Addressing Technology is a Distraction

elkhunterUT

elkhunterUT

Very Active Member
Messages
2,863
Lots of discussion about addressing technology, including the Wildlife Board working session next week. My take is that we are trying to address a serious biological issue (herd decline) with supposed social and emotional solutions.

As an example, If the DWR, using sound data, determines we can kill 100 deer in a given unit, why does it matter how they are killed or what tools are used to kill them if done legally? We should focus instead on how to keep our herds healthy so those 100 tags can be increased to 200 tags if the landscape allows, while also looking to maximize the # of people that want an experience or opportunity to harvest those 200 deer.

I believe we should place A LOT more focus & energy on the following specific things rather than on technologies, and methods of hunting:
  1. WHEN people hunt not necessarily HOW they hunt
    • Let's address season dates based on weapon type to maximize hunter opportunity while being mindful of success rates (e.g., move the most successful weapon out of the rut for elk). People can still hunt with their gadgets and tech if they want, but they will have a much harder time drawing a tag with higher success rates. More primitive weapons have a higher # of tags and opportunity. This is how every state BUT Utah does it for the most part. Time for us to get with the program!
  2. HOW DWR Biologists manage herds
    • Move to bull to cow ratio rather than age objective for elk; consider other alternatives to manage deer herds
    • Aggressive effort to get more reliable data - MANDATORY harvest reporting for ALL tags (General season included along with LE/OIL)
    • More frequent and consistent herd counts and classification of herds
    • Allow biologists to set tag #'s based on actual data and not social/economic pressures
  3. HOW animals survive
    • Build more fences on roadways to cut down collisions
    • Focused habitat restoration
    • Guzzler's and access to water or other creative solutions to minimize drought impact
    • Serious predator control with incentives (bounty, shoot a cougar w/ deer tag, etc.)
    • Continued and focused collar studies on fawns, does, and bucks to understand mortality and improve survival (primarily for fawns/does)
We already have the funding to do much of this through the insane # of conservation tags that are pimped every year, so funding shouldn't be an issue to do much of this.

Thoughts??
 
Sound ideas, IMO. Guess I keep getting caught up in others BS on this sight about tech and never really thought past it till you brought this up. I really like the "WHEN", and "HOW animals survive" points you hit. It's tough to combat those though when here in Colorado, all I hear are about increase in tag...increase in tags.....INCREASE IN TAGS, even when there isn't enough animald to sufficiently support that number....and the DOW say it's to "combat CWD" and such....

And then (and it never ceases to amaze me) every time I am hunting deer and mention to a DOW officer about how the bucks i see arent very big, it's always "ahhhh it's cause we're in a drought"........every single time.

To hit towards your "WHEN", it's a tough call...If I recall correctly colorado moved it's archery season forward I believe by like 2 weeks or something....maybe back 2 weeks??? I forget, hopefully someone can correct me if I'm wrong. But I noticed that I started seeing a lot less rutting activity during the archery season. The last 3 years I had hunted it ended up being that roughly the last week of the season I would start seeing actual rutting activity, and I looked at the statistics for the last 3 years after those date changes and the success rate had gone down a fair amount if I remember correctly. I believe keeping archery during the rutt is sound, moving muzzy and rifle seasons to more appropriate dates is a good idea. I have no issue with the 5 or 7 fay length of seasons, as they should be kept fairly short IMO.

I know that WY is doing a good bit of work to get tall fencing and those "wildlife crossing" tunnel things which I love that they are doing that. I believe more states should follow suit.
 
elkhunterUT said:
Lots of discussion about addressing technology, including the Wildlife Board working session next week. My take is that we are trying to address a serious biological issue (herd decline) with supposed social and emotional solutions.

As an example, If the DWR, using sound data, determines we can kill 100 deer in a given unit, why does it matter how they are killed or what tools are used to kill them if done legally? We should focus instead on how to keep our herds healthy so those 100 tags can be increased to 200 tags if the landscape allows, while also looking to maximize the # of people that want an experience or opportunity to harvest those 200 deer.

I believe we should place A LOT more focus & energy on the following specific things rather than on technologies, and methods of hunting:
  1. WHEN people hunt not necessarily HOW they hunt
    • Let's address season dates based on weapon type to maximize hunter opportunity while being mindful of success rates (e.g., move the most successful weapon out of the rut for elk). People can still hunt with their gadgets and tech if they want, but they will have a much harder time drawing a tag with higher success rates. More primitive weapons have a higher # of tags and opportunity. This is how every state BUT Utah does it for the most part. Time for us to get with the program!
  2. HOW DWR Biologists manage herds
    • Move to bull to cow ratio rather than age objective for elk; consider other alternatives to manage deer herds
    • Aggressive effort to get more reliable data - MANDATORY harvest reporting for ALL tags (General season included along with LE/OIL)
    • More frequent and consistent herd counts and classification of herds
    • Allow biologists to set tag #'s based on actual data and not social/economic pressures
  3. HOW animals survive
    • Build more fences on roadways to cut down collisions
    • Focused habitat restoration
    • Guzzler's and access to water or other creative solutions to minimize drought impact
    • Serious predator control with incentives (bounty, shoot a cougar w/ deer tag, etc.)
    • Continued and focused collar studies on fawns, does, and bucks to understand mortality and improve survival (primarily for fawns/does)
We already have the funding to do much of this through the insane # of conservation tags that are pimped every year, so funding shouldn't be an issue to do much of this.

Thoughts??
Click to expand...


First. Well done.

Too often we get dudes who are great at bitching. Great at laundry lists. Real bad at focusing.


My only point is, we are HUNTERS. If we are killers, then obviously we hunt deer with rifles, in the heart of the rut.

I'm pretty hesitant to want to put down restrictions. Be GREAT if dudes could limit themselves. But somehow, hunting became a big schlongs contest, and source of IG likes.


Personally. Ive had dedicated tag since the program started. I average 1 deer per 3 years.

I limit myself to 4x or better. I've shot enough little deer as a kid

If everyone could limit themselves there would be no need for restrictions.

But, piles of apples, covered with cams, hunted with FLIR, showed too many dudes, lost the "sportsman" part of hunting.

I read military tech articles. Self aiming scopes, nano tech, guided projectiles are just around the corner. Which means, it will come to hunting fairly soon after.

We killed roughly 27k deer.

If we only issue a tag per deer we want killed, we have 27k hunters. Meaning hunting, ENDS.

I believe the future looks like very restricted tags for rifles, with an emphasis on archery.


But good job on the post. You might be surprised who, and how these posts on MM are read and used
 
elkhunterUT said:
Lots of discussion about addressing technology, including the Wildlife Board working session next week. My take is that we are trying to address a serious biological issue (herd decline) with supposed social and emotional solutions.

As an example, If the DWR, using sound data, determines we can kill 100 deer in a given unit, why does it matter how they are killed or what tools are used to kill them if done legally? We should focus instead on how to keep our herds healthy so those 100 tags can be increased to 200 tags if the landscape allows, while also looking to maximize the # of people that want an experience or opportunity to harvest those 200 deer.

I believe we should place A LOT more focus & energy on the following specific things rather than on technologies, and methods of hunting:
  1. WHEN people hunt not necessarily HOW they hunt
    • Let's address season dates based on weapon type to maximize hunter opportunity while being mindful of success rates (e.g., move the most successful weapon out of the rut for elk). People can still hunt with their gadgets and tech if they want, but they will have a much harder time drawing a tag with higher success rates. More primitive weapons have a higher # of tags and opportunity. This is how every state BUT Utah does it for the most part. Time for us to get with the program!
  2. HOW DWR Biologists manage herds
    • Move to bull to cow ratio rather than age objective for elk; consider other alternatives to manage deer herds
    • Aggressive effort to get more reliable data - MANDATORY harvest reporting for ALL tags (General season included along with LE/OIL)
    • More frequent and consistent herd counts and classification of herds
    • Allow biologists to set tag #'s based on actual data and not social/economic pressures
  3. HOW animals survive
    • Build more fences on roadways to cut down collisions
    • Focused habitat restoration
    • Guzzler's and access to water or other creative solutions to minimize drought impact
    • Serious predator control with incentives (bounty, shoot a cougar w/ deer tag, etc.)
    • Continued and focused collar studies on fawns, does, and bucks to understand mortality and improve survival (primarily for fawns/does)
We already have the funding to do much of this through the insane # of conservation tags that are pimped every year, so funding shouldn't be an issue to do much of this.

Thoughts??
Click to expand...
Good job with some worthwhile suggestions, especially the season structures.

The only thing I'll comment on is the paragraph that starts with "As an example, If the DWR, using sound data, determines we can kill 100 deer in a given unit, why does it matter how they are killed or what tools are used to kill them if done legally?

This is exactly where that nasty "technology" stuff raises up to bite. If no restrictions are put on "tools," the hunt for those 100 deer might be quite short and will certainly never allow for more tags. The desired harvest in a unit/season is normally predicated on success rates compared to the available estimated buck numbers -- the lower the rate, the more tags can be issued. When technology helps the rate to go up, fewer tags result. To kill 100 bucks, a 33% rate would allow 300 tags; a 50% would allow only 200. The only other option is a much shorter season as the success rate increases.

Much of this is rudimentary for many here, but others might benefit from it.
 
elkhunterUT said:
Lots of discussion about addressing technology, including the Wildlife Board working session next week. My take is that we are trying to address a serious biological issue (herd decline) with supposed social and emotional solutions.

As an example, If the DWR, using sound data, determines we can kill 100 deer in a given unit, why does it matter how they are killed or what tools are used to kill them if done legally? We should focus instead on how to keep our herds healthy so those 100 tags can be increased to 200 tags if the landscape allows, while also looking to maximize the # of people that want an experience or opportunity to harvest those 200 deer.

I believe we should place A LOT more focus & energy on the following specific things rather than on technologies, and methods of hunting:
  1. WHEN people hunt not necessarily HOW they hunt
    • Let's address season dates based on weapon type to maximize hunter opportunity while being mindful of success rates (e.g., move the most successful weapon out of the rut for elk). People can still hunt with their gadgets and tech if they want, but they will have a much harder time drawing a tag with higher success rates. More primitive weapons have a higher # of tags and opportunity. This is how every state BUT Utah does it for the most part. Time for us to get with the program!
  2. HOW DWR Biologists manage herds
    • Move to bull to cow ratio rather than age objective for elk; consider other alternatives to manage deer herds
    • Aggressive effort to get more reliable data - MANDATORY harvest reporting for ALL tags (General season included along with LE/OIL)
    • More frequent and consistent herd counts and classification of herds
    • Allow biologists to set tag #'s based on actual data and not social/economic pressures
  3. HOW animals survive
    • Build more fences on roadways to cut down collisions
    • Focused habitat restoration
    • Guzzler's and access to water or other creative solutions to minimize drought impact
    • Serious predator control with incentives (bounty, shoot a cougar w/ deer tag, etc.)
    • Continued and focused collar studies on fawns, does, and bucks to understand mortality and improve survival (primarily for fawns/does)
We already have the funding to do much of this through the insane # of conservation tags that are pimped every year, so funding shouldn't be an issue to do much of this.

Thoughts??
Click to expand...


YES! Someone is starting to understand. The only problem is all the conservation and expo tag dollars just got sent to a fund that won't be used on wildlife herds.
 
The states are managing for this undefinable word "opportunity" instead of managing the actual resource first. How they manage that is through restricting success and promoting failure. This has got us to the spitshow we are in now.

"This is exactly where that nasty "technology" stuff raises up to bite. If no restrictions are put on "tools," the hunt for those 100 deer might be quite short and will certainly never allow for more tags. The desired harvest in a unit/season is normally predicated on success rates compared to the available estimated buck numbers -- the lower the rate, the more tags can be issued. When technology helps the rate to go up, fewer tags result. To kill 100 bucks, a 33% rate would allow 300 tags; a 50% would allow only 200. The only other option is a much shorter season as the success rate increases."


This is incorrect. Believing you will never get more tags is a false conclusion. We aren't talking about managing and guessing for a success rate. Every tag is a dead deer. If there are 100 tags the state needs to fully expect 100 deer to die. Quit giving out 200 tags and hoping they don't kill more than 100. Betting against the tenacity, ingenuity, determination, and intelligence of the human predator is foolish. It hasn't worked yet.
 
Tristate said:
The states are managing for this undefinable word "opportunity" instead of managing the actual resource first. How they manage that is through restricting success and promoting failure. This has got us to the spitshow we are in now.

"This is exactly where that nasty "technology" stuff raises up to bite. If no restrictions are put on "tools," the hunt for those 100 deer might be quite short and will certainly never allow for more tags. The desired harvest in a unit/season is normally predicated on success rates compared to the available estimated buck numbers -- the lower the rate, the more tags can be issued. When technology helps the rate to go up, fewer tags result. To kill 100 bucks, a 33% rate would allow 300 tags; a 50% would allow only 200. The only other option is a much shorter season as the success rate increases."


This is incorrect. Believing you will never get more tags is a false conclusion. We aren't talking about managing and guessing for a success rate. Every tag is a dead deer. If there are 100 tags the state needs to fully expect 100 deer to die. Quit giving out 200 tags and hoping they don't kill more than 100. Betting against the tenacity, ingenuity, determination, and intelligence of the human predator is foolish. It hasn't worked yet.
Click to expand...


This isn't agriculture, or Texas high fence.

Every tag is a CHANCE at a deer depending on skill, and luck.

100%success, is target shooting.

Not even on high fence hunts, is a tag a kill.

That is the DUMBEST thing you keep saying, over and over.

A duck license isn't a guaranteed duck. A pheasant license isn't a guaranteed pheasant.

You buy A CHANCE. Not a guarantee.


I know. TEXAS is different.

It's 1 state. The other 49 do it differently.
 
OutdoorWriter said:
Good job with some worthwhile suggestions, especially the season structures.

The only thing I'll comment on is the paragraph that starts with "As an example, If the DWR, using sound data, determines we can kill 100 deer in a given unit, why does it matter how they are killed or what tools are used to kill them if done legally?

This is exactly where that nasty "technology" stuff raises up to bite. If no restrictions are put on "tools," the hunt for those 100 deer might be quite short and will certainly never allow for more tags. The desired harvest in a unit/season is normally predicated on success rates compared to the available estimated buck numbers -- the lower the rate, the more tags can be issued. When technology helps the rate to go up, fewer tags result. To kill 100 bucks, a 33% rate would allow 300 tags; a 50% would allow only 200. The only other option is a much shorter season as the success rate increases.

Much of this is rudimentary for many here, but others might benefit from it.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point 100% - focus and work should be placed on increasing herd #'s while at the same time adjusting season dates and weapon types based on success to maximize opportunity given the ever increasing demand to hunt. It is the only way we can all sort of "have our cake and eat it too".
 
hossblur said:
This isn't agriculture, or Texas high fence.

Every tag is a CHANCE at a deer depending on skill, and luck.

100%success, is target shooting.

Not even on high fence hunts, is a tag a kill.

That is the DUMBEST thing you keep saying, over and over.

A duck license isn't a guaranteed duck. A pheasant license isn't a guaranteed pheasant.

You buy A CHANCE. Not a guarantee.


I know. TEXAS is different.

It's 1 state. The other 49 do it differently.
Click to expand...
You can't understand the concept at all. It's really beyond your reach.

FIRST OF ALL TEXAS DOESN'T MANAGE BIG GAME THE WAY I AM TELLING YOU TO. So I'm not trying to put you on the "Texas" plan.

Second I'm not telling you to make hunting a guarantee. I'm telling the state to assume every single tag they are issuing will result in a harvest. If people don't get a deer so be it. That's hunting. I'm not trying to stop hunting. I'm trying to get the state to quit mismanaging the herd.
 
First. Your not a R, so frankly, no one that is gives a **** what you think. Feel free to stay in the Republic.

Second. A 75% reduction in tag buys, means hunting ends. DWR goes bankrupt. That's the stupidy of what you think.

You, and this idea, are EXACTLY what's wrong in deer hunting. A belief that your owed something.

You're not.

You buy a chance. The rest is sheer luck/ skill.

Hunting isn't a fish farm.

Hunting means TO PURSUE. That's all you get with a tag. A chance to pursue.


If your so inept that you have to have a guarantee, then hire a high fence outfitter. Pick out a deer, turn it loose, and shoot it(Texas hunting).

Supposedly you went to school for wildlife management.

Which book, class, professor told you a tag = a kill?

You should get your money back
 
hossblur said:
First. Your not a R, so frankly, no one that is gives a **** what you think. Feel free to stay in the Republic.

Second. A 75% reduction in tag buys, means hunting ends. DWR goes bankrupt. That's the stupidy of what you think.

You, and this idea, are EXACTLY what's wrong in deer hunting. A belief that your owed something.

You're not.

You buy a chance. The rest is sheer luck/ skill.

Hunting isn't a fish farm.

Hunting means TO PURSUE. That's all you get with a tag. A chance to pursue.


If your so inept that you have to have a guarantee, then hire a high fence outfitter. Pick out a deer, turn it loose, and shoot it(Texas hunting).

Supposedly you went to school for wildlife management.

Which book, class, professor told you a tag = a kill?

You should get your money back
Click to expand...
Did you break into the booze cabinet again? Pretty much nothing you said makes any sense.

NOBODY IS TELLING YOU HOW TO HUNT OR MAKING YOU KILL SOMETHING. THERE ISN'T A GUARANTEE OF KILL.

This is about herd management, WHICH AT SOME POINT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED.
 
Ox ranch, Texas

Here's "herd management", Texas style.

This is the interior of a Texas hunting blind

Screenshot_20220325-185048.jpg
 
So hoss says keep tag numbers and opportunity up and manage the tools to reduce harvest rate. And manage for the number of deer a herd can afford to lose.

Tristate says let folks hunt however and only issue the number of tags a unit can afford in actual deer numbers to lose.

If both methods are managed to a number the herd can afford they will succeed in herd growth IF the biologists are doing their job on figuring the amount of deer a unit can sacrifice. AND IF other factors ( weather, feed, predators, vehicle collision, etc.) work in your favor.

Another method would be a compromise of sorts and that is keep hunter numbers up and allow any method of take and cut the season off when the number of deer the unit can afford to lose is achieved. This would likely make for a very short season and would be a management nightmare but would afford the most opportunity and IF you could properly manage the end of the season when the quota was achieved.

None of the methods are perfect and there is no way any of them please everyone.
 
I should add that Tristates method would require a big increase in the cost of a deer tag and very liked opportunity for a tag, thus why hoss (and I) think it would end hunting.

As to the OP I agree that season structure could have a big impact on harvest while leaving more tags, thus helping the herds.
 
I really don't understand this way of thinking on this 100% success for 100% tags.
The Division Of Wildlife Resources need XXXXXXXXXXXX amount of $ inorder to run the Division, like it or not that is the managment of Utah's Wildlife and every other state in the USA has a similar managment Division.
So if the DWR decides they want 20000 deer harvested then that means they only sell 20000 deer permits, how would that ever translate into the $$$$$$$$ needed to help fund the DWR.
With given over 70000 tags it is taken hunters over two years to get a tag for a general season unit if you went to 20000 tags we would be looking at 10 years or more.
I am sorry I don't want to waite 10 years or more to get a tag for a guaranteed kill, I want to hunt as often as possible and have fun trying to harvest a buck.
Call me selfish, say I am not concerned about the deer numbers but guaranteed kill is not the answer.
 
huntindad4 said:
So hoss says keep tag numbers and opportunity up and manage the tools to reduce harvest rate. And manage for the number of deer a herd can afford to lose.

Tristate says let folks hunt however and only issue the number of tags a unit can afford in actual deer numbers to lose.

If both methods are managed to a number the herd can afford they will succeed in herd growth IF the biologists are doing their job on figuring the amount of deer a unit can sacrifice. AND IF other factors ( weather, feed, predators, vehicle collision, etc.) work in your favor.

Another method would be a compromise of sorts and that is keep hunter numbers up and allow any method of take and cut the season off when the number of deer the unit can afford to lose is achieved. This would likely make for a very short season and would be a management nightmare but would afford the most opportunity and IF you could properly manage the end of the season when the quota was achieved.

None of the methods are perfect and there is no way any of them please everyone.
Click to expand...


Doesn't work.

Rifles are too efficient.

We could have 100k or better archery tags.

Day is coming.

Hopefully soon.

You either hunt low success, fairly often Or high success once a decade.

Can't have both
 
We kil
huntindad4 said:
I should add that Tristates method would require a big increase in the cost of a deer tag and very liked opportunity for a tag, thus why hoss (and I) think it would end hunting.

As to the OP I agree that season structure could have a big impact on harvest while leaving more tags, thus helping the herds.
Click to expand...
We killed 27k deer last year.

75,000 hunters.

Do the math.

You'd be looking 75% increase

I'm sure the NR guys will love that


And, a 50% draw rate becomes near single digits.

You just ended hunting in Utah. Not enough $$, not enough voters, not enough kids.
 
Well then I'll meet in the middle.

We give yall 3 units with 200000 tags at $20 each and the rest of the state is managed my way.
 
If you were to assign a set number of tags based on the local habitat for that unit, and assumed the mortality rate is 100%, you wouldn't necessarily need to evaluate each year and change the tag count accordingly.

The result may very well be an initial reduction of tags, but the quota would be met more easily, especially if the means to fill that quota weren't so stringent. That does not mean running amok Rambo style.

A post above quoted 27k deer killed from 75k hunters in the field, giving a 36% mortality rate statewide from hunters. If that's the "norm", and you managed for 100% kill rate in units with less restricted means of accomplishing that kill rate (trail cams, long range rifles, whatever) you would certainly have a reduction in tags with the offset increase in price, as stated.

However, you can still accomplish those numbers for required quota and hunters in the field by multiple shortened seasons spread apart over a timeframe. Utah's biggest problem is that it jumps all over the place being reactive instead of proactive...

Key Principle to Herd Management
 
roadrunner said:
If you were to assign a set number of tags based on the local habitat for that unit, and assumed the mortality rate is 100%, you wouldn't necessarily need to evaluate each year and change the tag count accordingly.

The result may very well be an initial reduction of tags, but the quota would be met more easily, especially if the means to fill that quota weren't so stringent. That does not mean running amok Rambo style.

A post above quoted 27k deer killed from 75k hunters in the field, giving a 36% mortality rate statewide from hunters. If that's the "norm", and you managed for 100% kill rate in units with less restricted means of accomplishing that kill rate (trail cams, long range rifles, whatever) you would certainly have a reduction in tags with the offset increase in price, as stated.

However, you can still accomplish those numbers for required quota and hunters in the field by multiple shortened seasons spread apart over a timeframe. Utah's biggest problem is that it jumps all over the place being reactive instead of proactive...

Key Principle to Herd Management
Click to expand...


We aren't in a management population.

If we only killed 10k, that wouldn't hurt.

We aren't trying to control the size of the herd, like states back east.

I other words we don't NEED to kill 27k. So aiming for that, isn't what's needed at this time
 
D33RHNTR said:
If the DWR would quit managing feelings and manage wildlife, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. Feelings should have never been a priority over sound wildlife management practices. Ever.
Click to expand...
Be careful what you wish for, the Divisions definition of "sound management" is to have enough bucks to service all the doe's in an area. They think a 5-10 bucks per 100 does is sound management. Its because of the social aspect to hunting that we have management to allow 15-25 bucks per 100 doe's.

To them it is the social issues that are making them manage to the standards they are now.

If you don't believe me watch the first couple minutes of this video. To quote Mr. Jones, "buck hunting is hunting the surplus"
 
JakeH said:
Be careful what you wish for, the Divisions definition of "sound management" is to have enough bucks to service all the doe's in an area. They think a 5-10 bucks per 100 does is sound management. Its because of the social aspect to hunting that we have management to allow 15-25 bucks per 100 doe's.

To them it is the social issues that are making them manage to the standards they are now.

If you don't believe me watch the first couple minutes of this video. To quote Mr. Jones, "buck hunting is hunting the surplus"
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest. 5-10 bucks per 100 does is probably a lot closer to the reality most of us are seeing out in the field while hunting anyways. 15+ bucks per 100 does is a pipe dream.

I’d much rather deal with that than listen to cry babies whine about what’s “fairl” in their opinion. I’m tired of the complaining. No one is ever happy.
 
D33RHNTR said:
If the DWR would quit managing feelings and manage wildlife, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. Feelings should have never been a priority over sound wildlife management practices. Ever.
Click to expand...
D33RHNTR said:
Let’s be honest. 5-10 bucks per 100 does is probably a lot closer to the reality most of us are seeing out in the field while hunting anyways. 15+ bucks per 100 does is a pipe dream.

I’d much rather deal with that than listen to cry babies whine about what’s “fairl” in their opinion. I’m tired of the complaining. No one is ever happy.
Click to expand...


Anyone seen D33R and Tri in the same room?
 
A trail camera or rifle scope with a turret or bait or a rangefinder coupled with long range weapon of any type are all just tools. Man has always searched for a better tools to get a job done.

Man has also placed boundaries on hunting methods and equipment in the past. Don't like it? Ok then bring
back year round hunting and allow folks who want to to use their spotlight at night.

If yiu aren't ok with that then you are just a big whiner...
 
Tristate said:
Not as long as it's done safely. I do it a lot. Most field biologists do.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure we are talking about hunting in western states and more specifically for mule deer.

I know playing dumb to the facts comes easy for you but please quit trying to keep the conversation cryptic.
 
huntindad4 said:
Pretty sure we are talking about hunting in western states and more specifically for mule deer.

I know playing dumb to the facts comes easy for you but please quit trying to keep the conversation cryptic.
Click to expand...


Then don't ask me a stupid question. I had already stated what I wanted to say that contradicted traditional thought or understanding. If I had wanted to include spotlighting with it I would have.

Sometimes I feel like Mike Leach at the post game interviews.
 
Tristate said:
Then don't ask me a stupid question. I had already stated what I wanted to say that contradicted traditional thought or understanding. If I had wanted to include spotlighting with it I would have.

Sometimes I feel like Mike Leach at the post game interviews.
Click to expand...
So where is the line?

And why do you think your line in the sand is any more legitimate than mine or hossblurs.

I know you think you're the smartest man in the room here, maybe you are.

So explain to me why hoss' and others feeling that we have gone beyond the acceptable limit of hunter ethics is different than or less important than yours or hunters and wildlife departments across the west who have made spotlighting and night hunting for deer illegal based on simple feelings of it being unfair to the animal.

You don't want to admit that those limitations were placed to remove an unfair advantage based on feelings and ethics and not game management just as banning trailcams and apple piles or any other currently legal method.
 
huntindad4 said:
So where is the line?

And why do you think your line in the sand is any more legitimate than mine or hossblurs.

I know you think you're the smartest man in the room here, maybe you are.

So explain to me why hoss' and others feeling that we have gone beyond the acceptable limit of hunter ethics is different than or less important than yours or hunters and wildlife departments across the west who have made spotlighting and night hunting for deer illegal based on simple feelings of it being unfair to the animal.

You don't want to admit that those limitations were placed to remove an unfair advantage based on feelings and ethics and not game management just as banning trailcams and apple piles or any other currently legal method.
Click to expand...


The line is constantly shifting. Just like ethics.

Listen it's okay to have feelings but talking about "fairness" to an animal and basing management decisions off of your "fair" conclusions is absolute foolishness. Agreement amongst humans and relationships between humans, regarding fairness is virtually impossible. To throw in an animal which has no way of conveying its feelings and has no known historical understanding of "fairness " is so stupid it becomes tangent to the boundaries of insanity.


Quite frankly wildlife and the ecosystems that it lives in are very dynamic. Always in shift and change. And people are part of that shift and change. When we want to manage wildlife our management plans better be changeable. There are all types of micro and macro management plans and strategies for all kinds of wildlife.

The harvest management model that much of the western states have been following for the past 4 decades should have been abandoned but it wasn't. For a while, under certain conditions and factors, it was viable and functional. It no longer is.

As for my plan I am not telling you it is the last plan we will ever need. It is the only plan that will start addressing and fixing major problems now. I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you everything will be like 1970 again. I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you it's going to fix everything in 3 years. I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you this is the best thing for everybody. I am going to tell you it is the best plan right now for big game herds if we are going to include hunting in their management. There may be times in the future even my plan is no longer viable. When that time comes I will move to the next plan with none of this emotional squabbling trying to polish a turd.
 
I get the original posters argument. However, tech is still a BIG issue. Everything is becoming easier and easier to do with more conveniences being brought to the hills. Do you think Joe Blow with his brand new LR rifle “good to 1,000 yrds” is going to be accurate enough to kill what is being aimed at? Now, do you think Joe Blow is gonna follow up on a long range poke if Joe Blow misses at that range??? Probably not…

I’ve seen it many times. Watched a herd of elk in colorado get shot at from a long ways…800+ yards. Bull in herd looked like he got hit. Whole herd moved over the ridge on opposite side of canyon. We walked around the hill we were on and met the hunters…(they did not know we were there and watched the whole thing unfold). He had a LR gun that Was custom from every angle. I asked him if he got what he was shooting at. He said no, clean miss. So I called him out on it and said I saw the bull you were shooting at and saw him stagger up the hill after fourth shot. He played dumb and said that’s not the bull he was shooting at. Funny thing was, that was only bull in herd. Was a 4x5 rag horn. I watched the snow kick up around that bull until last shot made bull hunch, turn and run down hill then back up hill and slowly staggered over top of ridge. This fat lazy SOB woulda killed himself to go over there for a follow-up! So yes…I DO think tech is a BIG problem along with others you mentioned. I believe a lot of animals get shot at and hit, then later die because of a poor shot and NO follow-up because the shooters are lazy pigs. You shoot a bullet at something with intent to kill, you damn well better follow up on your shot or don’t take it!
 
BLooDTRaCKeR said:
I get the original posters argument. However, tech is still a BIG issue. Everything is becoming easier and easier to do with more conveniences being brought to the hills. Do you think Joe Blow with his brand new LR rifle “good to 1,000 yrds” is going to be accurate enough to kill what is being aimed at? Now, do you think Joe Blow is gonna follow up on a long range poke if Joe Blow misses at that range??? Probably not…

I’ve seen it many times. Watched a herd of elk in colorado get shot at from a long ways…800+ yards. Bull in herd looked like he got hit. Whole herd moved over the ridge on opposite side of canyon. We walked around the hill we were on and met the hunters…(they did not know we were there and watched the whole thing unfold). He had a LR gun that Was custom from every angle. I asked him if he got what he was shooting at. He said no, clean miss. So I called him out on it and said I saw the bull you were shooting at and saw him stagger up the hill after fourth shot. He played dumb and said that’s not the bull he was shooting at. Funny thing was, that was only bull in herd. Was a 4x5 rag horn. I watched the snow kick up around that bull until last shot made bull hunch, turn and run down hill then back up hill and slowly staggered over top of ridge. This fat lazy SOB woulda killed himself to go over there for a follow-up! So yes…I DO think tech is a BIG problem along with others you mentioned. I believe a lot of animals get shot at and hit, then later die because of a poor shot and NO follow-up because the shooters are lazy pigs. You shoot a bullet at something with intent to kill, you damn well better follow up on your shot or don’t take it!
Click to expand...

Again, tech is only an issue in UT. Most other states don't seem to be having an issue with it, so it tells me UT's management plan is a farce to begin with.

Never mind to stupidity of a rifle bull hunt in Sept, or deer seasons last last two weeks. Not to mention cow elk hunts that last two months...
 
Tristate said:
The line is constantly shifting. Just like ethics.

Listen it's okay to have feelings but talking about "fairness" to an animal and basing management decisions off of your "fair" conclusions is absolute foolishness. Agreement amongst humans and relationships between humans, regarding fairness is virtually impossible. To throw in an animal which has no way of conveying its feelings and has no known historical understanding of "fairness " is so stupid it becomes tangent to the boundaries of insanity.


Quite frankly wildlife and the ecosystems that it lives in are very dynamic. Always in shift and change. And people are part of that shift and change. When we want to manage wildlife our management plans better be changeable. There are all types of micro and macro management plans and strategies for all kinds of wildlife.

The harvest management model that much of the western states have been following for the past 4 decades should have been abandoned but it wasn't. For a while, under certain conditions and factors, it was viable and functional. It no longer is.

As for my plan I am not telling you it is the last plan we will ever need. It is the only plan that will start addressing and fixing major problems now. I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you everything will be like 1970 again. I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you it's going to fix everything in 3 years. I'm not going to bullshit you and tell you this is the best thing for everybody. I am going to tell you it is the best plan right now for big game herds if we are going to include hunting in their management. There may be times in the future even my plan is no longer viable. When that time comes I will move to the next plan with none of this emotional squabbling trying to polish a turd.
Click to expand...
So in your opinion, what is acceptable as to methods and tools is dynamic and should change as need occurs?

You say feelings shouldn't have an effect yet won't go so far as to say spotlights and night vision and al night long hunting should be allowed yet the only reason those things aren't legal is "feelings".

Then you say you and "your plan" are the "only" plan that will start to help the herd in Utah....you a taxidermist from Texas have the ONLY viable plan to help mule deer in Utah....like I said the smartest man in the room, right?
 
"So in your opinion, what is acceptable as to methods and tools is dynamic and should change as need occurs? "

Yes

"You say feelings shouldn't have an effect yet won't go so far as to say spotlights and night vision and al night long hunting should be allowed yet the only reason those things aren't legal is "feelings"."

Actually this assumption is incorrect. And in all honesty there are two undecided factors that go into my indecision on this subject. One is public safety and the second is perspective to make accurate harvest decisions.

"Then you say you and "your plan" are the "only" plan that will start to help the herd in Utah....you a taxidermist from Texas have the ONLY viable plan to help mule deer in Utah....like I said the smartest man in the room, right?"

No just the guy with a wildlife degree and 45 years of wildlife management knowledge gathered from all over the world. That happens to be the most knowledgeable guy in this tiny little room about this narrow subject.

Remember the guy you are following now is from New York.
 
hossblur said:
Might work in a 98% private property state.

Doesn't work anywhere else
Click to expand...


Actually this plan doesn't occur in Texas nor would it work. This plan has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Quit being a bald face liar and try and add quality content to this conversation. Go back to hijacking money for funds that aren't for wildlife.
 
Tristate said:
Actually this plan doesn't occur in Texas nor would it work. This plan has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Quit being a bald face liar and try and add quality content to this conversation. Go back to hijacking money for funds that aren't for wildlife.
Click to expand...

Where did that tagline go?

It doesn't work ANYWHERE.

Because you have to be able to account for EVERY animal killed. Otherwise, you would eliminate entire areas.

It ONLY would possibly work on high fence, and ONLY if your not dependent on natural reproduction.

Did you not learn about reproduction rates in stressed populations? Migratory herd dynamics?

Not to mention, year round, in deer in Utah would mean November, during the rut. No one is hunting deer March to Aug. So your plan looks like current hunting seasons, but with extreme emphasis on rut hunting.
 
hossblur said:
Where did that tagline go?

It doesn't work ANYWHERE.

Because you have to be able to account for EVERY animal killed. Otherwise, you would eliminate entire areas.

It ONLY would possibly work on high fence, and ONLY if your not dependent on natural reproduction.

Did you not learn about reproduction rates in stressed populations? Migratory herd dynamics?

Not to mention, year round, in deer in Utah would mean November, during the rut. No one is hunting deer March to Aug. So your plan looks like current hunting seasons, but with extreme emphasis on rut hunting.
Click to expand...


You are spouting garbage you know nothing about. Absolutely nothing. Just throwing crap at a wall hoping something sticks.
 
Tristate said:
"So in your opinion, what is acceptable as to methods and tools is dynamic and should change as need occurs? "

Yes

"You say feelings shouldn't have an effect yet won't go so far as to say spotlights and night vision and al night long hunting should be allowed yet the only reason those things aren't legal is "feelings"."

Actually this assumption is incorrect. And in all honesty there are two undecided factors that go into my indecision on this subject. One is public safety and the second is perspective to make accurate harvest decisions.

"Then you say you and "your plan" are the "only" plan that will start to help the herd in Utah....you a taxidermist from Texas have the ONLY viable plan to help mule deer in Utah....like I said the smartest man in the room, right?"

No just the guy with a wildlife degree and 45 years of wildlife management knowledge gathered from all over the world. That happens to be the most knowledgeable guy in this tiny little room about this narrow subject.

Remember the guy you are following now is from New York.
Click to expand...
Mm-hmm....

What do they say about educational degrees?

Even the guy who barely passes med school is a doctor. Doesn't mean I want him cutting on me.
 
Tristate said:
You are spouting garbage you know nothing about. Absolutely nothing. Just throwing crap at a wall hoping something sticks.
Click to expand...


It's not lost on anyone, that as usual, you speak in the most general term imaginable, then you never have to make an actual point, and can play every side.

Just like your 45 years of experience.

Being a taxidermist in Texas, in the 4th biggest city in America, doesn't give you any experience. Not does hiring guides everywhere you go, both here and abroad.

I guess under your criteria, I'm a professional chef, fashion designer, auto engineer, agricultural engineer, etc, etc,.

I mean I've eaten food and drank water for 48 years, I'm obviously an expert.

I mean your no real wildlife biologist, but you did stay in a holiday inn??????

I'm sure that 30 year old degree of yours is invaluable. Firing up the AOL, to do your research on the dial up.
 
hossblur said:
It's not lost on anyone, that as usual, you speak in the most general term imaginable, then you never have to make an actual point, and can play every side.

Just like your 45 years of experience.

Being a taxidermist in Texas, in the 4th biggest city in America, doesn't give you any experience. Not does hiring guides everywhere you go, both here and abroad.

I guess under your criteria, I'm a professional chef, fashion designer, auto engineer, agricultural engineer, etc, etc,.

I mean I've eaten food and drank water for 48 years, I'm obviously an expert.

I mean your no real wildlife biologist, but you did stay in a holiday inn??????

I'm sure that 30 year old degree of yours is invaluable. Firing up the AOL, to do your research on the dial up.
Click to expand...


Actually I am a wildlife biologist.
 
I have a 25 year old degree in microbiology, and drive past a pharmacy,

So obviously I'm a microbiologist.


We'll be needing to see that paystub from all the wildlife biology work.
 
I have no idea what you are. I'll take your word for it. I have never nor would I argue topics of micro biology with someone who had a degree in micro biology.
 
Tristate said:
You better let him cut on you before you let the lawyer do it.
Click to expand...
??? Not sure but I think YOU think I'm picking a side here....I'm not, I'm just using common sense and logic.

But that's okay yiu keep thinking the world is against you.

I wonder if they old analogy about if you get up every day and everyone you meet is an azzhole, maybe it's really you who's the azzhole applies to determining who the idiot is?

I know, I know....you're the smartest guy in the room here....
 
huntindad4 said:
??? Not sure but I think YOU think I'm picking a side here....I'm not, I'm just using common sense and logic.

But that's okay yiu keep thinking the world is against you.

I wonder if they old analogy about if you get up every day and everyone you meet is an azzhole, maybe it's really you who's the azzhole applies to determining who the idiot is?

I know, I know....you're the smartest guy in the room here....
Click to expand...


You are out of ideas so you are making the discussion about me.
 
Tristate said:
I must not be a taxidermist then either.
Click to expand...

Even for you that's a weak spin.

Shut me up, let's see that pay stub from your wildlife biology career, 2022.


And, we've all seen your taxidermy work. You ve posted it. I've never criticized it, you have talent and skill in that field.

So just post up that pay stub, then it will be obvious you know more than us weekend armchair biologists
 
hossblur said:
Even for you that's a weak spin.

Shut me up, let's see that pay stub from your wildlife biology career, 2022.


And, we've all seen your taxidermy work. You ve posted it. I've never criticized it, you have talent and skill in that field.

So just post up that pay stub, then it will be obvious you know more than us weekend armchair biologists
Click to expand...


I can't show you a pay stub.. I haven't received a pay stub for any work I do since 1998. That's how it works when you own the companies you work for sometimes.

It's already obvious I know more than an armchair biologist.

It is typical of people out of ideas to constantly attack change.

What you scared of?
 
I don’t know why anyone still feeds into the TexasTroll….a narcissist only knows one “right” and it will never be “your right.”

Go ahead and do yourself a favor and smash that ignore button like I did.
 
BLooDTRaCKeR said:
I don’t know why anyone still feeds into the TexasTroll….a narcissist only knows one “right” and it will never be “your right.”

Go ahead and do yourself a favor and smash that ignore button like I did.
Click to expand...


Been hanging around the casa recovering from the hernia fix.

It was Trollstate, or The View.


Tri or Joy Bahar and Whoopi.

Interchangeable I realize
 
EHU made a well written post and asked a very powerful clear question of "why does it matter how we kill the number of bucks that need to be killed as long as we get the job done?"

If we want to see an end to "hunting", then we adopt "killing " as our focus and goal and let technology continue to fuel the frenzy.

Do we do just as Tri says, sell those 100 tags for the 100 bucks to be harvested by any means and any tools available to get the job done for the DWR?

Or....

Do we sell 300 tags, limit our technology which lowers our success rates, a few older big bucks survive the slaughter and we have something to look forward to next fall?

No, we are not going back to 1970 style of hunting.
But if we want to continue the sport of hunting as the heritage we all enjoy, and cannot police ourselves, a line has got to be drawn in the sand for us on ways of killing or even @Founder will be out of a job here.

The goal isn't to take something away from us, the goal is to help preserve something for your future and for our kids and their kids.

Who sets speed limits on roadways?
Not the citizens.
 
"Do we do just as Tri says, sell those 100 tags for the 100 bucks to be harvested by any means and any tools available to get the job done for the DWR?"

Maybe you don't quite understand what I am saying or you are trying to spin it. I'm not sure. Things get lost in translation often here, but this isn't exactly what I am saying.

This isn't a management plan where 100 out of 100 bucks HAVE TO be killed. If the DWR sells 100 tags and 86 are killed its no problem. If you get a tag and your favorite way to hunt is with your home made long bow and its highly likely you won't kill a buck, no problem. You get to make your hunt how you want it for you. And if Joe wants to use a LR rifle and trail cameras and the hubble telescope and he is only in the unit for one day and he's done. No problem.

So the DWR isn't making this about killing instead of hunting. They are making it about accurate management and finally calculating mortality rates in a fashion which they have some control over. YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO BE A HUNTER OR A KILLER. And you no longer need to worry about whether Joe is a hunter or a killer.

"The goal isn't to take something away from us, the goal is to help preserve something for your future and for our kids and their kids."

WELL SAID AND EXACTLY WHAT i AM TRYING TO DO.
 
BLooDTRaCKeR said:
I don’t know why anyone still feeds into the TexasTroll….a narcissist only knows one “right” and it will never be “your right.”

Go ahead and do yourself a favor and smash that ignore button like I did.
Click to expand...

Some people can handle grown up conversations and some can't. At least I can handle when someone disagrees with me and I don't run to the ignore button.
 
When I go hunting my objective is to kill. It’s been that way since before I was a teenager. I get up when it’s dark and don’t come back to camp until it’s dark if I haven’t killed anything yet. There is no amount of technology I possess that has increased my success rate since I was a teenager. I was taught how to hunt and how to hunt hard. Some guys on here seem like they would just melt if their technology was taken away. As I’ve stated before if it’s legal I have no issue with it, I try not to worry about things I can’t control. We haven’t yet seen what the advancement of future technology will bring to all facets of life. We are living ever more in a woke, snowflake society and in my opinion with technology or not I can envision the day when hunting will no longer be allowed. I will be dead and won’t see that day but it is coming.
 
slamdunk said:
EHU made a well written post and asked a very powerful clear question of "why does it matter how we kill the number of bucks that need to be killed as long as we get the job done?"

If we want to see an end to "hunting", then we adopt "killing " as our focus and goal and let technology continue to fuel the frenzy.

Do we do just as Tri says, sell those 100 tags for the 100 bucks to be harvested by any means and any tools available to get the job done for the DWR?

Or....

Do we sell 300 tags, limit our technology which lowers our success rates, a few older big bucks survive the slaughter and we have something to look forward to next fall?

No, we are not going back to 1970 style of hunting.
But if we want to continue the sport of hunting as the heritage we all enjoy, and cannot police ourselves, a line has got to be drawn in the sand for us on ways of killing or even @Founder will be out of a job here.

The goal isn't to take something away from us, the goal is to help preserve something for your future and for our kids and their kids.

Who sets speed limits on roadways?
Not the citizens.
Click to expand...

I think it's been demonstrated in another post that "harvest" data on record shows advancements in technology haven't had an appreciable impact the way many are speculating.

What has had an impact are changing phenomena outside the control of people, no matter how "god-like" they think they are...
 
If your only objective is to kill. Why are you hunting bucks?

There's more does. They are generally much easier to kill.

So, if your not hunting does, then your primary objective isn't just "to kill". So let's stop with the Rambo crap.

Further, "by legal means" always comes in.

As if it was written on stone tablets and given to Moses what "legal means" is.

I grew up at the feet of those guys who hunted "the golden age".

If you'd told them, that in order to hunt a 200lb animal, they'd need cameras, $3000 rifles, $3000 scopes, $2000 outfits, $500 boots, etc, etc, etc, they'd most likely would have disowned you.

But further, they'd ask you if cows were extinct in the future.

Most if not all would have asked why your kids, brothers, uncle's, grandpas, were sitting at home with no tags, so you could try and shoot a 30" deer. Most wouldn't understand what a 30" deer was. In fact most, threw horns away. I guarantee, world record mule deer, were thrown away, in every western state, for years and years.

And, even after all that. Rifle deer season in Utah is in Oct. Spotlighting was and is illegal. Even in the "golden age", laws were put into effect, to limit the killing.

We have created a disease in Utah. "Quality" no longer means a deer with good genetics against disease, early death, etc. "Quality" no means big horns. Proven by the "management buck" hunts on LE, where old, long living bucks, are considered less than.

A symptom of that disease, we created, is this idea, that killing, is above all else. Regardless of how.

Not meat(guys would kill does or hunt elk), not experience, not tradition, not conservation, not management. A large frame 4x4, is the ONLY objective.

That disease is a full grown epidemic in the outfitter world, but it's flowing rapidly into average dude ranks.


Come May, I will make my annual post.

Every guy that talks about "cutting tags", or slams "opportunists", post a video showing you cutting up your tag, and chucking it".

I do it every year, and have YET to see a single vid.

Proving, that despite all the noise, at the end of the day, guys just want a chance to hunt.

That's all restrictions on tech are attempting to do, provide a chance, by lowering success rates.

If your truly "a killer", then all you should want is a chance to kill. Means shouldn't matter.
 
Tristate said:
"Do we do just as Tri says, sell those 100 tags for the 100 bucks to be harvested by any means and any tools available to get the job done for the DWR?"

Maybe you don't quite understand what I am saying or you are trying to spin it. I'm not sure. Things get lost in translation often here, but this isn't exactly what I am saying.

This isn't a management plan where 100 out of 100 bucks HAVE TO be killed. If the DWR sells 100 tags and 86 are killed its no problem. If you get a tag and your favorite way to hunt is with your home made long bow and its highly likely you won't kill a buck, no problem. You get to make your hunt how you want it for you. And if Joe wants to use a LR rifle and trail cameras and the hubble telescope and he is only in the unit for one day and he's done. No problem.

So the DWR isn't making this about killing instead of hunting. They are making it about accurate management and finally calculating mortality rates in a fashion which they have some control over. YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO BE A HUNTER OR A KILLER. And you no longer need to worry about whether Joe is a hunter or a killer.

"The goal isn't to take something away from us, the goal is to help preserve something for your future and for our kids and their kids."

WELL SAID AND EXACTLY WHAT i AM TRYING TO DO.
Click to expand...
The problems I see that many hunters will find less than attractive are opportunity, cost of tags and loss of future hunter recruitment.

If the max harvest target is 100 deer so you sell 100 tags (yes I get we are ok with less deer killed but 100 max) then 100 people get to hunt, simple.

But if the max target harvest is 100ish deer and you limit the season and equipment to keep harvest at 15% or less you sell 700 tags and 700 people get to hunt, OPPORTUNITY.

Multiply the current tag price times 7 to keep income the same for the game dept. to stay at current levels all else being equal in the two above scenarios. COST.

Seven times less tags (thus hunters) in the field creates far less opportunities for young or new hunters to be exposed to the sport to then fall in love with it. We already compete with many other things as mentors without inability of parents or grandparents to even get a tag to take the family out hunting. LOSS OF NEW HUNTER RECRUITMENT.
 
roadrunner said:
I think it's been demonstrated in another post that "harvest" data on record shows advancements in technology haven't had an appreciable impact the way many are speculating.

What has had an impact are changing phenomena outside the control of people, no matter how "god-like" they think they are...
Click to expand...
I think if you factor in the declining population of mule deer and a sustained harvest rate it could easily be argued that advancements in equipment has allowed us to keep up in harvest.

In other words keep today's population and go back to yesteryear tech and harvest rates would plummet.
 
hossblur said:
If your only objective is to kill. Why are you hunting bucks?

There's more does. They are generally much easier to kill.

So, if your not hunting does, then your primary objective isn't just "to kill". So let's stop with the Rambo crap.

Further, "by legal means" always comes in.

As if it was written on stone tablets and given to Moses what "legal means" is.

I grew up at the feet of those guys who hunted "the golden age".

If you'd told them, that in order to hunt a 200lb animal, they'd need cameras, $3000 rifles, $3000 scopes, $2000 outfits, $500 boots, etc, etc, etc, they'd most likely would have disowned you.

But further, they'd ask you if cows were extinct in the future.

Most if not all would have asked why your kids, brothers, uncle's, grandpas, were sitting at home with no tags, so you could try and shoot a 30" deer. Most wouldn't understand what a 30" deer was. In fact most, threw horns away. I guarantee, world record mule deer, were thrown away, in every western state, for years and years.

And, even after all that. Rifle deer season in Utah is in Oct. Spotlighting was and is illegal. Even in the "golden age", laws were put into effect, to limit the killing.

We have created a disease in Utah. "Quality" no longer means a deer with good genetics against disease, early death, etc. "Quality" no means big horns. Proven by the "management buck" hunts on LE, where old, long living bucks, are considered less than.

A symptom of that disease, we created, is this idea, that killing, is above all else. Regardless of how.

Not meat(guys would kill does or hunt elk), not experience, not tradition, not conservation, not management. A large frame 4x4, is the ONLY objective.

That disease is a full grown epidemic in the outfitter world, but it's flowing rapidly into average dude ranks.


Come May, I will make my annual post.

Every guy that talks about "cutting tags", or slams "opportunists", post a video showing you cutting up your tag, and chucking it".

I do it every year, and have YET to see a single vid.

Proving, that despite all the noise, at the end of the day, guys just want a chance to hunt.

That's all restrictions on tech are attempting to do, provide a chance, by lowering success rates.

If your truly "a killer", then all you should want is a chance to kill. Means shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...
“If your only objective is to kill. Why are you hunting bucks?”

Well because New Mexico won’t let me hunt does! I get one legal forked horn deer a year! I didn’t think hunting to kill and feed your family was Rambo crap, but hey I’m learning from you everyday.

Once again, it’s not what you don’t know that gets you in trouble, it’s what you know for certain that’s just not true.
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
“If your only objective is to kill. Why are you hunting bucks?”

Well because New Mexico won’t let me hunt does! I get one legal forked horn deer a year! I didn’t think hunting to kill and feed your family was Rambo crap, but hey I’m learning from you everyday.

Once again, it’s not what you don’t know that gets you in trouble, it’s what you know for certain that’s just not true.
Click to expand...


You do realize, this conversation while on a public forum, is a Utah topic right now, correct?
 
huntindad4 said:
I think if you factor in the declining population of mule deer and a sustained harvest rate it could easily be argued that advancements in equipment has allowed us to keep up in harvest.

In other words keep today's population and go back to yesteryear tech and harvest rates would plummet.
Click to expand...

Link provided for your convenience relative to my post...

Harvest Data History
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
You do realize that the title of the thread is:
“Addressing technology is a distraction” right now, correct?
Click to expand...


Yup

It's because Utah just did a trail cam season, and the end of the month there is a wildlife board meeting addressing Muzzy scopes. Tech issues are now front and center in Utah.

Not saying it won't bleed over, but what New Mexico does, is New Mexico resident buisness. Any hunting I do there, I do as a guest, and am thankful for the opportunity.

Same with Texas.
 
hossblur said:
Yup

It's because Utah just did a trail cam season, and the end of the month there is a wildlife board meeting addressing Muzzy scopes. Tech issues are now front and center in Utah.

Not saying it won't bleed over, but what New Mexico does, is New Mexico resident buisness. Any hunting I do there, I do as a guest, and am thankful for the opportunity.

Same with Texas.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you guys don’t need a lot of technology in Utah with all those does to kill. I’ve put does in the freezer when I was stationed in South Texas. I would fill my freezer here if I could kill does. It’s a privilege to hunt in any State, it’s not a right. Good luck on your hunts!
 
roadrunner said:
Link provided for your convenience relative to my post...

Harvest Data History
Click to expand...
Thanks. I read them and some of the comments from the thread.

It was mentioned by Outdoorwriter in the thread that it takes more info to come to the conclusion that harvest rate is not affected by tech than the harvest rate alone and I would agree.

Season structure, antler restrictions, total hunter/tag numbers, populations and on and on, IMO would factor greatly. I mean maybe those early any weapon stats would be much, much higher with today's equipment.

It's all speculation either way, IMO and the only way to know would be to live it. But my thinking is tech has a bigger effect than those who don't want to give it up believe. Is it enough to matter? Who knows.
 
huntindad4 said:
Thanks. I read them and some of the comments from the thread.

It was mentioned by Outdoorwriter in the thread that it takes more info to come to the conclusion that harvest rate is not affected by tech than the harvest rate alone and I would agree.

Season structure, antler restrictions, total hunter/tag numbers, populations and on and on, IMO would factor greatly. I mean maybe those early any weapon stats would be much, much higher with today's equipment.

It's all speculation either way, IMO and the only way to know would be to live it. But my thinking is tech has a bigger effect than those who don't want to give it up believe. Is it enough to matter? Who knows.
Click to expand...

There are certainly different dynamics at play that keep the numbers the "same". More of one thing counteracts less of another.
 
I will say that I have hunted mule deer for years with a hawkins open sight 54 cal round ball muzzy. Then I heard they lifted the ban on 1power scopes so I bought an inline muzzy with a variable power scope. Before I hunted with that new setup, I killed two bucks in about 10 years of hunting. One at 20 yards and one at 86 yards.

First year hunting with new “primitive” setup I killed a buck at 250 yards…..It’s a complete game changer.

I’ll stand behind my argument that technology is part of the declining herd problem. Those new muzzy’s are a single shot high powered rifle. I felt guilty hunting with it. In fact, last two years I’ve left it in the gun safe.

I’d be happy to see laws go back to open sight for muzzy’s just for starters.
 
I’ve recently asked the division about mandatory reporting and I’ll share their response

“We have had many discussions, both internally and through the public process, about mandatory reporting over the years. We use mandatory (complete) reporting for hunts that are very high-interest for the public (limited entry, once-in-a-lifetime), for hunts with relatively few permits (e.g. bear, cougar), and for species with federal tagging requirements (e.g. bobcats, swan). Harvest survey vs physical harvest check-in, and mandatory vs non-mandatory depends on how costly and resource-intensive the method is, versus the corresponding gain to data precision.

Heather Hill Bernales
Biometrician, Salt Lake Office Wildlife Section
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

“I don't know if we will make it mandatory for all hunts. With mandates come punishments if the mandate isn't fulfilled. That would have to be part of the discussion when discussing reporting mandates for all species.”

I appreciate this OP & discussion.
I believe their efforts to help sustain our deer herds would yield better results focusing on some of the things mentioned in this thread.
 
BillyBoB said:
I’ve recently asked the division about mandatory reporting and I’ll share their response

“We have had many discussions, both internally and through the public process, about mandatory reporting over the years. We use mandatory (complete) reporting for hunts that are very high-interest for the public (limited entry, once-in-a-lifetime), for hunts with relatively few permits (e.g. bear, cougar), and for species with federal tagging requirements (e.g. bobcats, swan). Harvest survey vs physical harvest check-in, and mandatory vs non-mandatory depends on how costly and resource-intensive the method is, versus the corresponding gain to data precision.

Heather Hill Bernales
Biometrician, Salt Lake Office Wildlife Section
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

“I don't know if we will make it mandatory for all hunts. With mandates come punishments if the mandate isn't fulfilled. That would have to be part of the discussion when discussing reporting mandates for all species.”

I appreciate this OP & discussion.
I believe their efforts to help sustain our deer herds would yield better results focusing on some of the things mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...


Good job.

I think we will have to watch. But eventually I'd imagine Utah will go e-tag, and when they do, I see no reason that surveys couldn't be mandatory. You could require it completed before tag is submitted.

Hard to believe they cost much more than the pile of dudes at checkpoints?
 
New Mexico has mandatory harvest reports for deer, elk, trapper, turkey, Barbary sheep, oryx, ibex, pronghorn antelope and javelina license holders. If you don’t file a report, even if you didn’t harvest or didn’t even hunt you are ineligible for a tag the next hunting season.
 
BLooDTRaCKeR said:
I will say that I have hunted mule deer for years with a hawkins open sight 54 cal round ball muzzy. Then I heard they lifted the ban on 1power scopes so I bought an inline muzzy with a variable power scope. Before I hunted with that new setup, I killed two bucks in about 10 years of hunting. One at 20 yards and one at 86 yards.

First year hunting with new “primitive” setup I killed a buck at 250 yards…..It’s a complete game changer.

I’ll stand behind my argument that technology is part of the declining herd problem. Those new muzzy’s are a single shot high powered rifle. I felt guilty hunting with it. In fact, last two years I’ve left it in the gun safe.

I’d be happy to see laws go back to open sight for muzzy’s just for starters.
Click to expand...

Anectodical evidence isn't evidence at all. Shooting that buck at 250 just made the hunt easier on you because you've proven to yourself you can get closer.

I am neither against or for technology. I am against regulation based on the hunting preferences from the likes and dislikes of others...
 
roadrunner said:
Anectodical evidence isn't evidence at all. Shooting that buck at 250 just made the hunt easier on you because you've proven to yourself you can get closer.

I am neither against or for technology. I am against regulation based on the hunting preferences from the likes and dislikes of others...
Click to expand...

Do you remember a big push for scopes on muzzy?

I really don't. It seems to me like we all bought scopes AFTER the law change, mostly in package gun/scope combos.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember a huge outcry for scopes
 
roadrunner said:
Anectodical evidence isn't evidence at all. Shooting that buck at 250 just made the hunt easier on you because you've proven to yourself you can get closer.

I am neither against or for technology. I am against regulation based on the hunting preferences from the likes and dislikes of others...
Click to expand...
So where do you stand on hunting with night vision optics or spotlights?
 
There definitely wasn't the attention around scopes on muzzy's then that there is now, that is for sure. Most guys, me included, simply adapted to what was legal and for the most part killed the same # of animals. I will do the same again if variable power scopes are prohibited, and my sense is that if this happens, it will have minimal impact on harvest success/herd decline.

A buck killed at 20 yards or 86 yards vs one killed at 250 yards still yields the same result. In addition, our "herd decline" issues have NOTHING to do with bucks - doe/fawn survival is FAR more important.

I continue to believe we are focusing on the wrong things - I am not saying we shouldn't worry at all about technology. We should regulate those things that cause "image" issues with non-hunters and methods that are not ethical (thermal imaging devices, spotlights, wireless transmitting cameras), but that should be done in the standard course of game management and should NOT dominate the discussion, which is where we are at right now.
 
elkhunterUT said:
There definitely wasn't the attention around scopes on muzzy's then that there is now, that is for sure. Most guys, me included, simply adapted to what was legal and for the most part killed the same # of animals. I will do the same again if variable power scopes are prohibited, and my sense is that if this happens, it will have minimal impact on harvest success/herd decline.

A buck killed at 20 yards or 86 yards vs one killed at 250 yards still yields the same result. In addition, our "herd decline" issues have NOTHING to do with bucks - doe/fawn survival is FAR more important.

I continue to believe we are focusing on the wrong things - I am not saying we shouldn't worry at all about technology. We should regulate those things that cause "image" issues with non-hunters and methods that are not ethical (thermal imaging devices, spotlights, wireless transmitting cameras), but that should be done in the standard course of game management and should NOT dominate the discussion, which is where we are at right now.
Click to expand...


I feel like we can chew gum, and walk at the same time.

I also don't feel like Utah is unique in trying to contain tech.

Other states didn't let the cat out of the bag on muzzys, so they don't have to try and shove it back in.

We can't control weather, fire, birth rates. We can control some things, and should.

It's nice to see focus on singular things, like cams, or bait, etc, instead of the usual 5 page list.
 
elkhunterUT said:
There definitely wasn't the attention around scopes on muzzy's then that there is now, that is for sure. Most guys, me included, simply adapted to what was legal and for the most part killed the same # of animals. I will do the same again if variable power scopes are prohibited, and my sense is that if this happens, it will have minimal impact on harvest success/herd decline.

A buck killed at 20 yards or 86 yards vs one killed at 250 yards still yields the same result. In addition, our "herd decline" issues have NOTHING to do with bucks - doe/fawn survival is FAR more important.

I continue to believe we are focusing on the wrong things - I am not saying we shouldn't worry at all about technology. We should regulate those things that cause "image" issues with non-hunters and methods that are not ethical (thermal imaging devices, spotlights, wireless transmitting cameras), but that should be done in the standard course of game management and should NOT dominate the discussion, which is where we are at right now.
Click to expand...
You can't really believe that limitations on equipment will not decrease harvest.

I'm talking about the "average" hunter here not the few extremely successful hunter that will get it done with whatever means available. But the average hunter.

You don't think the average Joe has a hard time closing from 250 to 86 yards? Or from 100 to 50 with a bow?
 
roadrunner said:
I don't use them even if they are legal. Too many goblins run around at night...
Click to expand...
I didn't ask what you use. I asked your stance. But you know that, don't you? People who decry regulations on tech and other equipment restrictions in hunting because it directly affects them and how they like to hunt always avoid answering this question. For good reason....its sticky. Agree to allow it and you're a poacher or at least a supporter. Wish to keep it illegal and your live and let live ideology doesn't have much credence.

In other words.....

Do you think it should be legal to hunt deer at night with night vision or a spotlight?

What if that's how I want to hunt? Why are MY methods up for the taking but not YOURS?
 
all the "end of hunting talk" is really funny. how many of you really think states will stop selling tags? come out of the window, its ok, no need to jump just yet.
 
huntindad4 said:
I didn't ask what you use. I asked your stance. But you know that, don't you? People who decry regulations on tech and other equipment restrictions in hunting because it directly affects them and how they like to hunt always avoid answering this question. For good reason....its sticky. Agree to allow it and you're a poacher or at least a supporter. Wish to keep it illegal and your live and let live ideology doesn't have much credence.

In other words.....

Do you think it should be legal to hunt deer at night with night vision or a spotlight?

What if that's how I want to hunt? Why are MY methods up for the taking but not YOURS?
Click to expand...

If that's how you want to hunt, and it's legal, I won't stop you or whine about it to my favorite wildlife board member to start a poll to gain support to enact a rule restricting it.

If it has sound wildlife management reasoning behind it, yes, it should be legal in areas that warrant it. One size fits all the way UT does everything, no way.

I'm also not the one who has to enforce it. As with all things, there needs to be a common sense approach to it. Some goon with a flat brim running amok at night with a night scope isn't the most responsible thing after all...
 
huntindad4 said:
You can't really believe that limitations on equipment will not decrease harvest.

I'm talking about the "average" hunter here not the few extremely successful hunter that will get it done with whatever means available. But the average hunter.

You don't think the average Joe has a hard time closing from 250 to 86 yards? Or from 100 to 50 with a bow?
Click to expand...

As the saying goes, 90% of the animals killed are done by 10% of real hunters...
 
roadrunner said:
As the saying goes, 90% of the animals killed are done by 10% of real hunters...
Click to expand...
I agree with this to a point and it makes me wonder why some of the "real hunters" don't wanna lose bait and cameras and muzzy scopes etc....

I would add that on a general hunt with even odds for all involved 10% kill 90% year after year. On a draw hunt with all the attention from guides and spotters etc. Those odds go out the window.
 
roadrunner said:
If that's how you want to hunt, and it's legal, I won't stop you or whine about it to my favorite wildlife board member to start a poll to gain support to enact a rule restricting it.

If it has sound wildlife management reasoning behind it, yes, it should be legal in areas that warrant it. One size fits all the way UT does everything, no way.

I'm also not the one who has to enforce it. As with all things, there needs to be a common sense approach to it. Some goon with a flat brim running amok at night with a night scope isn't the most responsible thing after all...
Click to expand...
But somebody already "whined to the wildlife board" about night hunting and got it canceled. Would you support legalizing it?

Sound management will probably never support it. But the question is does sound management support the tech that some are asking to be removed? I don't think so.

You can't cherry pick, IMO. Balls out any way you wanna wackem up to the number of dead critters you want killed or management that will restrict methods of take and seasons, not only the things that YOU are ok with losing but maybe some you don't like as well.

Flat brim wearing goons are just as likely to shoot some innocent camo wearing hunter in the daylight as they are at night. Safety is NOT the reason most western states don't allow spotlighting, nor is "public image".
 

Similar threads

D
Mule deer decline in Utah
Replies
37
Views
1k
ridgetops
ridgetops
M
Nevada Elk Incentive or Damage Crop Tags?
Replies
12
Views
797
wstrntines
wstrntines
joesikora
I’m wanting my buddy Weiner to hunt NM
Replies
0
Views
413
joesikora
joesikora

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

A6DFD1EE-7C2D-4CF3-BEB6-9CCFA5DC6B34.jpeg
20220811_164800.jpg
063120F7-8BCD-4552-B176-8CCB77BBD3F5.jpeg
231DB58D-D570-4EF7-B3D1-BB05865C41F1.jpeg
323B6C6A-1D36-4E66-B5DB-72D44B79EC91.png
1009141959c.jpg
IMG_4623.jpeg
9E36E403-0F44-45F5-A7F0-D05D1B07D333.png
2019 buck - Copy.jpg
9817D0DF-EF20-49A0-8144-52C3740AE4AB.jpeg
IMG_4335.JPG
Good Looking Wall Hanger
Back
Top Bottom