Keep scopes on muzzleloaders

ridgetops

Very Active Member
Messages
2,695
Slam, here's my reasoning concerning ethics and fair chase. We've already discussed that a high percentage of muzzy hunters are taking shots or killing their animals under 300 yards. In fact, the majority is probably under 200 yards. If you do some research you'll see that scopes were used on muzzys in the civil war. Sharpshooters we're killing people out to 1,000 yards. So it's not like scopes on muzzys is a new thing. I don't see why it's either unethical or not fair chase for someone to use a scope on a muzzleloader to kill something under 300 yards, when it's seems to be just fine to use a rifle of any kind over 500+ yards. It seems to me that it's more unethical to force hunters that already feel comfortable using a magnifying scope to switch to open sights or a 1x with a greater chance of wounding an animal. Those are my thoughts.
 
Slam, here's my reasoning concerning ethics and fair chase. We've already discussed that a high percentage of muzzy hunters are taking shots or killing their animals under 300 yards. In fact, the majority is probably under 200 yards. If you do some research you'll see that scopes were used on muzzys in the civil war. Sharpshooters we're killing people out to 1,000 yards. So it's not like scopes on muzzys is a new thing. I don't see why it's either unethical or not fair chase for someone to use a scope on a muzzleloader to kill something under 300 yards, when it's seems to be just fine to use a rifle of any kind over 500+ yards. It seems to me that it's more unethical to force hunters that already feel comfortable using a magnifying scope to switch to open sights or a 1x with a greater chance of wounding an animal. Those are my thoughts.
Such a simple concept and makes complete sense.
 
Somebody Can Send This Thread To the RAC/WB!

As All Of You Already Know:

I'm Not Against Removing Some Of The Technology/GADGETRY!

As Long As It's Done On An EQUAL Basis on ALL 3 Weapon Types and Fair & Square across The Board!

I Represent The SUFFERING DEER HERD In This State And All Sportsmen Wanting To See QUANTITY & QUALITY Within The Utah Deer Herd!

It's Gonna Be:

ALL GAVE SOME!

Not:

SOME GAVE ALL!

What Bothers Me The Most is:

These Current TECH Changes Are Not To Enhance QUANTITY & QUALITY!

It's To Put More Hunters in the Field & To Sell More Permits!

This State Will Produce Quality Bucks & Bulls Just About Anywhere When Managed Properly!

Let's Do Something RIGHT Guys!

Instead Of One More Way To Generate More Money Without Helping Our Herds!
 
elkassassin has to be a politician. Nobody on this forum can say more, mix in CAPS lock, talk 'common sense' and at the very same time say absolutely nothing that actually in the real world forwards his stated goals. Everyone wants 'QUALITY & QUANTITY' it's the actual plan and implementation that's the hard part. Seriously you should run for county commissioner or something, spouting vague bullsh!t that everyone can get behind without bringing one sensical solution to the table. I am in awe!

Somehow muzzy guys were doing just fine from 1980's-2016 with open sights and 1X+ power scopes. Now to take high power scopes away will suddenly wound scores of deer, be unethical and ruin everything. You really think that scopes and muzzleloaders from the civil war equate to our equipment today? They don't. You hear about the lucky shot some soldier made in 1864 and want that to justify the turreted Night Force scope on your CVA Paramount--sure ok whatever

Ridge-->If we followed your logic we should only allow the most lethal killing machines in hunters hands--trash the stick flippers, they wound too many animals, trash the traditional muzzy guys--too much wounding, etc. BS--wounding happens when folks push the range of their weapon into the unreasonable be that high end rifles to recurves. It's not unethical to force hunters into a weapon system definition--every single state does it and has been for decades

Ridge-->.I respect you as a great mule deer hunter but I disagree with your assertions and reasoning. You are a much better mule deer hunter than I ever will be but I think you are way off base on this. No hard feeling with what I am saying above.
 
elkassassin has to be a politician. Nobody on this forum can say more, mix in CAPS lock, talk 'common sense' and at the very same time say absolutely nothing that actually in the real world forwards his stated goals. Everyone wants 'QUALITY & QUANTITY' it's the actual plan and implementation that's the hard part. Seriously you should run for county commissioner or something, spouting vague bullsh!t that everyone can get behind without bringing one sensical solution to the table. I am in aw
It Wasn't Me That Started This BULLSSSHIT!

Pay The F Attention!

Evident-ally You Missed HELL-F'N-RIGHT!

Me & Ridge Has Bunted Heads/RAZZED Each Other For Years & We Are Still Friends!

He's Only Wrong In Your Eyes!

Somehow muzzy guys were doing just fine from 1980's-2016 with open sights and 1X+ power scopes. Now to take high power scopes away will suddenly wound scores of deer, be unethical and ruin everything. You really think that scopes and muzzleloaders from the civil war equate to our equipment today? They don't. You hear about the lucky shot some soldier made in 1864 and want that to justify the turreted Night Force scope on your CVA Paramount--sure ok whatever

Ridge-->If we followed your logic we should only allow the most lethal killing machines in hunters hands--trash the stick flippers, they wound too many animals, trash the traditional muzzy guys--too much wounding, etc. BS--wounding happens when folks push the range of their weapon into the unreasonable be that high end rifles to recurves. It's not unethical to force hunters into a weapon system definition--every single state does it and has been for decades

Ridge-->.I respect you as a great mule deer hunter but I disagree with your assertions and reasoning. You are a much better mule deer hunter than I ever will be but I think you are way off base on this. No hard feeling with what I am saying above.
 
elkassassin has to be a politician. Nobody on this forum can say more, mix in CAPS lock, talk 'common sense' and at the very same time say absolutely nothing that actually in the real world forwards his stated goals. Everyone wants 'QUALITY & QUANTITY' it's the actual plan and implementation that's the hard part. Seriously you should run for county commissioner or something, spouting vague bullsh!t that everyone can get behind without bringing one sensical solution to the table. I am in awe!

Somehow muzzy guys were doing just fine from 1980's-2016 with open sights and 1X+ power scopes. Now to take high power scopes away will suddenly wound scores of deer, be unethical and ruin everything. You really think that scopes and muzzleloaders from the civil war equate to our equipment today? They don't. You hear about the lucky shot some soldier made in 1864 and want that to justify the turreted Night Force scope on your CVA Paramount--sure ok whatever

Ridge-->If we followed your logic we should only allow the most lethal killing machines in hunters hands--trash the stick flippers, they wound too many animals, trash the traditional muzzy guys--too much wounding, etc. BS--wounding happens when folks push the range of their weapon into the unreasonable be that high end rifles to recurves. It's not unethical to force hunters into a weapon system definition--every single state does it and has been for decades

Ridge-->.I respect you as a great mule deer hunter but I disagree with your assertions and reasoning. You are a much better mule deer hunter than I ever will be but I think you are way off base on this. No hard feeling with what I am saying above.
Guys did just fine with open sights and 1x because that's all that was offered. Once magnifying scopes were legal, most people put one on because it's a better way to shoot a tighter group at 100+ yards. I would be against archery going to one pin sight and no range finders too. That would also be a big step backwards. I'm not opposed to stopping further or future advancements but I am opposed to taking a step or two backwards. I do believe a lot of people feel the same way I do. About the scope issue, in the past most hawkin type muzzys never had an option to put a scope on, so people just used what was available but all modern muzzys are drilled and tapped for scopes.
 
Slam, here's my reasoning concerning ethics and fair chase. We've already discussed that a high percentage of muzzy hunters are taking shots or killing their animals under 300 yards. In fact, the majority is probably under 200 yards. If you do some research you'll see that scopes were used on muzzys in the civil war. Sharpshooters we're killing people out to 1,000 yards. So it's not like scopes on muzzys is a new thing. I don't see why it's either unethical or not fair chase for someone to use a scope on a muzzleloader to kill something under 300 yards, when it's seems to be just fine to use a rifle of any kind over 500+ yards. It seems to me that it's more unethical to force hunters that already feel comfortable using a magnifying scope to switch to open sights or a 1x with a greater chance of wounding an animal. Those are my thoughts.
To me this whole thing has nothing to do with ethics or fair chase. It’s about creating less successful hunters so more tags can be issued. In my opinion ethics and fair chase are just being used as an excuse to get the scopes off. The problem with the argument of taking off the scopes is the data provided suggests taking the scopes off wouldn’t decrease the success rates at all. Then it’s argued well it’s not necessarily the success rate but the quality of animals that are being harvested. Are all the mature deer being killed by 300+ yard muzzleloaders, or is it 100+ yard bows, or 1000+ yard rifles? In my opinion the top 2% of hunters are killing the top 2% of deer regardless of weapon or technology they are using.

I agree with Ridge that future technologies need to be kept in check but there is no reason to go backwards when the data we have suggests there’s no reason too. If the success rates had jumped when the scopes were put on then that’s a different story.

If the scopes come off can we move the muzzleloader hunt back to November?? Would that be ethical or fair chase??
 
The top 2% will still kill the top 2%, not everyone uses turrets on their muzzle. I just like to be able to see decent at what I am shooting at
Ya, at 300+ yards! This thing has gotten completely out of hand. If you have have an inline and you're going to shoot at the distances that require a high power scope, go out on the regular rifle hunt. This was meant as a so called "handy-cap" hunt or in other words a hunt that didn't have a accuracy or distance of a high power rifle. It has certainly got away from that with these new fangled muzzleloaders. We need some regulation changes.
 
And why is Utah the last to see the light? With deer herds the way they are - just why? Love what you are doing with the sheep, but what about deer. This is certainly meant for the Wildlife Board.
 
I can see the efficacy of both sides of this. On the one hand, muzzies were intended to be a primitive (for lack of a better term) firearm. On the other, the advancements in powders, projectiles, sights, design and engineering is putting these firearms on the trail of single shot Ruger No. 1's. Not quite yet, but gaining IMHO. That's the issue as I see it.

My state is open sights. I still hear of guys hitting things at 300 yards with their Paramounts and Rem 700's. Some further no doubt.

Tough argument for sure. Wouldn't surprise me to see muzzies separated into inline v percussion or Trad v modern hunts of some kind or some derivative of this.
 
Here's an idea the board could look at. Move the current muzzy season in place of the early rifle but on all sub units with current muzzy regulations and have a hams hunt during the current muzzy season in late September on all sub units for the traditional guys. How does that sound?
 
Here's an idea the board could look at. Move the current muzzy season in place of the early rifle but on all sub units with current muzzy regulations and have a hams hunt during the current muzzy season in late September on all sub units for the traditional guys. How does that sound?
That's a good idea!
 
Here's an idea the board could look at. Move the current muzzy season in place of the early rifle but on all sub units with current muzzy regulations and have a hams hunt during the current muzzy season in late September on all sub units for the traditional guys. How does that sound?
I suggested something similar in another thread. The response I got was the committee is only looking to restrict weapons not change seasons.
 
[/QUOTE="shootem, post: 2088886, member: 3289"]
I suggested something similar in another thread. The response I got was the committee is only looking to restrict weapons not change seasons.
[/QUOTE]
Ya, I get what you're saying. That's why I addressed the board instead.
 
Last edited:
And why is Utah the last to see the light? With deer herds the way they are - just why? Love what you are doing with the sheep, but what about deer. This is certainly meant for the Wildlife Board.
Is Utah last to see the light?? The success rates since the high powered scopes have been put on are basically the same. Idaho has pretty strict muzzleloader rules as does almost every Western state. How are there herds doing?? Mule deer are having problems all over the West for various reasons. I don’t think anyone really knows what the problem is or has all the answers to fix it. I just don’t think that these scopes on muzzleloaders are really affecting the herds much at all.
 
That's a good idea!
I proposed a similar option before the ham hunts were in existence only to go against deft ears. The Wildlife Board started out with some movement after the change of personnel. Now it is just sitting there as a typical government little movement entity. I really had hope for them too.
 
Is Utah last to see the light?? The success rates since the high powered scopes have been put on are basically the same. Idaho has pretty strict muzzleloader rules as does almost every Western state. How are there herds doing?? Mule deer are having problems all over the West for various reasons. I don’t think anyone really knows what the problem is or has all the answers to fix it. I just don’t think that these scopes on muzzleloaders are really affecting the herds much at all.
I think they know. I think I know. I think Idaho knows, but now we have to live with a lot more predators, especially bear. The bear and other predator population is exploding in the Mule Deer terrain. What does a bear do - - - he steals a cougar kill, so what does a cougar do, he kills another deer and the yearly rate goes up to way over 70 deer a year, or what ever. Or the increase in bear population they kill a fawn. Idaho even now has wolves. Oh why even worry about it! The new plan is more bear and wolves.
 
I think they know. I think I know. I think Idaho knows, but now we have to live with a lot more predators, especially bear. The bear and other predator population is exploding in the Mule Deer terrain. What does a bear do - - - he steals a cougar kill, so what does a cougar do, he kills another deer and the yearly rate goes up to way over 70 deer a year, or what ever. Or the increase in bear population they kill a fawn. Idaho even now has wolves. Oh why even worry about it! The new plan is more bear and wolves.
So if we eliminate bears, our mule deer problem will be solved and we can leave scopes on muzzies?? I wish it were that simple!! What about the areas that don’t have any bears and are still struggling??
 
Ya, at 300+ yards! This thing has gotten completely out of hand. If you have have an inline and you're going to shoot at the distances that require a high power scope, go out on the regular rifle hunt. This was meant as a so called "handy-cap" hunt or in other words a hunt that didn't have a accuracy or distance of a high power rifle. It has certainly got away from that with these new fangled muzzleloaders. We need some regulation changes.
We will still kill,it is just nice to use the clear scope I have killed plenty of deer and elk with open sights it was just nice using the better scopes. I don’t use a turreted scope to big of a hassle. I do know folks that use the new fangled ones and it still takes a ton of practice to figure it out.
 
I can see the efficacy of both sides of this. On the one hand, muzzies were intended to be a primitive (for lack of a better term) firearm. On the other, the advancements in powders, projectiles, sights, design and engineering is putting these firearms on the trail of single shot Ruger No. 1's. Not quite yet, but gaining IMHO. That's the issue as I see it.

My state is open sights. I still hear of guys hitting things at 300 yards with their Paramounts and Rem 700's. Some further no doubt.

Tough argument for sure. Wouldn't surprise me to see muzzies separated into inline v percussion or Trad v modern hunts of some kind or some derivative of this.
So we will have a recurve and compound bow thing as well?
 
It’s time to get rid of scopes on muzzleloaders. It was a bad idea from the beginning that was driven by a couple of WB members. Most other states understand that the muzzleloader hunt was intended to be a primitive hunt. Why is Utah always the last to see the light? Given the basic laws of supply and demand, and skyrocketing pointcreep, we need to find ways to decrease success rates if we want to maintain opportunities to hunt. Limiting technology is an obvious and logical approach to this problem. Before ElkAss starts screaming “All give some not some give all,” I will repeat that I hunt all three weapon types and I support limitations on all three weapons.

Hawkeye
 
So Hawkeye?

Did I Just Read What I read?:D

It’s time to get rid of scopes on muzzleloaders. It was a bad idea from the beginning that was driven by a couple of WB members. Most other states understand that the muzzleloader hunt was intended to be a primitive hunt. Why is Utah always the last to see the light? Given the basic laws of supply and demand, and skyrocketing pointcreep, we need to find ways to decrease success rates if we want to maintain opportunities to hunt. Limiting technology is an obvious and logical approach to this problem. Before ElkAss starts screaming “All give some not some give all,” I will repeat that I hunt all three weapon types and I support limitations on all three weapons.

Hawkeye
 
It doesn't matter to me.


I have a T/C .50 Pro Hunter scopeless/open site for Nv., Id., or Colo if drawn.



I have another T/C .50 Pro Hunter with a 3x6 Scope for Az., Wyoming and Utah.


I won't wa$te the money on a 1x as your eye can be 1x or stonger.....



Robb
 
If you do some research you'll see that scopes were used on muzzys in the civil war.
In the 1860's scopes were used to kill mule deer as often as a F-35 is used to kill mule deer today. Hunting mule deer with a scope in the 1860's was extremely limited at best.

Scopes on a muzzleloader is not a biological or ethics issue. It is just a social issue. Just like compound bows vs traditional bows is a social issue and not a biological or ethics issue. Personally I think muzzleloader season should be reserved for "traditional muzzleloaders". You can use your "long range muzzleloader during the "any weapon season". That is just my opinion and you can have a different opinion.

I have a muzzleloader set up for long range shooting and it isn't a big deal for me to dial it up and shoot a deer at 400 yards with it. I could even hit a deer at 600 or 700 yards with it if there was no wind. (I wouldn't shooting at a deer at 700 yards with it though). I'll still use it if legal because I want to use the most effective tool I can. It makes a 200 yard shot a chip shot compared to open sights at 200 yards.
 
In the 1860's scopes were used to kill mule deer as often as a F-35 is used to kill mule deer today. Hunting mule deer with a scope in the 1860's was extremely limited at best.

Scopes on a muzzleloader is not a biological or ethics issue. It is just a social issue. Just like compound bows vs traditional bows is a social issue and not a biological or ethics issue. Personally I think muzzleloader season should be reserved for "traditional muzzleloaders". You can use your "long range muzzleloader during the "any weapon season". That is just my opinion and you can have a different opinion.

I have a muzzleloader set up for long range shooting and it isn't a big deal for me to dial it up and shoot a deer at 400 yards with it. I could even hit a deer at 600 or 700 yards with it if there was no wind. (I wouldn't shooting at a deer at 700 yards with it though). I'll still use it if legal because I want to use the most effective tool I can. It makes a 200 yard shot a chip shot compared to open sights at 200 yards.

Which is why "ethics" cannot be part of this as ethics are a matter of opinion. The mission statement of this campaign is confused on the issue. It would've been better for them to say "...it is our opinion that..." since there is zero data supporting either scopes or no scopes as to the degree of lethality of each.

At least then, they would've been honest at the start...
 
What’s the point of banning something just to ban it?? How will banning scopes on muzzies help the deer herd??
It won't make any significant difference for the deer herd. If long range muzzleloaders are resulting in more dead bucks they can just reduce the number of tags. Scopes on muzzleloaders is not a biological issue for herd management. It is a social issue on what type of experience hunters want in the field.

Which is why "ethics" cannot be part of this as ethics are a matter of opinion. The mission statement of this campaign is confused on the issue. It would've been better for them to say "...it is our opinion that..." since there is zero data supporting either scopes or no scopes as to the degree of lethality of each.

At least then, they would've been honest at the start...

Allowing variable powered scopes probably causes more hunters to apply for muzzleloader tags which will decrease the draw odds for muzzleloader hunts. Having a variable powered scope without a doubt makes me more of a threat to a deer I'm putting a stalk on. Variable powered scopes probably don't make all that significant of an impact on the deer herds overall. I think it would be a good thing to not allow scopes on muzzleloader hunts to keep it more traditional but that is just my opinion.

The problem I have with not allowing variable powered scopes is flip flopping back and forth on the regulations. Most people on MM keep themselves informed about rule changes but many hunters do not. If variable powered scopes were outlawed then there would be many hunters that would apply for muzzleloader hunts not realizing their scoped muzzleloader is not longer legal. It is also frustrating to put in the time/effort burning up lbs of BH209 to get a muzzleloader dialed in, only to have the rules changed on you the next year making your scope with a turret no longer legal. I was seriously thinking about doing the muzzleloader hunt in Utah next year but if the rule change happens, I'll just stick with rifle.
 
It’s interesting to think that scopes on muzzleloaders seems to be a western states issue mostly. The rest (most of) the states in the United States allow scopes and even smokeless powder on the muzzleloader hunts. Most of these areas are short range hunts from blinds or stands.
But out west where longer shots are the norm with big open canyons - we have restrictions.
And so we sit in our controlled environments and argue ethics amongst ourselves so DWR departments can divide and conquer. Sell less tags and change season dates if harvest success is too high - it’s pretty simple but so darned complex.
 
Now There's One We Haven't GrandFathered In Yet:

Smokeless Powder For What We Could Call The NEW Smoke-Less-Pole!:D
Who said anything about grandfathering smokeless powder in ? That’s not what the post was about ?????
Check out hunting regulations with the rest of non western states and you will find that most don’t regulate muzzleloaders or limit types of powders/ignition systems or optics allowed. And that most of these hunts are short range hunts. Out west where hunts aren’t generally from blinds and tree stands but mostly across longer open areas- theirs restrictions. This is just to make folks think outside of the small box that the western states have put us in. And the even smaller box the utah DWR is putting us all in. Removing scopes is really about selling more tags and lowering success. It has nothing to do with ethics as scopes have proven to improve accuracy over open sights. Improved accuracy has been proven but if you want to argue that issue or change the content of a post like you just did - divide and conquer. It’s what the DWR wants us all to do so when the public sentiment/comment period occurs on removing scopes - it will be an easy sell for them.
 
It’s time to get rid of scopes on muzzleloaders. It was a bad idea from the beginning that was driven by a couple of WB members. Most other states understand that the muzzleloader hunt was intended to be a primitive hunt. Why is Utah always the last to see the light? Given the basic laws of supply and demand, and skyrocketing pointcreep, we need to find ways to decrease success rates if we want to maintain opportunities to hunt. Limiting technology is an obvious and logical approach to this problem. Before ElkAss starts screaming “All give some not some give all,” I will repeat that I hunt all three weapon types and I support limitations on all three weapons.

Hawkeye
If that's the case, then the season needs to be put back in early November. It was intended for hunters to hunt in the rut with a muzzleloader.
 
Last edited:
If that's the case, then the season needs to be put back in mid November. It was intended for hunters to hunt in the rut with a muzzleloader.
Good point Ridge!
Were the Muzz hunts moved to September because the big bucks were too vulnerable later?
I remember hunting about five seasons on the November muzzleloader hunt.
I only hunted general muzzleloader and I believe it was in the first week of November.
I don’t recall a lot of rut activity though.
If I remember correctly the limited entry Muzzy hunts were at the same time.
 
Good point Ridge!
Were the Muzz hunts moved to September because the big bucks were too vulnerable later?
I remember hunting about five seasons on the November muzzleloader hunt.
I only hunted general muzzleloader and I believe it was in the first week of November.
I don’t recall a lot of rut activity though.
If I remember correctly the limited entry Muzzy hunts were at the same time.
It was the first two weeks of November. I remember it going as late as November 16th one year and there was a lot of rut activity going on.
 
If that's the case, then the season needs to be put back in mid November. It was intended for hunters to hunt in the rut with a muzzleloader.
I agree with primitive and rut as it used to be in the November muzzy deer hunt and could be put back into place now for all the late season November limited entry hunts on the regular deer units As a previous 3 time dedicated hunter I’ve hunted the archery muzzleloader and rifle hunts. The late September muzzy deer hunts have always produced way less deer numbers (sightings) compared to the archery and rifle. The deer have already been chased by the early archery deer and elk hunts and are mostly found in the thick dark timber - my experience anyway.
I believe the late September muzzy deer hunt would rank last for a good buck or any buck harvesting compared to the other 2 hunts. That’s debatable of course as archers have lower success - but you will see a lot more deer and elk on the early archery hunts
The same is true for the November muzzleloader elk hunt. Lower numbers/sightings and have been chased for 3 months. If your hunting a spike unit- best of wishes finding one. An open bull unit- elk numbers are highest on private lands. And all the open bull unit hunters can still buy a control tag (cow elk) even though the elk numbers have plummeted in most of those units. But it’s not about the money……..the DWR will sell more permits on elk than they ever have before with elk numbers that don’t back up the permit increases.
It’s about “technologies that impact harvest success”
Taking scopes off muzzleloaders is about “lowering harvest success”
The numbers spoke for themselves at RAC meetings last year when it was proven that limited entry elk success was higher with scopes on muzzleloaders compared to previous 1x scopes and open sights. So -DWR -lower the tag numbers on those hunts if success is too high and change the dates out of the rut possibly.

I don’t believe the DWR would consider changing the current dates for muzzy deer or elk (non limited entry) as they are already the (best dates for DWR) and worst dates for hunters to harvest now.

In short - don’t take scopes off muzzleloaders for the hunts that are already handicapped by the worst dates you could possibly hunt deer and elk in.
 
If that's the case, then the season needs to be put back in early November. It was intended for hunters to hunt in the rut with a muzzleloader.
Again….. not picking sides here because I don’t care what they decide to do or not but just to keep the information as close to accurate as possible…… It was never intended to for hunters to hunt in the rut. In fact in most years when the muzzleloader hunt was after the any weapon season……. it was a pre-rut hunt. It started the same day as the pheasant season opener.

The Big Game Board set that date because the DWR wanted to stop having a muzzleloader hunt in Utah all together. Five year previous to the first time they held the late season muzzleloader hunt, it was being held on just four or five units as an experiment, during 10 days of the archery season on the Boulder, Wellsville, and another unit or two that I can’t remember. There was so much complaining from the State Archery folks and so much hostility from the any weapon hunters, because they resented the idea that guys were bagging guns out in the field while bow hunters were stocking deer and muzzleloaders were getting to kill deer two months before the any weapon hunt, that Norm Hancock ((DWR Big Game Manager) recommended stopping all muzzleloader hunting and make muzzleloaders hunt during the any weapon season. A small group of muzzleloader hunters convinced the Big Game Board to give us a season AFTER the archers and AFTER the rifle hunters(any weapon) had finished hunt their, arguing we would hunt any time, we just wanted a primitive hunt and would be happy to stay out of every bodies way, however they wanted to keep us out of their way. It was never a push by anyone that I remember for a rut hunt. It was not a rut hunt and never was intended to be a rut hunt. There was also no complaining on the part of any organized muzzleloader group or individual that ever complained when the DWR moved it to be prior to the any weapon season, some years later.

So…….. push for a later primitive weapons hunt, I have no problem one way or the other but let’s keep as much integrity in the arguments as we can…… or not.
 
Last edited:
Interesting take on the history. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I'm not sure there is a way to verify.

So the powers to be didn't know they put the hunt in the rut? And no hunter wasn't laughing under his breath thinks "oh man I'm going to slay them"?

I don't really care either. I'll make whatever adjustments needed.

The underlying argument it is about quality or quantity or neither.

Sorry I'm not believing the snake oil salesmen.
 
Interesting take on the history. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I'm not sure there is a way to verify.

So the powers to be didn't know they put the hunt in the rut? And no hunter wasn't laughing under his breath thinks "oh man I'm going to slay them"?

I don't really care either. I'll make whatever adjustments needed.

The underlying argument it is about quality or quantity or neither.

Sorry I'm not believing the snake oil salesmen.
I suspect there are minutes to the public hearings on file at the DWR office, if one wishes to verify. I don’t need to but I suppose others may feel the need.

I have no idea what the arguments are about either, all I know is the number of mule deer have decline greatly over the last 47 years, that I’ve lived in Utah and I’m convinced nothing will be done to change that trend. If positive change ever happens it will be accidental or by legislative law and not good management. I’m betting against positive change of any kind.
 
Lumpy and I have disagreed on many things over the years but I agree with his last post 100%. Utah and every other Western States have had no success stopping that decline of Mule deer herds. At this point, we have to make changes that reflect the current reality and not dream about mule deer numbers in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Let’s impose some reasonable limits on technology that will result in lower harvest rates and reduce the impact on both quality and quantity in our herds. Good luck arguing to move the muzzleloader hunt into the middle of the rut! ???

Hawkeye
 
Last edited:
I remember when we had 220,000+ deer hunters in the field. Should we ask the Wildlife Board to return to those historic numbers? Our deer herds are in the tank! Burying our heads in the sand and reminiscing about the good old days will not help the problem. Today, we have a decreasing supply and a rapidly increasing demand. As a result, we are going to have to make some tough choices in the future if we want to continue to hunt with any regularity.

Hawkeye
 
Last edited:
Lumpy and I have disagreed on many things over the years but I agree with his last post 100%. Utah and every other Western States have had no success stopping that decline of Mule deer herds. At this point, we have to make changes that reflect the current reality and not dream about mule deer numbers in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Let’s impose some reasonable limits on technology that will result in lower harvest rates and reduce the impact on both quality and quantity in our herds. Good luck arguing to move the muzzleloader hunt into the middle of the rut! ???

Hawkeye
You forgot the key to what they're wanting to do:
INCREASE OPPORTUNITY by way of selling more tags.
Maybe that's okay with some. Maybe it's not the direction that some want to see but either way, let's not kid ourselves.

Like others, I'll adapt to whatever is done in the name of "conservation" but reality is, let's meet up in 10 years and compare notes on the success tech ban on bolstering the herds.;)

Zeke
 
Right On Zeke!

I've Said the Same As Well!

But People Don't Like What We're Sayin!

I Don't Know That Our Herd Can Stand another 10 Years In The Same Direction It's Been Headed for the Last 50 Though!



You forgot the key to what they're wanting to do:
INCREASE OPPORTUNITY by way of selling more tags.
Maybe that's okay with some. Maybe it's not the direction that some want to see but either way, let's not kid ourselves.

Like others, I'll adapt to whatever is done in the name of "conservation" but reality is, let's meet up in 10 years and compare notes on the success tech ban on bolstering the herds.;)

Zeke
 
You forgot the key to what they're wanting to do:
INCREASE OPPORTUNITY by way of selling more tags.
Maybe that's okay with some. Maybe it's not the direction that some want to see but either way, let's not kid ourselves.

Like others, I'll adapt to whatever is done in the name of "conservation" but reality is, let's meet up in 10 years and compare notes on the success tech ban on bolstering the herds.;)

Zeke
How many times have we heard the current generation say: I’m sick and tired of listening to you old men talk about all the deer you had in the old days. I’m speaking about my own generation, as well as the present one and looking back into the 1970’s and the 1980’s. Sportsmen who attended public Big Game Board hearings got lectured by hunters that were 60s and 70s years old, warning the younger generation, if the didn’t stop killing does, if they didn’t stop killing two bucks a year, one on the archery hunt, another on the rifle hunt and a third on the antlerless hunt and still more on private land mitigation antlerless hunts, that one day there wouldn’t be any deer left to hunt. We’ve had MM members boast how many deer they killed per year…… because it was legal and smugly declare they were helping the DWR remove dangerously large mule deer population. In the 1980’s our local biologist went to the front of the room and mocked these old men, laughing at them, saying, “you old men are living in the past. You don’t get it, you’re no educated, you have no idea what your talking about. Mule deer are like flies, you couldn’t kill them all if you tired.” Farmers and ranchers stood and clapped and cheered, demanding that this biologist kill more of these damn deer that are eating us out of house and home. Demanding compensation for the loss of hay and the damn hunters for killing their cows. Begging for more antlerless mitigation and buck tags so they could give their kids and sell to the public to make a profit in ordered to make up for the losses caused by deer and elk. The domestic sheep farmers were the most vocal and the loudest in their threats of legal action, if the sportsmen and the DWR didn’t reduce the population of mule deer across the state.

The young generation of hunters attending these hearing said those old men sportsmen were cry babies, living in the past and demanding proof the numbers of deer were declining. Demanding more tags, more seasons, more public access.

The following generation of sportsman , in the 1990s and 2000s responded to the next generation of old men exactly the same way. They wanted still more opportunity, scoffing at a new generation of old men, claiming still more decline in deer numbers. Again they told the old men they were living in the past, deigning empirical data reports that populations were way down, from the numbers in the 1970 and 1980s. Telling another generation of old men they were fools and stupid, living in the past because they challenged the DWR’s scientist and profession biologists data and arguments that deer hunting were outstanding and they were no longer killing females and fawn survival was still sufficient to out grow hunter harvest. In 1991 State Big Game Manager made this statement, on the steps of the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources to concerned sportsmen, (when the previous ten year average bucks per hundred does was reported as under 4 per hundred does), “I’m going to shove antler restrictions so far up your ass it will never, ever see the light of day again.” Once again that new generation of sportsmen, who “just want a deer tag, regardless of old men’s misguided concerns over deer population declines, cheered his statement.

Again, the current generation of old men and sportsmen have been in disagreement for another generation about the continued declining mule deer population. Until the last 2 years the DWR has been in constant denial. Sportsmen have again accused the current generation of old men of hanging onto the past. Belittling them for warning of a future with extremely limited mule deer populations. Telling them to let the professions manage scientifically. Blaming weather, human population encroachment, essentially repeating the same argument our long dead local biologist made in the 1980s, that you can’t over kill mule deer because they are like flies. We say it a different way know days but it’s the same meaning and it is exactly the same mind set as his was in 1982…… now sportsmen say, to justify continuing to demand more opportunity. The current slogan, of the current generation of mule deer hunters and their persistence and drum bet for more opportunity is this …….”bucks don’t have fawns”. In other words, said during the 1970/1980, shut up old man and quite your constant b!tching, “mule deer are like flies, you can’t kill enough of them.”

So……. In answer to the suggestion “let's meet up in 10 years and compare notes on the success tech ban on bolstering the herds.” I won’t be here in ten years, but I have been here for 5 ten year periods in the past…….. each one has been the same accept we have new old men and new young sportsmen that are convinced there is nothing that can be done to turn back the past……. so old men should shut the hell up and give me a mule deer tag! The more things change…… the more they stay the same.
 
So the answer is just shut it down. Simple. Sure it will piss people off but it will affect everyone equally.

Shut it down and argue for the next 10 years who's going to be first in line to kill the rejuvenated herd. Maybe by then we will have some "hard science" to carry on.

But when lack of hunting isn't the answer good luck on find people who care.
 
The lack of hunting works.

Look at the Pauns.
It was closed to deer hunting for five years in 1980.

Look at the Henry’s.
It was closed in the late 1990s.

When they reopened those units the hunting was fantastic for quality bucks.
 
Do you know who Douglas Day Utah Fish and Game was, middlefork.

If not, google him. After you know who he is, I’ll share another story, this one about shutting it down.
 
How many times have we heard the current generation say: I’m sick and tired of listening to you old men talk about all the deer you had in the old days. I’m speaking about my own generation, as well as the present one and looking back into the 1970’s and the 1980’s. Sportsmen who attended public Big Game Board hearings got lectured by hunters that were 60s and 70s years old, warning the younger generation, if the didn’t stop killing does, if they didn’t stop killing two bucks a year, one on the archery hunt, another on the rifle hunt and a third on the antlerless hunt and still more on private land mitigation antlerless hunts, that one day there wouldn’t be any deer left to hunt. We’ve had MM members boast how many deer they killed per year…… because it was legal and smugly declare they were helping the DWR remove dangerously large mule deer population. In the 1980’s our local biologist went to the front of the room and mocked these old men, laughing at them, saying, “you old men are living in the past. You don’t get it, you’re no educated, you have no idea what your talking about. Mule deer are like flies, you couldn’t kill them all if you tired.” Farmers and ranchers stood and clapped and cheered, demanding that this biologist kill more of these damn deer that are eating us out of house and home. Demanding compensation for the loss of hay and the damn hunters for killing their cows. Begging for more antlerless mitigation and buck tags so they could give their kids and sell to the public to make a profit in ordered to make up for the losses caused by deer and elk. The domestic sheep farmers were the most vocal and the loudest in their threats of legal action, if the sportsmen and the DWR didn’t reduce the population of mule deer across the state.

The young generation of hunters attending these hearing said those old men sportsmen were cry babies, living in the past and demanding proof the numbers of deer were declining. Demanding more tags, more seasons, more public access.

The following generation of sportsman , in the 1990s and 2000s responded to the next generation of old men exactly the same way. They wanted still more opportunity, scoffing at a new generation of old men, claiming still more decline in deer numbers. Again they told the old men they were living in the past, deigning empirical data reports that populations were way down, from the numbers in the 1970 and 1980s. Telling another generation of old men they were fools and stupid, living in the past because they challenged the DWR’s scientist and profession biologists data and arguments that deer hunting were outstanding and they were no longer killing females and fawn survival was still sufficient to out grow hunter harvest. In 1991 State Big Game Manager made this statement, on the steps of the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources to concerned sportsmen, (when the previous ten year average bucks per hundred does was reported as under 4 per hundred does), “I’m going to shove antler restrictions so far up your ass it will never, ever see the light of day again.” Once again that new generation of sportsmen, who “just want a deer tag, regardless of old men’s misguided concerns over deer population declines, cheered his statement.

Again, the current generation of old men and sportsmen have been in disagreement for another generation about the continued declining mule deer population. Until the last 2 years the DWR has been in constant denial. Sportsmen have again accused the current generation of old men of hanging onto the past. Belittling them for warning of a future with extremely limited mule deer populations. Telling them to let the professions manage scientifically. Blaming weather, human population encroachment, essentially repeating the same argument our long dead local biologist made in the 1980s, that you can’t over kill mule deer because they are like flies. We say it a different way know days but it’s the same meaning and it is exactly the same mind set as his was in 1982…… now sportsmen say, to justify continuing to demand more opportunity. The current slogan, of the current generation of mule deer hunters and their persistence and drum bet for more opportunity is this …….”bucks don’t have fawns”. In other words, said during the 1970/1980, shut up old man and quite your constant b!tching, “mule deer are like flies, you can’t kill enough of them.”

So……. In answer to the suggestion “let's meet up in 10 years and compare notes on the success tech ban on bolstering the herds.” I won’t be here in ten years, but I have been here for 5 ten year periods in the past…….. each one has been the same accept we have new old men and new young sportsmen that are convinced there is nothing that can be done to turn back the past……. so old men should shut the hell up and give me a mule deer tag! The more things change…… the more they stay the same.
It sure seems like a few guys struggle with change. There's one thing certain about "change", it's always going to happen.
 

"Provan will not leave the agency but will filter down into what will likely be a management position. He will the the third director to leave the politically volatile post in the past 10 years.

Douglas Day was fired by then-Gov. Scott Matheson in April of 1984. Then in 1988, Bill Geer was fired by then-Gov. Norm Bangerter."

So let's hear the story Lumpy.
 
So the answer is just shut it down. Simple. Sure it will piss people off but it will affect everyone equally.

Shut it down and argue for the next 10 years who's going to be first in line to kill the rejuvenated herd. Maybe by then we will have some "hard science" to carry on.

But when lack of hunting isn't the answer good luck on find people who care.
Not sure anyone is saying to shut it down. I'm certainly not.
I too won't be around much longer than 10 years...maybe 15 if I'm lucky so I wouldn't want the whole State turned into the Henry's or Paunsaugunt by shutting it down.
I would like to see the State manage wildlife with more zest than money (I'm sure some do but it feel differently).
I'd like to think I have all the answers but honestly I don't.
I am saying that optics restrictions are not going to save the deer especially when combined with MORE OPPORTUNITY (read: more tags = more pressure)!

Zeke
 
The lack of hunting works.

Look at the Pauns.
It was closed to deer hunting for five years in 1980.

Look at the Henry’s.
It was closed in the late 1990s.

When they reopened those units the hunting was fantastic for quality bucks.
I hunted the Pauns in 1958 and there were big buck down there then and hundreds of hunters. How many hunters get to hunt it now. Yes it was over hunted and that is why it is closed. Do you want to have 10% of the permits in the whole state of what we have now. I think not. To me here are our main problems for deer survival: Drought, Technology, Lions, Bear, and Elk. Yes Elk! You can do something with every item on the list including drought to help deer. I don't even include coyotes as much of the problem and why elk? They stress the deer, but mainly they help the predators make it through the winter.

The argument I have heard when mis-management comes up is that it is happening in all of the other mule deer states. I really think they all come from the same mold. They shouldn't even be allowed to have coffee together :).
If the real truth was known, they are afraid of the animal rights activist or maybe it's the hounders.
 
How many times have we heard the current generation say: I’m sick and tired of listening to you old men talk about all the deer you had in the old days. I’m speaking about my own generation, as well as the present one and looking back into the 1970’s and the 1980’s. Sportsmen who attended public Big Game Board hearings got lectured by hunters that were 60s and 70s years old, warning the younger generation, if the didn’t stop killing does, if they didn’t stop killing two bucks a year, one on the archery hunt, another on the rifle hunt and a third on the antlerless hunt and still more on private land mitigation antlerless hunts, that one day there wouldn’t be any deer left to hunt. We’ve had MM members boast how many deer they killed per year…… because it was legal and smugly declare they were helping the DWR remove dangerously large mule deer population. In the 1980’s our local biologist went to the front of the room and mocked these old men, laughing at them, saying, “you old men are living in the past. You don’t get it, you’re no educated, you have no idea what your talking about. Mule deer are like flies, you couldn’t kill them all if you tired.” Farmers and ranchers stood and clapped and cheered, demanding that this biologist kill more of these damn deer that are eating us out of house and home. Demanding compensation for the loss of hay and the damn hunters for killing their cows. Begging for more antlerless mitigation and buck tags so they could give their kids and sell to the public to make a profit in ordered to make up for the losses caused by deer and elk. The domestic sheep farmers were the most vocal and the loudest in their threats of legal action, if the sportsmen and the DWR didn’t reduce the population of mule deer across the state.

The young generation of hunters attending these hearing said those old men sportsmen were cry babies, living in the past and demanding proof the numbers of deer were declining. Demanding more tags, more seasons, more public access.

The following generation of sportsman , in the 1990s and 2000s responded to the next generation of old men exactly the same way. They wanted still more opportunity, scoffing at a new generation of old men, claiming still more decline in deer numbers. Again they told the old men they were living in the past, deigning empirical data reports that populations were way down, from the numbers in the 1970 and 1980s. Telling another generation of old men they were fools and stupid, living in the past because they challenged the DWR’s scientist and profession biologists data and arguments that deer hunting were outstanding and they were no longer killing females and fawn survival was still sufficient to out grow hunter harvest. In 1991 State Big Game Manager made this statement, on the steps of the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources to concerned sportsmen, (when the previous ten year average bucks per hundred does was reported as under 4 per hundred does), “I’m going to shove antler restrictions so far up your ass it will never, ever see the light of day again.” Once again that new generation of sportsmen, who “just want a deer tag, regardless of old men’s misguided concerns over deer population declines, cheered his statement.

Again, the current generation of old men and sportsmen have been in disagreement for another generation about the continued declining mule deer population. Until the last 2 years the DWR has been in constant denial. Sportsmen have again accused the current generation of old men of hanging onto the past. Belittling them for warning of a future with extremely limited mule deer populations. Telling them to let the professions manage scientifically. Blaming weather, human population encroachment, essentially repeating the same argument our long dead local biologist made in the 1980s, that you can’t over kill mule deer because they are like flies. We say it a different way know days but it’s the same meaning and it is exactly the same mind set as his was in 1982…… now sportsmen say, to justify continuing to demand more opportunity. The current slogan, of the current generation of mule deer hunters and their persistence and drum bet for more opportunity is this …….”bucks don’t have fawns”. In other words, said during the 1970/1980, shut up old man and quite your constant b!tching, “mule deer are like flies, you can’t kill enough of them.”

So……. In answer to the suggestion “let's meet up in 10 years and compare notes on the success tech ban on bolstering the herds.” I won’t be here in ten years, but I have been here for 5 ten year periods in the past…….. each one has been the same accept we have new old men and new young sportsmen that are convinced there is nothing that can be done to turn back the past……. so old men should shut the hell up and give me a mule deer tag! The more things change…… the more they stay the same.
In 30 years of hunting muledeer and being around many muledeer hunters, I have never heard anyone say “muledeer are like flies, you can’t kill enough of them”.

I have heard the saying muledeer bucks don’t give birth. I’ve said it myself. And that is a fact. Restrictions doesn’t put any more fawns on the ground. If it did, it would have my full support.

Im really tired of people wanting to manage wildlife from a social aspect, instead of a biological one. Until we suggest making changes that are biologically based with data and statistics to back it up, it won’t have my support. Ever.
 
I am saying that optics restrictions are not going to save the deer especially when combined with MORE OPPORTUNITY (read: more tags = more pressure)!

Zeke
I total agree, what’s more I believe the idea is utterly preposterous. No problem having them restrict hunting tools…….. to help grow more deer but……… restricting hunting tools “hoping” it will justify more tag sales and more hunter pressure, is abject madness.

If you want sportsmen’s support for restricting tools……… drop the “more tags nonsense” until there is a significant regrowth in population. Then and only then should more tags be issued.

Again, I don’t care what they do, it’s someone else’s hunting future that’s at stake, it’s no longer any of my business to interfere in their future, I would just caution that you choice wisely, mule deer are at or past a tipping point. Founder believes they are past the tipping point, I tend to agree.
 
We have been past the tipping point for several years now and nothing will drastically change - - - that is a given. Give up all of you deer hunters. You sit here on this forum and complain and do nothing else. You deserve what you get.
 
We have been past the tipping point for several years now and nothing will drastically change - - - that is a given. Give up all of you deer hunters. You sit here on this forum and complain and do nothing else. You deserve what you get.
?
 
You forgot the key to what they're wanting to do:
INCREASE OPPORTUNITY by way of selling more tags.
Maybe that's okay with some. Maybe it's not the direction that some want to see but either way, let's not kid ourselves.

Zeke
Zeke, I did not forget that they are trying to achieve increased opportunity. Each of my posts on this topic have mentioned that I would like to see them reduce the harvest rate and increase opportunity. Hunting a general unit once every 10+ years does not sound very appealing to me. That is where we are headed on the current trajectory. I’d love to hunt every year with high tech weapons and have “Henry Mountain quality” throughout the state, but that is not reality. We are going to have to make some sacrifices if we want to continue to hunt with any regularity.

Hawkeye
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_20220806-155706_Facebook.jpg
 

"Provan will not leave the agency but will filter down into what will likely be a management position. He will the the third director to leave the politically volatile post in the past 10 years.

Douglas Day was fired by then-Gov. Scott Matheson in April of 1984. Then in 1988, Bill Geer was fired by then-Gov. Norm Bangerter."

So let's hear the story Lumpy.
This is unedited and I’m too lazy to proof read it. Also, I’ll leave it up to you to figure out how and why Central Utah caused Utah to hate anter restriction regulation since 1984.


In 1982 Utah sportsman killed 82,000 buck mule deer. In 1983 the DWR published its data report, the buck to doe ratios for the Central Utah Units reported a ratio average of 4 buck per hundred doe with some areas count as low a 2 buck per hundred. As controversial as it was, the Central Utah BLM and US Forest Service biologists where conducting their own counts. This angered the DWR because the DWR believed the Federal Agencies were infringing on their State’s rights. While the Feds never published their counts, they claimed their data showed similar numbers or worse. It was actually the Federal biologists and their supervisors that alarmed the sportsman and caused the Central Utah sportsmen to demand change. Over 600 hunters showed up at Monroe High School’s gymnasium. ( Remember over 200,000 hunters bought deer tags during these years. Deer hunting was a huge event every year and of hyper active interest, so in those days sportsmen attended anything mule deer hunting related in large After over three hours of heated discussion Dwight Bunnell, the Big Game Department Manager, a true gentleman, came to the podium and made this state. “The Utah Department of Wildlife Resources will manage it mule deer herd anyway the sportsmen of this State want us to, but please know and understand this, there are trade-offs for anything we do, and you should know what those trade-offs are before you decide if that’s what you want.”



After that meeting local sportsmen, belonging to the The Utah Wildlife Federation ( the States most influential outdoors group, prior to the advent of the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife) began to collect data from sportsman regarding how the States sportsmen/hunter wanted mule deer managed. Lots of coffee shop discussions as well as State and Federal meetings and interaction where was spontaneously held. During the months prior to the 1983 Wildlife Board hearing to establish the regulations and the seasons for the 1984 deer hunt, I got a phone call from DWR Director Doug Day. He asked if we could talk about the direction the sportsmen were beginning to lean regarding mule deer management.



A few weeks previous to his call, a respected sportsman here in Central Utah had published in the local newspaper, a list of approximately 15 things that could be put in place by either the Utah DWR (Utah Big Game Board and/or the BLM and/or the USFS ( These three, as a group. were then known as the Utah Interagency Committee). The newspaper article asked that anyone interested to list their choices of things to be done, in order of preference and mail the article to the local chapter President of the Utah Wildlife Federation Clubs. Among those questions were choices like: Seasonal road closures, Shorter hunting seasons, Antler restriction seasons, Changing current season dates, Habitat improvements, Antlerless harvest restrictions, Closing all archery hunts, Closing all any weapon hunts, Shutting all seasons down on some units for three to five years or longer….depending on mule deer reaction to the closures. There were other question that don’t come to mind anymore. At the end of the list sportsmen were asked add any comments they wished to share.



Hundreds of people responded. Sportsmen outside of Central Utah cut the article out of the paper and began placing copies in sporting goods stores across the entire State and soon responses were getting mailed in from every corner of the State.



About a week after the article was published, I got a phone call from Director Doug Day. By this time he and I were on a first name bases. I can’t say we were best buds, but there was mutual respect between us by then. We visited about the current state of mule deer affairs for a few minutes but I could tell this was not a social call. Eventually the newspaper article survey came up. We discussed the volume of responses and one of us, I don’t recall which one of us said, “Let’s talk about Dwight Bunnell’s statement regarding the DWR doing anything the sportsmen wanted, as long as the sportsmen understood what the trade offs were going to be.” The Director proceeded to enlarge on the statement. In a way he was empathetic to hunters concerns. I became to get the sense that he might be becoming open to supporting making some changes to mule deer management, based on the State wide hunters reaction and response to the survey that was coming out of this small, insignificant, community in Central Utah.

Eventually he said what he had really called to say……… “DeLoss, I am going to make this perfectly clear. Here is what I need you guys to know and understand. As Director of this agency I have a heavy responsibility, both to sportsmen, wildlife and the men and women who work for this agency and I am absolutely loyal to both my job duties and equally loyal to the people who work here. To the best of my ability I will protect the lively hoods these families, their husbands, wives and children. If sportsmen push me and this agency to make changes the have a negative monetary impact on this Department, that would require me to put any one of them, out of a job, or prevent us from equipping the Department according to its needs, I will aggressively oppose it”. He asked, “Do you understand that.” I said, “Yes Sir, Director Day. I understand, I appreciate that, and to the best of my ability I will try to make certain that we never ask you to do that. It is not nor ever had been our desire to harm anyone in the Agency, our only goal to protect our mule deer and protect our hunting traditions. I promise I will do all I can to hold to those objectives.”
 
Alot of people are missing the facts of these new regulations if they should pass any of them..it's not about improving the quality or quantity of our herds it's about less success in the percentage of animals harvested in any particular hunt so the DWR can sell more tags for ("more opportunities ") and make MORE MONEY bottom line nothing more nothing less
 
Alot of people are missing the facts of these new regulations if they should pass any of them..it's not about improving the quality or quantity of our herds it's about less success in the percentage of animals harvested in any particular hunt so the DWR can sell more tags for ("more opportunities ") and make MORE MONEY bottom line nothing more nothing less
Well, guess we have the option to push back on any and all regulations and continue down this path of decline that benefits absolutely no one on either side of the isle?‍♂️
 
if the scopes come off can we move the muzzleloader hunt back to November?? Would that be ethical or fair chase??

Now that make sense. That will work for me.
 
Well, guess we have the option to push back on any and all regulations and continue down this path of decline that benefits absolutely no one on either side of the isle?‍♂️
The agency has always leveraged hunter differences in objectives against us…… you think they’ve given up on that strategy?

If you don’t think they’ll leverage again this time…….. try to submit a half dozen independent, professionally prepared, survey questions and have them introduced in specific locations, on their DWR developed mule deer / hunter survey.

Let me know how far you get with that partnership.
 
Well, guess we have the option to push back on any and all regulations and continue down this path of decline that benefits absolutely no one on either side of the isle?‍♂️
But… but… option 2 10 years ago was supposed to fix this problem. How about the division stands up and explains to everyone how giving up opportunities didn’t fix a dam thing and how this time around things will be different. Let’s have that conversation first, BEFORE we start asking more from people!
 
I understand the technology thing, but not the technology they are trying to ban. The smart guns etc: future tech not yet available. Stop that stuff, but cameras and scopes, meh. Units that are struggling, no hunting till noon, close roads,no weekend hunting, shorter season. No paid guiding on public land, LE or General season. That IMO would be more effective.
 
But… but… option 2 10 years ago was supposed to fix this problem. How about the division stands up and explains to everyone how giving up opportunities didn’t fix a dam thing and how this time around things will be different. Let’s have that conversation first, BEFORE we start asking more from people!
They said they would be flexible on management with option 2. They didn't do anything but cut tags.
 
But… but… option 2 10 years ago was supposed to fix this problem. How about the division stands up and explains to everyone how giving up opportunities didn’t fix a dam thing and how this time around things will be different. Let’s have that conversation first, BEFORE we start asking more from people!
You’re absolutely correct. You don’t need to ask the Division to explain it, I’ll take full blame for Option 2, my fault and my fault alone. I caused it and I should have known better, because option 2 was far from my first rodeo with the Division. Wished I’d never set foot in a Board meeting regarding that change. So……. If you’re going to b!tch about that change, and you have every right to, I’ll take the beating. I earned it.
 
Zeke, I did not forget that they are trying to achieve increased opportunity. Each of my posts on this topic have mentioned that I would like to see them reduce the harvest rate and increase opportunity. Hunting a general unit once every 10+ years does not sound very appealing to me. That is where we are headed on the current trajectory. I’d love to hunt every year with high tech weapons and have “Henry Mountain quality” throughout the state, but that is not reality. We are going to have to make some sacrifices if we want to continue to hunt with any regularity.

Hawkeye
Hawkeye, That's such an over exaggerated hyperbole of a comment. I'm not a LL holder and I've still been able to secure a deer tag every single year for the past 40. 10+ years between tags on most units, not in my lifetime.
 
Ridge, look at the draw statistics. That is where we are headed. General units will become rare draws and average LE units will become once in a lifetime. Increasing demand and decreasing supply. Do you think we are suddenly going to grow our herds? Do you think application numbers will somehow decrease in the future. Just follow the trends.

Hawkeye
 
Hey Hawkeye!

Let's Work on 2 Things First:

Improve The QUANTITY!

Improve The QUALITY!

Then!

Just Maybe!

We can Issue/Sell Some More Tags/Opportunity!

Selling More Tags Without Doing SQUAT To Help The Deer Herd Ain't Gonna F'N Work!
Ridge, look at the draw statistics. That is where we are headed. General units will become rare draws and average LE units will become once in a lifetime. Increasing demand and decreasing supply. Do you think we are suddenly going to grow our herds? Do you think application numbers will somehow decrease in the future. Just follow the trends.

Hawkeye
 
Ridge, look at the draw statistics. That is where we are headed. General units will become rare draws and average LE units will become once in a lifetime. Increasing demand and decreasing supply. Do you think we are suddenly going to grow our herds? Do you think application numbers will somehow decrease in the future. Just follow the trends.

Hawkeye
I think the biggest problem has been with the state trying so hard to recruit new young hunters. It seems like that has just created a bigger point creep problem. Lack of hunters is not the problem. So stop giving the young such a high percentage of the tags.
 
Ridge, look at the draw statistics. That is where we are headed. General units will become rare draws and average LE units will become once in a lifetime. Increasing demand and decreasing supply. Do you think we are suddenly going to grow our herds? Do you think application numbers will somehow decrease in the future. Just follow the trends.

Hawkeye
Do you really think guys will quit killing deer without scopes on their muzzleloaders? Do you really think bucks impact over all herd numbers? Do you really think we need more hunters at this point? Do you really think getting everyone involved in hunting was a great idea?
 
Most Of Them Have To Get That IG Pic of Their PISSCUTTER For The BRAGGIN Rights!

Do you really think guys will quit killing deer without scopes on their muzzleloaders? Do you really think bucks impact over all herd numbers? Do you really think we need more hunters at this point? Do you really think getting everyone involved in hunting was a great idea?
 
You’re absolutely correct. You don’t need to ask the Division to explain it, I’ll take full blame for Option 2, my fault and my fault alone. I caused it and I should have known better, because option 2 was far from my first rodeo with the Division. Wished I’d never set foot in a Board meeting regarding that change. So……. If you’re going to b!tch about that change, and you have every right to, I’ll take the beating. I earned it.
And this is my point. We all lost something “for the better of our wildlife” and it failed. We aren’t getting region hunting back. We aren’t getting statewide archery back. But it didn’t work. Nothing was gained. And now we are looking at losing even more. So when that doesn’t work, what’s next? It’s very apparent that nothing we do is working. We are managing our feelings and not wildlife. Why anyone believes any of this will work clearly has not been paying attention over the last 10 years.

Lumpy I’m not mad at you. Im mad at the division. I’m mad at the RACs. And I’m mad at the WB. All as a whole. There was many guys who said it wouldn’t work. And everyone in charge refused to listen. We were promised if we all gave a little, it would be worth it. It was all a lie. Just like the many others the public has been sold on over the years. I’m tired of it and I’m not willing to give up more when nothing else has worked before.
 
Most Of Them Have To Get That IG Pic of Their PISSCUTTER For The BRAGGIN Rights!
A dead buck is still just a dead buck. A dead doe is 4,6,8, more…? deer. Until the state quits killing does, I refuse to believe any other regulations set in place are truly for the animals best interest. I don’t care if the deer are eating a farmers hay field. Their cattle are eating the publics grass all summer long. It’s a fair trade. They need to learn to deal with it.
 
I understand the technology thing, but not the technology they are trying to ban. The smart guns etc: future tech not yet available. Stop that stuff, but cameras and scopes, meh. Units that are struggling, no hunting till noon, close roads,no weekend hunting, shorter season. No paid guiding on public land, LE or General season. That IMO would be more effective.
So the guys who work 8-5 Monday to Fri shouldn't hunt on the weekends in the unit they live in. LOL
 
You’re absolutely correct. You don’t need to ask the Division to explain it, I’ll take full blame for Option 2, my fault and my fault alone. I caused it and I should have known better, because option 2 was far from my first rodeo with the Division. Wished I’d never set foot in a Board meeting regarding that change. So……. If you’re going to b!tch about that change, and you have every right to, I’ll take the beating. I earned it.
lumpy, I don't think option 2 has been a complete failure. All those Central region sub units that once had single digit buck/doe ratios, now all have 15-20 buck/doe ratios and actually have more mature bucks post hunt to do the breeding than before option 2. Unfortunately, it seems the Southern units have taken more of a hit because of this action.
 
So the guys who work 8-5 Monday to Fri shouldn't hunt on the weekends in the unit they live in. LOL
They could use vacation time, couldn't they? Or is that to much to sacrifice? An opportunity to hunt 1 day is better than no tag at all.
 
I think the biggest problem has been with the state trying so hard to recruit new young hunters. It seems like that has just created a bigger point creep problem. Lack of hunters is not the problem. So stop giving the young such a high percentage of the tags.
Ridge, I agree with this statement completely. Stop increasing the demand when the supply is already lacking.

Hawkeye
 
Hey Hawkeye!

Let's Work on 2 Things First:

Improve The QUANTITY!

Improve The QUALITY!

Then!

Just Maybe!

We can Issue/Sell Some More Tags/Opportunity!

Selling More Tags Without Doing SQUAT To Help The Deer Herd Ain't Gonna F'N Work!
Elkster-

And how do you propose to realistically improve quality and quantity? And do you realize the DWR has been trying to do that for the last 30 years with no success. And no other western state has done much better. You preach “Hell Right” but we all know that is a pipe dream that has no chance of ever being in enacted.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that will see any significant, long-term increase in our mule deer herds and so I would prefer to see a system where we decrease the harvest rates and increase the opportunity to be out in the field. People may think that I am joking but I would rather hunt more often with a lever action 30-30, a recurve bow, or a Hawken muzzleloader then sit at home admiring all of my high-end hunting gadgets and dreaming of some day drawing a tag.

Hawkeye
 
They could use vacation time, couldn't they? Or is that to much to sacrifice? An opportunity to hunt 1 day is better than no tag at all.
If it is a sure hot deal How about U paying them to take a day off that way they can still pay all their bills.
I still believe that every person has the same right as the next guy in line.
 
The idea to shut down deer hunting only works if there is sustainable habitat to allow the deer to continue to grow.
You only need to compare the Henry's and the Paunsaugunt to understand that.
The Paunsaugunt had and still has enough deer habitat to sustain the herd (not just mature bucks) from year to year over a thirty plus year span.
The Henry's increased it's mature buck numbers but has poor habitat for the overall herd numbers and has not sustained the overall herd numbers.
The overall problem with the deer herds is habitat, habitat and habitat.
Habitat is affected by human population growth and drought and their is very little we can do about them two things.
Old growth forests and winter grounds can be improved and all units in the state are affected by poor habitat.
Like cannonball stated elk are a bigger problem than most are willing to address.
A unit the size of Manti has summer and winter habitat that can sustain a lesser number of elk and have a good deer herd but a unit like South West Desert can not sustain deer, elk and wild horses.
Just my opinions
 
If it is a sure hot deal How about U paying them to take a day off that way they can still pay all their bills.
I still believe that every person has the same right as the next guy in line.
I'd like to see more guys get tags to hunt deer. Whatever changes or guidelines we can come up with to make that happen, is what I want to see. I would rather us Hunters come up with ideas, rather than the division or wildlife board. Gator???
 
I Won't Argue With Most Of What You Said!

But!

We Need To Offer Opportunity with More QUANTITY & More QUALITY!

Not Just More Tags Being Sold!

Get What Needs Fixed First Fixed & Then Maybe,Just Maybe We Can Issue More Tags!

But You & I & Everybody-else Knows That Sshitt Ain't Happening!

Question Hawkeye?

Can You Charge For Something You Don't Provide?

Seems Like Some Have Figured a way To Do it!





Elkster-

And how do you propose to realistically improve quality and quantity? And do you realize the DWR has been trying to do that for the last 30 years with no success. And no other western state has done much better. You preach “Hell Right” but we all know that is a pipe dream that has no chance of ever being in enacted.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that will see any significant, long-term increase in our mule deer herds and so I would prefer to see a system where we decrease the harvest rates and increase the opportunity to be out in the field. People may think that I am joking but I would rather hunt more often with a lever action 30-30, a recurve bow, or a Hawken muzzleloader then sit at home admiring all of my high-end hunting gadgets and dreaming of some day drawing a tag.

Hawkeye
 
I'd like to see more guys get tags to hunt deer. Whatever changes or guidelines we can come up with to make that happen, is what I want to see. I would rather us Hunters come up with ideas, rather than the division or wildlife board. Gator???
So you want a hunter to Buy a tag and hunt one day. Money well spent, the hunter should buy a lot of chickens with the tag money instead trying to fill his tag in a day. At least he would have something to eat.
Better have that buck spotted on those nightly scouting trips.
 
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom