CWMU Public Changes

Ticks N Tines

Ticks N Tines

Very Active Member
Messages
1,651
There is an opportunity in March at the next CWMU committee meeting to discuss the wellbeing of the program and any improvements that need to be made.

As one of the Public Sportsmen Representatives on the committee, I would like any feedback or "Serious" suggestions about the program and the public benefits.

Many people complain about the program and I understand it is not perfect. Here is your chance to provide some useful input or suggestions for the committee to discuss.

Please provide any well thought out and detailed ideas you may have for the program.

Thanks,

Matt
 
They need to re evaluate the number of private tags to public tags ratio. This program as stated by the DWR is to gain access to otherwise inaccessible private lands for the regular public hunter. This goal needs to be brought back into harmony. I believe The ratio should be cut in half, or basically just double the amount of Public Draw permits.





It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-12 AT 12:45PM (MST)[p]Travis--

Appreciate your input and to a certain extent understand your feelings but let me try and educate you on a couple of things.

This (the private public split) has been evaluated/discussed many times in meetings such as this. What our data suggest is that the majority of the CWMU landowners/operators will drop out of the program if the slit for bucks and bulls (deer elk) drops below a 90/10 split. Interesting enough, if you actually look at all the tags (antlered and antler-less) the public actually gets the majority of these tags.

Now, I'm sure that this is fine with many folks but lets be clear what that means.

1--depredation issues will again be a huge thing and UDWR would likely spend a bunch of time removing problem deer and elk from private lands. Prior to the CWMU program hundreds were killed by UDWR annually.

2--those landowners who chose to still be wildlife friendly would in fact be eligible for landowner deer tags. Simply stated they could still get their tags, in many cases more tags then the get now and the public would be completely excluded.

3--I believe many of those CWMUs particularly in the NR would actually sell out to developers and much of what is now critical winter range would be/would be 40 acre cabin lots.

I fully understand the CWMU program is not a perfect program and its still a work in progress but if major changes are made to the program the only folks who loose will be joe public.

Just a few things to consider.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Thanks for your comments Todd.

Lets just try and keep this thread open to suggestions only. The last post kind of got out of hand.

Thanks,

Matt
 
So if the public asks for 20 percent the cwmus owners will just build cabins??? Call there bluff.
 
Matt--

I agree, it got way out of hand and I'm happy just trying to educate. However, I would like to add a suggestion as well as. This is likely the one thing I hear the most about.

Prior to hunting season starting on any CWMU that UDWR law enforcement meet with the landowner/operator to inspect posting ensuring CWMUs are properly posted. I believe now the UDWR enforcement has to sign off on the COR however, I know of no region that actually does this.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
+100 Deerlove

I say call their bluff also.

I can't imagine a huge drop out. If there were a few drop outs they would probably the smaller ones. So loosing the 10% public tags on some small units while increasing to 20% tags on the rest- equals alot more public tags.

I doubt many would want to get out and go back to landowner tags that are only good for the normal season dates.

Call their bluff. Some might bail but I bet the majority would stay.
 
I have loved this program. I love the maps and info about the different CWMUs. I would love pics of the country and success photos from prior year.

No complaints here. Love the opportunities it has provided me and my family and friends.

"Helping turn good tags, into great ones." - www.vipoptics.com
 
I too would like to see an increase to 20%...it's a small price to pay to have that long a season where the landowner can capitalize and make money on more guided hunts. No CWMU is going to close and try and make money on only a 9 day deer season. Call it a good-faith 20% for the priviledge of having a CWMU...
 
HJB-

Thank you for seeking our suggestions and input. I am guessing that that my suggestions will be "shot down" (pun intended) but I thought I would throw them out there anyway:

1. No public land should be included in a CWMU--particularly where the public cland is not landlocked by private land or is accessible by a public road.

2. CWMU tags should be for the same season dates as the general hunts.

3. CWMU's should be subject to the same percentage of tag reductions as the surrounding general units.

4. The ratio of tags available in the public draw should be increased.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-12 AT 02:52PM (MST)[p]>HJB-
>
>Thank you for seeking our suggestions
>and input. I am
>guessing that that my suggestions
>will be "shot down" (pun
>intended) but I thought I
>would throw them out there
>anyway:
>
>1. No public land should be
>included in a CWMU--particularly where
>the public cland is not
>landlocked by private land or
>is accessible by a public
>road.
>
>2. CWMU tags should be for
>the same season dates as
>the general hunts.
>
>3. CWMU's should be subject to
>the same percentage of tag
>reductions as the surrounding general
>units.
>
>4. The ratio of tags available
>in the public draw should
>be increased.

It would be nice if you could provide some detailed info on why this change should be made. I'm sure the board would love me to go in and make demads with no info behind them.

I need some GOOD input with supporting evidence that a change needs to be made. Come on guys! Think about this before you post it up.
 
Increasing the ratio for public tags would draw more public support for the program. It would take some kind of survey to back that up with numbers.

Sure, the public benefits now from the program, but so does the landowner. It seems that when you compare benefits the landowner benefits outweigh the public benefits. It's a little lopsided. Increasing the ratio for public tags could help even out that disparity.

It's a win/win program both sides, I just feel the winnings aren't divided fairly. I'm not saying the benefits need to weigh the exact same on both sides. The landowners have costs and risks etc, etc. I'm just saying that the public benefits should increase to narrow the wide gap that I feel is there now.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-12 AT 03:44PM (MST)[p] As CWMUs contain public land, propose raising the number of tags for public hunters. If they refuse, then we need to force access to the public lands. Cities and counties muscle out private landowners whenever they need a "right of way" for new roads (Have experienced this first hand)... This should be no different. Either they give us access to the public land, or we take it. I don't agree with private landowners "owning" everything to "high heaven" just because they own the lowest point on the mountain.

As far as tag numbers go, if any amount of a CWMU is public, there has to be a minimum of one public tag, aside from that, I guess the tag numbers should probably be equal to the percentage of public to private land. If the ratio is 10 private to 1 public, then 10:1 it is, but if it's 3 private to 1 public, the ratio should be 3:1...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
I like the intent of Todd's suggestion about CWMUs being properly posted.

I have seen a lot that are not. Some remote borders are not posted at all. Public hunters have been known to hunt these because they do not know it is private. Also CWMU hunters will cross over the boundaries themselves and hunt public land. It is hard to enforce or help police these instances (both ways) when borders are not properly posted.

I have also seen CWMUs posted erroneously. It is no fun to come upon a CWMU trespassing sign when you know the actual boundary is 800 yards behind the sign. Just because a convenient tree or fence post is ?near? the actual boundary, it is the actual boundary that should be posted (at least with a tighter tolerance than 800 yards). If you need a convenient tree, it should be inside the property not outside.

I can't picture a DWR employees actually checking the remote boundaries. I see them not having time and just taking the landowner?s word for it. Verification would be great dedicated hunter project for service hours. Even actual posting would be a great DH project.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how folks on this site have no respect for private land! The fact that ranchers and other land owners have risked their financial future to aquire their property over multiple generations means nothing! The fact that the vast majority of ranchers and landowners are a great benefit to wildlife means nothing! The fact that the right to do as a person chooses with private property means nothing! What part of private property can't you guys understand? You lock your trucks and homes. You lock up your computer and satelite with passwords. You have secret PIN numbers on you bank accounts. You don't want your personal information put out in the public. You might scream if you own property value went down because of a powerline or a sewer plant went in next door. You have as much control as possible in every aspect of your own life. And then ##### and moan when a large landowner want to have control over property that has been in a family for generations or that he worked to aquire! Can i have access to the park behind your house by going through your living room? Hell no. I'd get to the park by it's entrance. If you want to hunt public land behind a piece of private ground, either ask permission or find a way to access it without crossing the private land! Nobody owes any of us access to their property. It is a priviledge to get permission, not your destiny! Maybe this will make more sense......How many guys do you let sleep with your wife? But what if they ask first? The point is, what you and I protect and cherish and respect might be different. But we should still understand that private property is still private. A CWMU gives public hunters a chance to hunt where they might otherwise never get to hunt. And it allows the landowner to keep control over HIS PLACE! Just like the choices you make in your home. My two cents and probably worth as much. For the record, i do not have enough property to qualify for a CWMU and have never hunted one. But i do know some great folks who have them and they are fine people, like Todd Black. I think the program works well and hope it continues.
 
I would recommend that the CWMU would have to provide the same hunt for a public hunter as the do a guided hunter. Food, lodging guide if public hunter wants it. I know Alton offers this and is a first class CWMU. I believe they are supposed to offer the same hunt but from rumor and what I hear most don't. If I am wrong please educate us on this matter.
 
Nice tone there, bud. Those deer and elk that roam the hills of "your" land do not belong to you. In reality, neither does the land! You are given legal stewardship over your property for the short time you "own" it. Just because you have a deed in your hand does not mean jack when it comes to wildlife. It means you have the right to stand there and view it, nothing more. If I park my vehicle in your driveway, does that give you ownership? Nay!

Ok, sorry HJB. Back on topic. The only specific suggestion I can make right now would be to impose an archery-only restriction on CWMU's until the general season archery is over. Particularly on the Alton unit I have heard lots of complaints that they are killing deer with a rifle while everyone else totes around the stick and string. In many cases CWMUs are adjacent to lands that are not part of the program whether they be public or private. Allowing rifle hunting in early September gives an unfair advantage to the CWMU to harvest animals that inhabit multiple properties.

Thanks for taking the time to seek input!
 
No public land included in any CWMU. The traded lands are a joke in most instances. It used to say that CWMU's consisted of mostly private land in the proclamation but that wording is gone now. Who changed the rules? It sure wasn't the public hunter I can guarantee you that. It really doesn't matter what we say the DWR and CWMU operators do whatever they please we just have to go along for the ride.
 
I think access to some of the larger islands of public land should be negotiated a little more in favore of the public. Not the right to trespass with out land owner control, just more public tags for those areas. Or less land owner tags for those land owners.

That being said I have to say I agree with Desertrancher. Be careful about taking away peoples right to "Stewardship".
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-12 AT 08:03PM (MST)[p]Appreciate the discussion and Matt for making the post, for the most part it seems to be pretty level headed, and needed--good discussion.

One change I see here a couple of times and one I hear often is to recommend more tags on CWMUs to the public if they contain public lands. I agree, in many cases these lands shouldn't even be included but in some cases (landlocked parcels) it makes sense at least to me.

I first want to point out that these CWMUs that contain public grounds are required to give a greater percent of the tags to the public.
Take a look at this one...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/HAM/public/details_cwmu.php?cwmu_id=2008022

22582 total acres of which 3640 acres are public lands representing 16% of the total CWMU acreage. Private public deer split is 13 and 45 respectively giving 29% of the total tags to the public. Now I don't know about the formula used but if you figured 10% for the normal 90/10 split and then another 16% for the public lands that would be 26% total but this one gives 29% to the public. If it was 26 the public would only get 12 but they actually get 13.

I'm merely trying to make the point that with those CWMUs that include public land for this reason or that (agree that these should all be scrutinized) what should that 'a little more favorable to the public be? What would be a standard formula or should each one be looked at independently?

Thanks

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Todd,
I realize that the public ratio is increased with the inclusion of public lands, but a 10% increase in most cases is only one extra tag.

3600 acres of public land can hold more than 2 public hunters if it were open for a general season hunt. I would rather have the 3600 public acres to stand alone as public property. It could support several public hunters each year.

I think this is one reason that people are frustrated with the inclusion of public lands.
 
Any hunter who draws a CWMU tag should have the same rights as the operator clients on where to hunt the CWMU, Every year you hear about guys claiming they couldn't hunt the whole CWMU because the oprators was saving a area's for the high paying clients and they only got to scout a day before the hunt. LEVEL this playing field out.

IF you draw a tag you should be able able to hunt the same area's that the guides take his clients to..
Of course the rancher can close down area's(cows or havesting) But if they are closed to the public hunter they should be close to all.

Sure would be nice to have a special fee and draw for NR to draw a CWMU tag, maybe those extra tags that everyone wants.
The money could be split between the DWR and landowner.LOL

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Well said Desertrancher, I read all the time how we don't own the wildlife on our land. Your right they can come and go as they like. I think the program works well and give the joe public something they would never have with out the program in place-a chance.
 
HBJ,

One simple suggestion. REQUIRE CWMU's to either post public hunts dates or provide a range of dates available. Most CWMU's do this on the division web site, but a few do not. I've hunted a lot of CWMU's over the years, probably more than 20, and most have been a great experience. My biggest frustration with a few operators is getting a date commitment. The regs say to contact the operator before applying. Great. Most operators won't answer this question or say something similar to "it depends" when contacted. Then, once you have the tag in hand, they say they will only allow you to hunt on one weekend, for instance the opening weekend of deer season. No one wants to give up opening weekend of deer season to shoot a doe antelope, for example.

I have had some luck getting DWR involved to work out a solution with operators who try this BS. Not always, however. And it is unnecessary. If operators post that you can hunt within the entire open season set by DWR, then they should have to allow you to hunt during that time on a mutually agreeable date. One operator even requires all anterless hunts to occur during the week (no weekend hunting), but doesn't disclose this during the application process. Totally bogus and easily fixed.

Bill
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-12 AT 09:59AM (MST)[p]I agree with the dates problem. My wife drew a buck deer CWMU last year. We had such a bad experience. I'll never apply for one again. All the public hunters dates were early in the season. The paying clients were in the late season when the deer were migrating through the property. When I approached the operator before applying, he never told me this. He only told me there were quite a few mature bucks killed every year. If the harvest numbers on the DWR would split the public vs paying clients, we as public hunters would have alot more knowledge before applying.

This particular operator is using the CWMU as a money maker with paying clients and at the same time ensuring the public hunters go home empty.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-12
>AT 09:59?AM (MST)
>
>I agree with the dates problem.
>My wife drew a buck
>deer CWMU last year. We
>had such a bad experience.
>I'll never apply for one
>again. All the public hunters
>dates were early in the
>season. The paying clients were
>in the late season when
>the deer were migrating through
>the property. When I approached
>the operator before applying, he
>never told me this. He
>only told me there were
>quite a few mature bucks
>killed every year. If the
>harvest numbers on the DWR
>would split the public vs
>paying clients, we as public
>hunters would have a lot more
>knowledge before applying.
>
> This particular operator is using
>the CWMU as a money
>maker with paying clients and
>at the same time ensuring
>the public hunters go home
>empty.

All CWMU's that have November Buck Deer hunts are required to allow the hunters to hunt in November if they choose. This rule is plainly noted on the DWR website. In your case maybe it was before this rule was implemented (not sure when it came into effect), or was simply a lack of rule enforcement.


2a0fcsk.gif
 
Blandingboy,

I appreciate your attempt to educate me.

If you think that removing a tag from a private individual and putting it in the hand of a public hunter will turn every CWMU land owner away from the program then I think you are in need of some education.

Not only do they get tags, but they also are privy to a tax break. I think that alone is worth staying in the program.... I believe you can relate to that...???? Just my opinion...




It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
Hmmmm.......
I was unaware of this. I wonder if this change came into affect this year. I asked the operator if my wife could hunt later and was told no. Thanks for the input. I'll look into it.
 
I personally have never hunted a CWMU in Utah but have looking into it alittle now for a few years.

I see and hear alot of things that I dislike about CWMU's and have wondered if the program made some changes, just how many more people would apply for them as a first choice during the application period. I have wondered why we even are offered a second choice on the limited entry hunts app? I'm doubting you could ever draw the second choice. But that's a entire different discussion. My questions and/or suggestions are:

1: When is the CWMU unit information updated on the dwr website? Are they all updated at the same time?
2: I think all the information should be given. Average age of deer is usually not specified. Why? That is one example.
3:There are too many restrictions given to the hunter who draws the tag. A)hunting dates B)area restrictions and/or closures etc.

I'm not dening that this program doesn't help the public hunting oppurtunities. But the question is could it help more by enforcing a few things that have lacked and making a few changes that balance things out between landowner and public hunter.

Right now I think it's not balanced therefore you have worse odds of drawing a premium tag due to the knowledge of the public not wanting to risk losing their points and having a waiting period after getting screwed over by certain CWMU operator.

Where can I read the publics hunting experiences (reviews) of there hunts on specific CWMU units? I think it should be mandatory to write your reviews on the unit you hunted.

Lets hear what's happened so we can seperate the good operators/units from the bad.

I agree that the public should benefit more from CWMU units that claim a huge amount of public land in their specific unit to hunt. Either offer more public tags for that unit or drop that unit from being a qualified CWMU.

The bottom line is that there are things that need to change and things that need to be enforced in order to improve this program.
 
I would like them to require a photo of every public hunters buck. Since the public cannot scout the cwmu they should be allowed to see what the public hunters are harvesting!



avatar_2528.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-12 AT 12:40PM (MST)[p]Billybob--

I sent you an email and a PM that answered all your questions. This post was supposed to be about changes. Your last sentence said, "The bottom line is that there are things that need to change and things that need to be enforced in order to improve this program."

I ask, what changes? What needs to be enforced?

I think that was the intent of the original post, what changes would you recommend as your bottom line? The only suggestion I see from you is either drop CWMUs from the program or give more tags to the public for that unit, whatever 'that unit' is.

Perhaps something you and those who have suggested to give more public tags esp. when CWMUs include public lands is offer/work on a formula and send it to Matt/UDWR showing what percentage could be given to the public if the CWMU includes more land. Remember to look at the current one and make it different so it reflects a change that you are looking for.

Thanks

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Your welcome Travis, its harder with some folks though.

I don't believe I said, "removing a tag from a private individual and putting it in the hand of a public hunter will turn every CWMU land owner away from the program".... What I said is our survey DATA showed that going away from a 90/10 split to a 60/40 or 50/50 split the majority of CWMUs would drop out of the program.

It would be great if you would try and refrain writing things or saying things I didn't say.

I don't know of one CWMU that gets 'tags'. There is a big difference in getting a 'tag' and a voucher that is redeemed through the state by someone who pays for the tag/permit.

I'm not sure about the being 'privy to a tax break' thing so I guess you will have to educate me on that one.

Thanks

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
I would also like to see the ratio of public tags increased. However, rather than just changing the ratio and risk losing some of the CWMUs, is there a way to provide incentive to the CWMUs?

In other words, they could stay at the 90/10 ratio, but if they went to 80/20 or 70/30, some additional benefit would be provided. I can't think of a benefit the CWMUs would be interested in, but I'll bet if you asked them what else they wanted, they would give you a list.
 
Todd Black,

I thank you for sending me a PM with a link to the DWR website that gives me GENERAL information about the CWMU's.

I don't know if you've looked at ALL of the info for EACH CWMU but most do not specify an average age for the deer taken on the unit. There is alot of information that shows N/A "NOT AVAILABLE" . That is not giving me the information that I need. You didn't answer any of my questions. I offerd a couple of ideas that have already been mentioned. But as you will see on this thread. MANY people will respond with new ideas to help educate people.

You telling me that "if an area is closed in the unit then it's closed to everyone" is a bunch of BS
I have a friend that drew a tag for Deseret and they limited his areas to hunt. There were sections of the unit that they told him he could NOT hunt. I feel like that is a bunch of BS.

I'm still trying to figure out where I can read some reviews on CWMU's.

Have you ever thought of purchasing something from the Cabelas website and you had to read the reviews before deciding to purchase?
That's what I'm looking for. I can see all the GENERAL information that the DWR website offers but I want more detail info. Like someone on this thread just said...They don't even offer photos of some of the bucks taken on the unit. I want any and all info possible that will SELL ME to apply for that unit.

BTW.... What unit do you operate?
 
It's easy to understand that there would be alot more public involvement with this program if they changed a few things around. There has been some great ideas brought up on this thread that should be considered. But my question is why haven't they been already. I personaly have considered a FEW CWMU units in the past but with basic or general information on the unit, I have never put one down on my application as a first choice. Probably wont either. Just like everyone else. Instead everyone will just keep putting in for the henrys or some other premium unit as their first choice until MAYBE one day... Someone makes some changes to this program.

Here is an idea.

I don't like bouncing between this MM website and the DWR website to look at all the information that I need to see to decide if I want to apply. Hunting odds, harvest data, success rate, etc. Someone should add all this stuff to one site.
 
Sureshot--

you said.. "In other words, they could stay at the 90/10 ratio, but if they went to 80/20 or 70/30, some additional benefit would be provided."


All CWMUs have the options (in their 3 year management plans) to choose from the above mentioned splits. If they choose a 90/10 split all antlerless are to go to the public. If they choose a lesser split then the CWMU can obtain some of the antlerless vouchers. Many of the elk CWMUs are more likely a 80/20 split.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Here ya go: TWO BEAR CWMU for Utah. Description of boundaries has typo. It borders Wyoming and Utah not Idaho and Utah.


WEBER FLURENCE CREEK.
Satisfaction index was 1.7 for public deer and 4.3 for private.
That tells me that this unit sucks for the public hunter. Someone explain this one. I know I won't be applying.

Here ya go..
Some units don't have a success rate for deer. They give 8 public tags and 72 private buck deer tags. No info for hunter success. That's alot of tags with no info gathered. Maybe they have the info but wish not to show it.

I don't want to asee index ratings.
I WANT HUNTER FEEDBACK GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS.
I want to know what to expect.

Deseret has 14700 public acres. I should be able to hunt that ground. Deseret gives 70-80 tags but no data for buck deer ages.
That's alot of tags with no age verified.
Parkvalley hereford 3600 public acres. I should be able to hunt.
 
Billybob--

Sent you another email, still not sure what question i failed to answer, let me know.

Interesting data here...from hunterstrailhead.com

Chances to draw Alton CWMU deer with 0 points. .2%
Chances to draw Henerys rifle deer with 0 points .1%

Chance to draw SJ rifle elk tag with 0 points .1%
Chance to draw Deseret elk tag with 0 points .1%

Looks to me like percentages of changes to draw is pretty much the same, I can at least say the are statistically insignificant. So someone is applying for these CWMU tags, just not you.

Some folks like to have their cake and eat it too i suppose:)

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-12 AT 03:46PM (MST)[p]Scott--

In this day and age of so much regulation rules and laws, we tend to want to take away personal responsibility as much as we can and regulate someone else. I like your idea of pictures, add to it score, points per side etc. much of which the UDWR is already requiring folks to do with their harvest surveys.

My question(s) to you is, why should it be the operators responsibility? Should they also be required to fill out the hunter survey for the public hunter as well? Many landowners/operators just give guys full access and don't hear from them again. Not a thank you nothing. Why should they be the ones that have to go 3 hours out of their way to take a picture? Just asking....

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Chris/Billbob

Just so I understand, so that Matt understands. These are all good BTW, just trying to get to the bullet points.

Your changes you would like to make are.

1--if its public land and its accessible for you to hunt, it should be open to the public. If these grounds are not accessible, you want a greater percentage of tags to be given to the public. But you still have not provided a formula as to how 'more' is determined. BTW, this is a common thread throughout this post and BTW, it is discussed every time the CWMU program goes through a review process.

2--you would like more accurate, up to date, and correct information on the UDWR web page for all of the CWMUs. I might add we are getting there, 3 years ago, it wasn't even available on the web. The UDWR has done a fantastic job getting much of this out, it does still have QA/QC problems.

3--you want better enforcement of program rules?

Any I left out?

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
If a area of the CWMU is closed to the public hunter it should be closed to the private hunter as well.( no saving those good bucks for the higher paying client give the public hunter equal chances at them)

Anytime a guide is allow to scout the CWMU the public tag holder should be allowed to scout on the CWMU.(exp guide is scouting on Sat the 15th of Aug the public hunter has the same time frame open to him.)



"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Or the opporator could post the photos of the successful hunters.

I don't know why it has to be so hard. O I know why they don't want you the public hunter to know it just increases the odds of that unit and then family and friends of the opporator will have increased waiting times.

I have one if the easiest things to implement and todd just mocks me!

avatar_2528.jpg
 
HJB -

Here are some ideas -

1. CHANGE THE RATIOS FOR MORE PUBLIC PERMITS. 70/30 from 80/20 and 80/20 from 90/10. Its about getting more permits for buck and bulls. This would get more public hunters taking advantage of the CWMU program hunting bucks and bulls and provide more feedback from said hunters. The CWMU operators are making a lot of money on the permits they sell. They also are given a very very VERY liberal season to spread out those permits and creating a very quality hunt for those people who pay the big bucks. Now if the CWMU operators think they can get the same amount of money for these permits while hunting in the same time frame as the public, 10 or so days, then go ahead and leave the program. But something tells me they cant. It is more beneficial for them to stay in the program.

2. REQUIRE PUBLIC HUNTERS TO RETURN FEEDBACK TO DWR. Public hunters would return feedback to DWR just like LE hunters are required to report from their limited entry hunt. If no feedback from public hunters, suspend their hunting rights for a season just like they do with swan hunters. The plus side for landowners is when they do a good job and treat the public right, they are allow to continue in the program.

3. REQUIRE DWR TO POST REVIEWS. The DWR should be required to post these reviews on the CWMU units so hunters could read these before applying for these units. Hunters would know exactly what to expect when they apply. These reviews would also keep CWMU Operators honest in how they treated the public. The good operators would have nothing to worry about. The bad ones..... well......

4. CWMU OPERATORS WILL POST THE HUNTING DATES THE PUBLIC WILL BE HUNTING. This would provide no question to the public, DWR, or CWMU operators when the public will be hunting. They cannot change the dates later and everyone would be on the same playing field.

5. ALLOW DAYS TO SCOUT FOR PUBLIC DRAW HUNTERS. This gives the public an opportunity to understand the boundaries of the CWMU and the terrain they will be hunting. This will also allow for a more quality hunt, which in the end, is what this whole process is about!!!!

Yes, all of my suggestions are more on the side of the public hunter. But I think the majority of people would agree when this program was set up, the landowners got just about everything. Liberal seasons, tags to sell for profit, etc. Now its time to try and even this up.
 
Blanding Boy,

I think it is misleading you state that the majority of the tags on CWMU go to the public. Although you speak the truth..... its what you are not saying that is important to get out.

Its about bucks and bulls. That is the bottom line. CWMU operators sell them for the most. Guides like yourself guide for them for the most.

Why dont operators give more buck and bull tags to the public and keep the antlerless tags to sell?

Why dont you guide people on antlerless tags?

The reason is THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE ALL HERE FOR!!!

We all want more QUALITY opportunities to hunt BUCKS AND BULLS!!

Hunting is about applying for a tag, anticipation of drawing out, getting the email, buying new gear, scouting your area, hunting your whole area, and in the end having an opportunity to kill a quality animal. No one wants to be told they cant scout. If the operators dont want people scouting on their property, then get out of the CWMU process. No one wants to be told where they can and cant hunt. If the operators want to control where the public hunters can and cant go, then get out of the CWMU process. No one wants to guess when they will hunt. If the operators want to play those games, then again.... get out of the process.

SWAGshootn
 
Sure thing Todd. Thanks for hearing me vent. Sometimes I have a hard time putting into words what I want to say. I am fairly new to hunting,blogging. But I am always learning about these kinds of things. I spend countless hours looking at several websites looking at data and it gets frustrating when I don't find what I'm looking for when it should be easily accessible. At the end of the day I want to make good decisions on where I hunt to give me the best oppurtunity to tag a monster. It's my passion, my obsession. Big bucks drive me nuts...i can make this dream happen for myself and help educate others along the way and meet some awesome people.

I hope the dwr can get someone to fix the issues with info on these cwmu units.
I hope I also offered a few suggestions to help this program. Thanks for the translation todd.
 
I think the CWMU program provides some great opportunities for public hunters. However, it would be ridiculous for anyone to think that this program isn't lopsided in favor towards the landowner/outfitter. I agree with a lot of what SWAG is saying.

- I don't think the tag distribution should be 50/50 by any means, but 75/25 or 80/20 (bucks/bulls) shouldn't be unreasonable. If the landowner doesn't like it, then good luck with the 7-10 day season everyone else hunts.

- There are a number of CWMUs that I'm interested in, but before I blow my points on them I want real info from public hunters. The DWR needs to make public hunters experiences more readily available (i.e. mandatory comments, ratings, a standardized q/a survey).
 
Its hard to pass an idea past blanding boy.

You see, we are all wanting to mess with his lively hood.
Blandingboy, I think that the CWMU program is top notch! 100% awesome with honey and sugar all over it. Nothing should change because everyone drinks the CWMU cool aid!

If one CWMU dropped out of the program becuase they went from 90/100 to 80/20 I would be surprised.

I am very sorry that i said they are given tags when they are given vouchers. I didn't know that I would have to be so specific.






It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
Kevin

You asked...
"Why dont operators give more buck and bull tags to the public and keep the antlerless tags to sell?"

Answer
because they tend to generate more income.

You asked...
"Why dont you guide people on antlerless tags? "

Answer
Truth be told, I took over 20 cow elk hunters for free this year, how's that. Many CWMUs that have them do guide public antlerless tags for free. Many even guide the public antlered hunters for free. Free actually means it cost them money for fuel and time at a minimum.

You said..."We all want more QUALITY opportunities to hunt BUCKS AND BULLS!!"

So if I'm reading between the lines, what you are saying is the CWMU program and individual landowners/operators have been doing a good job of reducing harvest (we do harvest at a much less rate than general season) as such have a more quality hunting experience and now you think 'we' should have more of it. Is that what you are saying? And if 'we' draw a tag on one of these CWMUs 'we' want them to have the key 24/7 to go on their property anytime just so they can have that hunting experience.

That's your major change you want, right? Just so I'm clear you want public draw hunters to have access to scout before they hunt? Was that one day, ten, 2 days just before the hunt, 24/7 anytime 'we' want? Any chance you could be a bit more specific here.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Todd,

Thanks for your reply.

I guess some of my questions were more rhetorical than anything else. We all know why CWMUs take the bucks and bull tags. Its about money. Plain and simple. What it is not about is the CWMUs taking the bucks and bull tags (which are less in quantity) and giving the antlerless tags (which are the majority) so that the public can have more opportunities to hunt. They do this because of the $$$$.

I applaud you for guiding people on antlerless hunts. I applaud others who do the same. I hope the motives behind doing so are good and not alternative motives to protect something. Just a thought.

I do believe the CWMUs do provide a better hunting experience. Is it specifically related to something the landowner/operators are doing??? Hard to say. Some CWMUs... YES. Other.... NO!!!

Private land has for the most part always been better. Control the number of hunters, control the number of deer harvested, and you get better outcomes. That is a no brainer.

Again, we are giving landowners/operators liberal seasons, vouchers to sell, choose your weapon and I think the public should get a little more in return. Do I think the public should get the keys to the place? NO!!! But should they get a little more for what they are allowing the CWMUs to do? YES!!!

Do I think they should be allowed a couple days to scout? Yes

The bottom line is I think the public should be given a little more than what they currently are being given. I think the idea that CWMUs will drop out of the program at the very hint of changes in ridiculous. I think its more posturing than reality. Hell if I was a landowner or operator and DWR asked me in a questionaire if I would drop out if they made some changes.... hell yes I would say yes I would!!! Because I have it very good now and any changes would be taking something away. Plain and simple.

I think there is some neutral ground. That is the whole point of this post.

Kevin
 
I have to agree with the above comments. Anybody that thinks CWMU operators will drop out of the program if slight/minor changes are made are just naive. The CWMU program is MUCH more advantageous to the private property operators than to the general public. The program is a cash cow for private property owners. It has only minimal significance or importance to public hunters. Personally I would like to see CWMU's be mandated to allow public fishing access if they are enrolled in the CWMU program. In other words, places like Deseret Land and Livestock is a good example of my idea. If DLL wants to participate in the CWMU program fine. Since the PHU/CWMU program started, DLL has quadrupled their hunting revenue. But if they want to participate in the CWMU program they should be mandated to allow public fishing access on public streams on their ranch such as Lost Creek above the reservoir.
 
I opened my monstermuley account just to reply to this post. I was fortunate enough this year to hunt as a companion with my friend that drew on the Weber Florence Creek CWMU. The operator Steve Woolstenhulme turned out to be a real character. We were treated with courtesy and respect until we ventured onto an area of the property were he was hunting with a private client. Never in my life have I been treated so poorly, heard so many curse words, or seen someone so belligerent. He said, in lesser words, that he only lets the public hunt on half the property so they don't bother the private hunters and vice versa. I explained to him the CWMU rules that allow public hunters the same access as private hunters and he just screamed, "Do tell me the rules, I wrote the rules!".

My friend who drew the tag is working on a formal complaint against Steve Woolstenhulme and Weber Florence however I have learned from this experience that there needs to be more accountability and a ranking system provided to the public. A harvest survey is required by the DWR after the hunt why not add on operator survey too? Also the DWR should furnish each hunter with a letter stating his/her rights and the rules each operator must abide by.

Include questions with rankings such as:
Were you treated fairly?
Did the operator abide by the rules of the CWMU program?
Did the operator provide equal hunting opportunities to private/public hunters?
etc, etc.

These rankings should be posted on the DWR site with the map of the CWMU and its "profile". This alone would educate the public prior to putting in for a CWMU whether or not the operator was fair. The best predictor of the future is the past...
I'd love to hear everyone's feedback on my ideas. Thanks.
 
Deseret has clients that pay 1000s of dollars a year just to fish on the property. I'm pretty sure there is no way the public will get free access to fish.

This is about wildlife anyway not fish.
 
HJB
Please actually read my post. I discuss Lost Creek. I am not talking about the private pay to play fishing ponds on Deseret. I am talking about Lost Creek above the reservoir that is a public water, with public fish that flows over a private stream bed.
 
So walk up the creek with your waders and fish it. Last I read, as long as you are below the high water mark you can access the creeks and rivers on private land. That is as long as you have a public access point.
 
I love sitting back watching you guys cry a river about free acess Try going to another state where your locked out with no free acess. I wish the CWMU program was gone and all the gates were locked for good. Go ahead push your agenda increase the splits & I guarantee you they will drop out of a program. They done need the program you do!!
 
>I love sitting back watching you
>guys cry a river about
>free acess Try
>going to another state where
>your locked out with no
>free acess. I
>wish the CWMU program was
>gone and all the gates
>were locked for good.
>Go ahead push your agenda
>increase the splits & I
>guarantee you they will drop
>out of a program.
>They done need the program
>you do!!


What pray tell is stopping them from dropping out now? Under the horrid conditions they have to market the big dollar tags and deplorable time restrictions to get them all guided it seems they should do just that. They should drop out now and 'show us all.' Hold on, I'll get my violin. If they don't need the program, who held the gun to their head to sign up? They are in the program because it benefits them plain and simple. It makes the animals on their land more valuable, more marketable, and the guiding logistics become more feasible. Both the OWNERS AND the PUBLIC are getting a benefit out of it and don't pretend that is not the case.

I say raise the splits 80/20, let 'em keep the trophy cow/doe hunts, and call the bluff. Those that want to can return to the previous system, take the 100/0 split, and figure out how to get 'er done with a week long season and clients that have to draw the tag. I for one would like to see where the tipping point is that they will flee the system and return to the previous status quo just to see exactly how much they do or don't need the program.

4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
I also say raise it because I would like it gone.
The reason landowners are in the program is because the program was created to intise landownes to enroll,
But they don't need the program & they never will. ?Most of the landowners I know are in the program for the extra protection against trespassing & poaching "NOT THE MONEY" ? ?Go figure your a moderator on this site? I hope the sites advertisers/outfitters/landowners are watching and drop $$ support?
 
The landowners need the program bad. Which explains why the huge increase in the number of CWMU properties since the program began. Look at how popular the program is now compared to 10 or 15 years ago. It generates a lot of money for them. It is all about money. Back in the old days if a landowner/rancher wanted to charge a trespass permit or guide hunters, they had to cram all hunters into a set season. Under the CWMU program they can up the hunter numbers because of the ability to spread them out over many weeks/months. If this program was revenue neutral or of no benefit to the landowners then why the huge increase in popularity and why aren't landowners dropping out???
HJB: unfortunately Utah isn't Idaho or Montana in regards to stream access. So no; you can't wade up Lost Creek under the high water mark. It is called trespassing if you do...
 
Like I said, call the bluff. What would be the point of advertisers/outfitters/landowners dropping the $$. They don't need the program and never will. They have no vested interest as you proclaim. Or are you suggesting that perhaps it all ties back to the $cha $ching and my personal opinion would have adverse impact on them...er a *cough cough* you? You don't talk out of both sides of your mouth or anything do you? Laughable.

I noted that BOTH SIDES of the equation certainly benefit from the program. You simply want everyone to blindly endorse the idea that somehow the system in no way benefits the landowners/guides. Since the program was implemented, the market value of hunts has increased exponentially, and for good reason. What used to be an in kind trespass fee has blossomed into a full scale 3 month window of marketable hunting, lodging, and guiding operations.

Does the public get some advantage? You bet, sometimes more so than others on a case by case basis. Do landowners, brokers, guides & outfitters get a piece of the pie? No, they are getting beat like a red headed step child out of the deal right? This is not a compulsory program and the public and/or landowners should have the opportunity to pull the plug at any time should one or the other feel as though it is not fair. Neither side holds all the aces.


4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
"Go figure your a moderator on this site? I hope the sites advertisers/outfitters/landowners are watching and drop $$ support"
What you don't think just because a guy is a moderator HE can't have a opinion. Sorry But I don't see the landowner dropping out, I do see them asking the outfitters for more of a cut of their monies from the vouchers and getting it because they aren't going to let the CWMU close down either and put all those outfitters out of business.
Nope don't see it happening those outfitters will give up more money to keep this thing running.

SCOUTING should be the same for a outfitter as it is for the public hunter, one day or 30 days, they need to be the same amount.























"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Garth-

You are up in the night. CWMUs offer significant benefits to the landowners that want to make money off of hunting. Guaranteed tags that can be sold for the top dollars, flexible hunting dates, the opportunity to incorporate checkerboard public lands, etc. I would like to see the ratio of tags be closer to 50/50. If landowners choose to pull out of the progam, so be it. That is their right. However, it will be much more difficult to make the same amount of money when your deep pocket clients have to wait 5-10 years to draw a tag and when you are forced to hunt general season dates. There needs to be balance between the private and public interests.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
As an example: in the early 1990's I used to hunt in Chalk Creek on A&M Ranch, out of Upton. I paid a $100 trespass fee that allowed me to hunt both elk and deer. I was also allowed to hunt the rifle and muzz seasons for deer, since back then a hunter could hunt archery, rifle and muzz. Now look at the situation 17 years later. The property is a CWMU. A deer tag runs about $4,000 or I need about 12 points (12 years of putting in for the draw) to get lucky enough to draw a public tag in the CWMU program. Talk about a loss of opportunity and a windfall for the rancher! 17 years later I need to fork out $4,000 or have 12 points for something that used to cost me $100...Yup the CWMU is a real win-win for the public hunter.
 
>As an example: in the early
>1990's I used to hunt
>in Chalk Creek on A&M
>Ranch, out of Upton. I
>paid a $100 trespass fee
>that allowed me to hunt
>both elk and deer. I
>was also allowed to hunt
>the rifle and muzz seasons
>for deer, since back then
>a hunter could hunt archery,
>rifle and muzz. Now look
>at the situation 17 years
>later. The property is a
>CWMU. A deer tag runs
>about $4,000 or I need
>about 12 points (12 years
>of putting in for the
>draw) to get lucky enough
>to draw a public tag
>in the CWMU program. Talk
>about a loss of opportunity
>and a windfall for the
>rancher! 17 years later I
>need to fork out $4,000
>or have 12 points for
>something that used to cost
>me $100...Yup the CWMU is
>a real win-win for the
>public hunter.

Don't tell Garth that. That 4k tag is chump change. The landowner only takes the fee so they can stock the benjamins in the outhouse in lieu of toilet paper. They are doing us all a favor. If they pulled from the cwmu they could easily aquire 20k for that same tag under general season rules.


4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
After reading everyone's opinions here are my revised thoughts:

80/20 split (with corresponding antlerless ratio) should be the max, not 90/10.

Archery only until general archery hunts are over

Public hunting dates should be set in advance for all CWMUs and posted in the application guidebook.

Increase hunts to 7 days for public hunters. That would be 12% of the season and would have to include a weekend.

Implement a way for public and private hunters to post reviews on the DWR's website (not just a rating of 1-5).

The public should be entitled to additional tags depending on the percentage of public land and the huntability of that land. A good formula would be to take the 80% and multiply by the percentage of private land in the CWMU. The resulting percentage would be given to the operator. For example, Deseret is 93% private. .93x.8=.744, so Deseret should get 74.4% of tags to keep and 25.6% go to the public. This number would be the starting point for tag allocation and could then be adjusted based on: quality and quantity of trade lands, quality of public lands included in CWMU. That way if the public lands are the honey holes of the property there would be even more public tags. If they are not good huntable acres then the public would get fewer additional tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-12 AT 05:42PM (MST)[p]1911, 280. Are you a landowner, operator or outfitter in the state of Utah? Do you have any first hand knolage of how the hunting business works on a CWMU Are you a outfitter, landowner or tag broker in any other state? No your not! How do I know? Because your answers give it away! I would love for the CWMU program to go away! Why? More money for the brokers! Utah landowners and outfitters don't need or depend on the stupid program! Take it away and see for yourself. Why do you think so many guy in Texas went to a high fence? So they could own the game and take out the crying public 100% out of the loop. That is a fact. 280 I also see your truth, your pissed 100$ won't buy you access anymore.
 
Who TF is Garth Carter?

[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-12
>AT 05:42?PM (MST)
>
>1911, 280. Are you
>a landowner, operator or outfitter
>in the state of Utah?
> Do you have
>any first hand knolage of
>how the hunting business works
>on a CWMU
> Are you a outfitter,
>landowner or tag broker in
>any other state? No
>your not! How do I
>know? Because your answers give
>it away! I
>would love for the CWMU
>program to go away! Why?
>More money for the brokers!
> Utah landowners and
>outfitters don't need or depend
>on the stupid program! Take
>it away and see for
>yourself. Why
>do you think so many
>guy in Texas went to
>a high fence? So
>they could own the game
>and take out the crying
>public 100% out of the
>loop. That is a fact.
> 280 I also
>see your truth, your pissed
>100$ won't buy you access
>anymore.

Oh I get it. The way you want it to operate is only the landowners, outfitters, and brokers get a say so. The public is not a part of the equation and need not raise their opinions. As long as we are answering poised questions for each other, I guess we see where you bank. Your statements give that away. You're just enraged that the public gets any input, albeit very little. Just curious though, what is stopping them from pulling out now if the grass is so much greener without it? That is a pretty poor business model if they don't according to your logic. Like I said, enrollment was never compulsory despite your assertions. That is also a fact. That tells me there was something to be gained by enrollment into the program. This fact also unilaterally dismisses your superior insight.


4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
I'm not sure how the $10 application fees are used. I have heard from reliable sources that a good part of those fees are returned to the DWR. What if the CWMUs were given a portion of those funds? By increasing the public tag allotment to 20% the CWMU would lose some revenue. But if they could get $3 per applicant it would help offset that. AND it would motivate the CWMUs to make public hunters happy. The more people that apply the more $ they get!
 
1911. ?I totally view private property hunting issues completely different then?
public land. ?I grew up hunting public land & I still hunt both public and private land every yr. ? If you were talking something like Wyoming's ridiculous & unconstitutional law that requires a nonresident US citizen to hire a guide when hunting certain public land parcels then yes I would agree with you 100% I'm not telling you what I believe, I'm telling you what I know about the Utah's landowners, operators , outfitters & ranchers. Go ask the landowners for your self why there in the CWMU program & I can promis you one part of there answer that always comes up is to keep trespassers & poachers out.
 
As do I but there is also very much a quid quo pro involved with the program. I dispute the idea that the ability to aquire tags, long seasons, ect., are not huge benefit to the landowners however, for the sake of argument I'll stipulate to the idea that enroll only for the purposes of trespass and poaching management. The question then becomes of what value is that to the landowner. It is at least worth ten percent of the allocated tags for these units or they flat out would not participate.

In my opinion, as it sits now, it is a sweat heart deal for most operators. If they don't feel the same they should pull the ejection seat now, and lobby for more strict enforcement of trespassing/poaching crimes on private property. I've been a blessed participant on both sides of the CWMU issue and also have a certain amount of insight because of that. I've been treated good on both sides of the fence as it relates to that. I do think that the participants in the program are afforded some pretty neat privilege they did not previously enjoy, by in large, in exchange for a meager percentage of tags.

Under the current system I do not think either party in this can claim they are getting the shaft by any stretch of the imagination. With that in mind, I don't think it is outrageous for either group to have input for negotiation in its administration. We need to be very careful in dealing with private property rights either way however, nobody is forced into the program. They can take it or leave it and we can try to meet in the middle to accommodate both sides. Simply put if the public wants more tags they can cry. If the landowners don't want to give more tags or have other management issues, they can cry too. I don't suggest that anyone who draws a tag gets to sleep in the cabin with the owners wife to make all things equal, but if they want comparable access with a draw I think that is a valid concern. I would speculate most operators do a very good job with that.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-06-12 AT 08:37PM (MST)[p]>1911. ?I totally view private property
>hunting issues completely different then?
>
>public land. ?I grew up hunting
>public land & I still
>hunt both public and private
>land every yr. ? If
>you were talking something like
>Wyoming's ridiculous & unconstitutional law
>that requires a nonresident US
>citizen to hire a guide
>when hunting certain public land
>parcels then yes I would
>agree with you 100%
> I'm not telling
>you what I believe, I'm
>telling you what I know
>about the Utah's landowners, operators
>, outfitters & ranchers.
> Go ask the landowners
>for your self why there
>in the CWMU program &
>I can promis you one
>part of there answer that
>always comes up is to
>keep trespassers & poachers out.
>


Just because you havent found a way to profit off of wyomings wilderness law yet..When you do it will become a great law.

CWMU's have taken away far more than they have given, you used to get on lots of places with a handshake.but I guess Dickweed operators and tag pimps need to make a living raping public wildlife...congratulations?
 
It's interesting how many people know so much about how to operate a big ranch and CWMU just by applying for tags and hunting once in a while. I think most operators would really be surprised to know that 100% of their fees are profit and the public hunters cost them nothing. Lets take Deseret since it seems so popular. (By the way B-Bob the east half of the ranch is off limits to the paid deer hunters too. You DO hunt exactly the same area.) Lets say there are 50 paid bull tags and 10 public tags.(they never sell 90%) The public does get a 6 day guided hunt just like the paid hunter. plus 200 cow tags who are also guided at an average cost of say $100/per. So the 'free' public hunters cost $30,000 or so not to mention the cost of insurance, lodge, fuel, 2 full time employees, vehicles, etc. Lets also not forget that one of the reasons the elk are in good shape is the feeding program. What do you suppose it costs to feed 1000+ elk for 100 days or so depending on the winter? What does is cost not to use major portions of the mountain for grazing to accommodate the elk? Dealing with the general public is a major pain in the $#@@ sometimes. I can see units drop out when you cut their portion by 11% and double their cost for handling the public hunters. You just increase the number of archery hunters since those are longer seasons. Your guides/hunter don't change anyway so the shorter rifle season actually saves you money. Then the public REALLY screams about their 'state-owned' animals that they have zero chance to ever hunt.
 
Dickweed operators!? Once again I would hope this sites $$ Sponcers are watching. ?Tag pimps? Again I hope eyes are watching $$! if not I will be sure to email them a link to this discussion along with the forum rules! ? Deseret, RK, Wayment & possibly Wade on the Alton Unit are realy the only outfitters big enought to need this program and I would dare bet that even they could live with out it.
Well excepte the Alton, Wade probably realy does need the program within reason
 
It's no secret that I'm a CWMU fan but there could be some increased inforcement to assist the public hunter and maybe some modifications.

For those of you that think these landowners won't drop the program think again. For example, there are several CWMU units around Heber City. I would bet there's not a year goes by that they don't have someone talking land purchase deals with them worth tens of millions of dollars. Prime home properties now. Forget the cabins. When I was growing up I used to hunt deer up by the Red Ledges. It's now all private CWMU and what's not is a multi million dollar golf course that Johny Miller himself helped design. Several of these landowners are older generation guys whose land has been in the family for generations. You see it all the time; the old timers die off and the kids don't want to pay property tax or guide on it or farm it so they sell it off. Most couldn't even if they wanted to guide it or farm it. All it takes is for the kids to say sell it all and there goes thousands of acres of winter range, hunting range and (although limited) public access. Their families are set for generations. There are parcels of land up there that have sold for $20+ million. That's a lot of zeros in this day and age. I think some are missing the point with CWMU operations. Sure, within reason, modify the program but be very careful what you wish for.

And Garth, relax. Keep your threats to yourself. Just in case you forgot, this is a public forum with public opinion. Those opinions may not be the same as yours. Brian runs a great site here for hunters without deep pockets.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
Birdbuster: Your analogy is flawed because you are not taking into consideration that under the CWMU program DL&L is able to allow significantly more elk tags. Under the program they can sell more private tags to more hunters over a much longer time frame, thus increasing their revenue substantially. Prior to the PHU/CWMU regime DL&L flat out couldn't even sell a mid-September elk bugle rifle hunt. They were bound to the general seasons. In case you don't know very wealthy hunters that pay close to $10,000 for a hunt don't like seeing other hunters and they don't like competition. The CWMU program allows DL&L the opportunity to greatly increase the amount of product they are selling.

I know guides who work on CWMU's and I know a CWMU operator, in fact I hunted on one this year. The operator tells me the advantage to the ranch is purely financial. The extra money that they get pays the property taxes on the ranch. Before the CWMU program they could not do that.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-12 AT 08:21AM (MST)[p] To show how flawed the theory is about its all about the money, lets take DLL as an example. Here's what DLL could do if it was just about the money

1--they could sale it. (Clearly making more money in a sale they they would being in the program for over 100 years.
2--they could have UDWR completely remove all the wildlife--high fence it to keep public wildlife off private property.
3--right now, essentially they could sale unlimited over the counter bull elk trespass permits as unguided for 3k If they sold 200 of those that is 600,000 dollars free and clear. Having 100 guys on 250,000 acres over 3 hunts and 6 weeks isn't a very high hunter density, certainly still less than public lands. That's just off elk, additional revenue could be generated off of deer, moose, antelope, lions, bird hunts etc. I'm sure they could clear 1million annually just off public wildlife without the public.

They could assign a lessee for for every 640 acres and that person is now illegible for a deer voucher under current rule and units, roughly 300 of them. Sale those for 1k each generate 300000.

Bare in mind this is with the complete exclusion of the public.

Look guys, I'm not trying to paint a perfect situation here with the CWMU program, sure it generates revenue for landowners, outfitters, operators etc. but show me a place in America where this isn't happening, its called free enterprise, free markets and its what makes America great. It also provides opportunity for some to hunt a place/property they may have otherwise never been able to set foot on. Personally I think its a good gig but it still could be improved but and I will say this again, our survey data we conducted on CWMU owners/operators showed that the majority (granted some would stay) would leave the CWMU program and seek other means to deal with wildlife on private lands if the public split dropped less than a 90/10--I'm just telling you what the data says.

If it was about money I promise many, many would have sold out to developers long ago.

I think its sad that this post that was originally set up to collect ideas on how to improve the program as gone (once again) to mud slinging, whining, finger pointing session instead of providing ideas. I have received many via email and I appreciate all those (as does Matt) who took the time to provide real ideas with possible solutions and justifications.

Hope to see you all at the Expo, stop by and visit and we can discuss more ideas, I welcome it.

Thanks

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Todd-

Most people have used this thread to share ideas regarding changes to the CWMU system that would help bring more balance to the current system. Unfortunately, most of the mud slinging has come from the pro-CWMU crowd who are irritated and angry with the suggestions that have been voiced. Personally, I think the dialogue is helpful and people need to have thicker skin.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-12 AT 02:43PM (MST)[p]I think an 80/20 split is more than reasonable. It is 60/40 for pronghorn and moose already. I bet most CWMU's that threatened to pull out of the program if forced to a higher split on Todd's survey are just bluffing. Call their bluff. 80/20 is very reasonable for guaranteed transferable tags with 2 month seasons. I would like to see the public get at least 20%.

If landowners don't think it would be worth it to only get 8 in 10 tags, they can hunt their properties with clients that draw tags through the regular draw and hunt the regular season dates. However, I bet almost all would stay in the program. I would even be fine with letting them keep more of their antlerless tags in exchange for giving more buck and bull tags to the public. Most CWMU's don't harvest many antlerless animals anyway. The CWMU's are quick to bring up all the antlerless tags they give the public, but we all know that antlerless tags are only worth a small fraction of what a buck or bull tags is worth.

Speaking of antlerless, on units that are over objective they should try to harvest more of the antlerless animals on the CWMU's. As it is now, when units with lots of private are over objective they give a ton of cow tags and all the hunters end up hunting public lands while the elk pile up on the private. If they hunted more cow elk on CWMU's it would spread out the hunting pressure, make it a better hunting experience, and allow the state to get the cow elk harvest they need with a better distribution of harvest across the unit.

Also, unless it is completely landlocked with no public access, public land should not be included in a CWMU.

Big Medicine

Burn, Chain, 1080
 
"Also, unless it is completely landlocked with no public access, public land should not be included in a CWMU."

+1000

"Look guys, I'm not trying to paint a perfect situation here with the CWMU program, sure it generates revenue for landowners, outfitters, operators etc. but show me a place in America where this isn't happening, its called free enterprise, free markets and its what makes America great"

Blanding Boy you think thats a good thing?

Thats how it started in Europe, hell lets make the whole state a giant CWMU let landowners, outfitters and guides make all kinds of money off the deer and elk and only the rich will be able to hunt, forget about us poor public hunters and our kids and grandkids.
 
BigMedicine: Great post it represents my sentiments exactly. I couldn't have said it better. I think the consensus here is to call the bluff. Let's really see how many drop out if a 80/20 split is approved. Also a good point was raised about CWMU's being compared to Europe. I have a hard time getting my arms around how Blanding Boy's definition of capitalism in this context isn't really European Aristocracy hunting at its best. Is our American Hunting Heritage now defined as a wealthy millionaire paying $5,000 to a private land baron to shoot a trophy????
 
I think that every CWMU should have at least 3 public tags. With 2 going to the high point pool. Also if they have a even number, just up it one public tag. So the people with the most points won't have to wait as long. I think the same thing should happen to our once in a lifetime hunts. That extra 1 or 2 tags per area sure could help in not waiting so many years to draw.
We have youth tags. How about helping out us guys that have been paying in to this system to 18 or 20 years.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-12 AT 06:23PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-12 AT 06:21?PM (MST)

Todd, give me a break....i was gonna sit this one out but between you and Garth Carter i decided to educate you a bit.

lets take your DLL theory

1--they could sale it. (Clearly making more money in a sale they they would being in the program for over 100 years.

TRUE.....that is ALWAYS a option.

2--they could have UDWR completely remove all the wildlife--high fence it to keep public wildlife off private property.

are you kidding? did you graduate 2nd grade? $$$$$$
never happen....are you kidding??

3--right now, essentially they could sale unlimited over the counter bull elk trespass permits as unguided for 3k If they sold 200 of those that is 600,000 dollars free and clear. Having 100 guys on 250,000 acres over 3 hunts and 6 weeks isn't a very high hunter density, certainly still less than public lands. That's just off elk, additional revenue could be generated off of deer, moose, antelope, lions, bird hunts etc. I'm sure they could clear 1million annually just off public wildlife without the public.

How many years could they handle that kind of pressure???
more importantly how long would people pay 3k just to trespass?
how much of that 250,000 acres are huntable for elk?

They could assign a lessee for for every 640 acres and that person is now illegible for a deer voucher under current rule and units, roughly 300 of them. Sale those for 1k each generate 300000.

why would they need to assign a lessee for what in the past has mostly been a OTC, meaning leftover from the draw?

DLL makes alot of money off the CWMU program.... but in turn have done what only a select few have provided, a reasonable access to private ground.....the others should be flushed

GARTH....where do i start....when you bragged that you do a stone or dall hunt to begin your fall to complete your workouts for the year...that says it all....you need the CWMU's to help you make the $$$ to do it EVERY YEAR..add in all the landowner tags you and your clan buy...$$$.... just look in the back of your monthly mag and see for yourself....$$$$$$$$$$$
 
The good CWMU's use biology to decide the number of tags given. You don't just add 20 more because you want more money. DLL does more biology work than the state with density counts, habitat improvements on and on. There are CWMU's who are good stewards and there are slobs.
What changes to the program should be made to help with the part of the public who are awful and want tags? There are plenty of suit-happy people who see places like DLL as deep pockets. Those are some of the risks that would make a CWMU consider dropping out. It takes a lot of deer tags to make up for a multi-million dollar lawsuit. So what changes can be made to help the CWMU's in dealing with the public?
 
Lets be honest here. Many CWMUs file for only 10 tags 9 for them and 1 for the draw. Do you think they could not kill 9 deer or 9 elk during the general seasons?
Let me run some numbers for you guys. Not in program it would be simple to split the archery rifle & muzzleloader seasons in half for there clients and run 8 hunters per season. Humm that's 24 hunters and no crying public. Not to mention the archery guys will only kill 25% muzzleloader 50% I'm telling you the main reason they join is for trespassing enforcement. Focus on a win win if your looking for change because insisting on a tag increase will get you a loose loose.
 
garth, just curious what would the cost difference between a PRIME rut hunt for elk and a general season elk hunt? or a muzzleloader hunt 1st of Nov?..a bow hunt pre-rut?..i would think there would be a difference, but you are the expert in marketing hunts so please let me know
 
Garth, you speak as though every CWMU is doing us a favor by being in the program. MANY of the units have very few animals on them during the general season dates. Alton, arguably the best one, would be lucky to have a single doe on the property by the time rifle season starts. A lot of the East Canyon/Morgan properties are lower elevations that hold very few good bucks/bulls until later in the season, well after the archery and muzzleloader hunts are over. And what about all the big bucks killed during the rut on CWMUs that they would never even see during the general season dates? You don't seem to know much about the units or you would not make such blanket assumptions about all CWMUs.

To have a successful CWMU hunt you need publicly owned wildlife and privately owned land. The landowners are providing 50% of that and taking 90% of the tags. "Fair" would be a 50/50 tag split. I agree with others here, let's call the bluff. If landowners aren't ok with an 80/20 split then they can opt out.
 
A muzz hunt will bring you the same money, archery will take you longer to sale and sure you will probably take a $1500 hit on smaller bulls, but the big bulls with any weapon will still bring top dollar.. Back to the $1500 hit on smaller bulls who cares because you will kill a lot less animals take more hunters and make more money! I bet Wade on the Alton unit would swallow the 80/20 split but there one of the very few that would. I'm just being honest with you guys about the facts & I'm done arguing with the blind. Enjoy your loose loose agenda.
 
"To have a successful CWMU hunt you need publicly owned wildlife and privately owned land. The landowners are providing 50% of that and taking 90% of the tags. "Fair" would be a 50/50 tag split. I agree with others here, let's call the bluff. If landowners aren't ok with an 80/20 split then they can opt out. "

Not necessarily EM. What cost does the public incur or the DWR for that matter. The landowner incurs 100% of the cost. Maintaining gaits, fences, property taxes, etc. I guess if you want to pony up what a mature buck or bull eats in a year for feed then sure, I'm all for it. If what you say about low land CWMUs is correct then those deer and elk move in there to feed. Who is incurring that cost? I've seen what a small herd of elk can do to a hay field, let alone if they get there mouths on a hay stack. So a 50/50 split isn't quite fair is it? I would agree that tag increases would be warranted if the biology supported it. After all, isn't that what most of you are arguing about anyway. We want the decision to be based on sound biological decision right? Not just somebody wanting a tag or a chance at a mature animal.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
Still no one has answered my question about which % of operators OWN the land?? The three near my house dont. If they were to drop out someone else would pick up the lease real quick.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-12 AT 08:17AM (MST)[p]That would be a good question for Todd. I'm with you, many of the properties I know of are leased.
 
That is a good question, I would have to go through the entire list of 119 of them to figure it out and with some of the new ones, I don't know that I would know.

I know some that are leased/or managed by family members as well so not sure how they would fit into that category of a 'lessee', its still part of the family business. Also some of them that are a cooperation that have a hired operator/manager to run them, again not sure what category to put them in.

I would guess half would be leased while the other half would either be landowner or fit the criteria above.

por qu??



Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
A few things that need to be remembered about CWMU's is the fact that they in most cases have turned what the ranchers would consider a nuisance into an asset and a controlled way to hunt it and patrol it. Now many ranches are taking the time to help the wildlife by doing there own predator control, water and habitat improvements, and supplemental feeding. This in turn helps all of us out.

I understand the argument on both sides, but I dont believe we are entitled to hunt on anyones private property as long as the CWMU is benefiting wildlife.
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
851
nfh
nfh
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla
runamuk
Idaho wildlife federation
Replies
10
Views
924
devobrodie
devobrodie

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

B1D2D894-C288-486D-94B6-4D41F00101C6.jpeg
2015 Colorado 003.jpg
5AFFB1D7-F2DE-43B1-9A16-1F7E6C3E5796.jpeg
48EE6541-7685-4C54-A41A-462EACE53453.jpeg
4F4B8391-523F-4706-8BD5-7378A711E745.jpeg
Good Looking Trophy Buck for littlebighorn
Screenshot_20210904-094852_Instagram.jpg
KIMG0088~2.JPG
001.JPG
CB2D6E81-0348-4CBF-AC7B-743E8044319C.jpeg
Cool Muleys
E64AC22C-1D6E-4F3F-8BC1-C923ABC06E80.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom