a LE elk or Deer permit every 6 or 8 years, you are up in the night. Not going to happen.
The pie is only so big, and the eaters are increasing at an unprecedented rate. No matter how you slice the pie, someone isn't going to get a piece.
And, calling a majority of hunters too lazy and not committed doesn't grow more critters. It just hardens their stance against archery elitists.
That’s funny coming from the guy that takes an instant shot at anyone who suggests using primitive weapons to increase opportunity. You view that approach as removing opportunity from a rifle hunter and I view it as providing more choices and opportunity to everyone.ElkhunterUT, you’re full of crap. You take specific shots at people and then try to say you’re aren’t trying to be derogatory. Throw haymakers, then play the victim. There are lots of terms for that, but I’ll just say full of crap.
You say our problem is point creep, and I think our problem is removing existing opportunities for hunters. We live in a democratic republic. Majorities guide. Keep telling rifle hunters how lazy and uncommitted they are. Maybe you’ll get them fired up enough to show up to the public process in droves and we’ll see how that goes for your plans to make archery hunting more easy at the expense of other groups.
This is what kills me. I literally never see rifle hunters asking to take opportunities away from others. I’m all for increased archery opportunities. I think they can be done without screwing other groups, but it seems you are hell bent on doing so. Declare war, see how that goes for you.
They don’t have to when they have the majority of the tags, some of the better seasons and until recently, the most hunts set aside for them. Pretty hard to ask for more, when you have the most to begin with.I literally never see rifle hunters asking to take opportunities away from others. I’m all for increased archery opportunities.
No war here (I am a hunter & use all weapon types) and even if there were, I would actually be winning. I don’t need to convince you of anything.Another falsehood. I’m fine adding archery permits. I would 100% stand up for more archery opportunities. But if you take them from other hunt pools, you are, in fact, removing opportunities from people to do so. That’s simply selfish.
You can say it isn’t, but it’s a simple fact. What you’re asking me to do here is look at something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but you want me to call it a lion.
You can keep up with your faux war. You’ll lose. Then you can come on here and whine about point creep, try to make fun of 65% of the hunters in Utah then pretend you didn’t, and make more crap up that didn’t happen.
I just want to go hunting, and I want you to be able to as well. That’s the difference between the two of us.
Vanilla, how do you propose adding more archery hunts without getting away from the set weapon percentage allocations?Another falsehood. I’m fine adding archery permits. I would 100% stand up for more archery opportunities. But if you take them from other hunt pools, you are, in fact, removing opportunities from people to do so. That’s simply selfish.
You can say it isn’t, but it’s a simple fact. What you’re asking me to do here is look at something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but you want me to call it a lion.
Judist……….this thread snow balled.
In fact you was all for them taking tags from archery and muzzleloader to give to rifle hunts last year.
OK, if that was a misunderstanding, then so be it.Not true. I have never advocated taking permits away from anyone. I would be the first person to stand up and defend archery hunters if there was a proposal to reduce their numbers, even if the percentage of tags allocated to archery hunters is already out of proportion to the number of hunters.
To answer the “how?” If you’re adding tags to the pot, add them wherever you want. I misunderstood your post if I those were added and not previously removed from other hunts.
Again, you will find me consistently saying I’m for more people hunting. All types of people! There will never be a post you see me asking for opportunities to be taken away. Now, if one day actual biologists (not internet biologists) came and said hunting is creating a limiting factor for our herds and we need to cut tags, I’d support that because biology should always trump sociology in these policy decisions. That’s actually one reason I’ve always opposed moving around hunt dates and weapon type allocations: biology doesn’t need it, only selfish elitists “need” it.
I’m excited to see more hunters in the field chasing elk over the next few years. I hope to be one of them!
They are going the slaughter the elk on the mid rifle hunts with as late as the rut tends to be these days. Mid hunt needed to be a restricted weapon type huntNo war here (I am a hunter & use all weapon types) and even if there were, I would actually be winning. I don’t need to convince you of anything.
The people that really matter (decision makers like the wildlife board, DWR, and elk committee) already see the value in less successful weapon types and season dates. In 2023 there will be less rifle elk hunts in the rut and more tags for mid-season, late archery, HAMS, etc. Kudos to the DWR for doing the right thing for hunters and the resource!????
I don't disagree with that - headed in the right direction with the new elk plan but there are certainly some things that will need to be tweaked and changed or it could be a problem (mid-season rifle hunts being one of them for sure).They are going the slaughter the elk on the mid rifle hunts with as late as the rut tends to be these days. Mid hunt needed to be a restricted weapon type hunt
As JakeH mentioned earlier, the Wasatch has been sort of a proving grounds for different management approaches and the mid-season hunt hasn't had a drastic effect on the herd, but I don't know the #'s off the top of my head.
No doubt that we can, and need to, kill more bulls. There is a tipping point though, but I agree that point should be determined by biology and not sociology.
They pushed back the application process to allow people to know the proposed tag allocation for the hunts. This has been asked for by the public for a long time. The results will still be posted at the same time as usual.I thought this thread was about when tag quotas post. Did Utah push back the app deadline so we would have good numbers prior to deadline?
I hate it when states don't keep their place in line. Changing dates for no reason.
Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.
Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.
Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.
Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.
Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.
We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.
We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.
Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.
General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.