CWMU Public Changes

The problem is they don't own the asset.... The asset is owned by the public.
 
So the CWMU faction is so tightly run that hardly everyone but the Alton wouldn't be able to do an 80/20 split...I find that hard to believe. You want a Win-Win, but we don't have that now. What we have now is a win for CWMUs and here's a very small bone to the public to justify the program...your one tag at the end of the season after all the paying clients are done. If we can't do a 80/20 split and it gets voted down then keep the 90/10 split but give the public tag winner the option of hunting first (in other words no paying customers until he/she fills) or give them first choice of an appropriate time slot with access to the entire property. This would go a long way towards mending fences with the public and CWMUs. I know some take good care of the public, but I'm saying make it law.
 
Lets say instead of a CWMU changing the split to 80/20. they just give the public one extra tag. They don't alter the number of private tags and nothing changes other that they add one hunt more for the public.

Seems like that would go over better than taking away from the current private tags and giving them to the public.
 
>The problem is they don't own
>the asset.... The asset is
>owned by the public.


I completely agree the animals are owned by the public. I am simply saying owners are now looking after the wildlife instead of trying to decimate the herds on there lands in order to only benefit livestock.
 
Todd said:
"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."

No, that is not what we are asking. Total tag numbers for the unit is a whole other subject. We are asking for a higher percentage of currently established total tags (80/20).

If there are are 20 total tags, we want 4 of those for the public instead of 2 by moving from 90/10 to 80/20. We are not arguing that that the total tags need to increase to 30 so the 90/10 would increase us to 3 tags.

The biology behind the total tag allocations has nothing to do with the private/public ratio we want changed.
 
Giving one extra tag this year then one extra tag another wont work. Cwmu don't operate like the division. They only kill a percentage of mature bucks they have.

Public deer on private property always cost money for the division. This is why they do depredation tags. Its to get rid if the deer! So allowing a property owner to make money instead of the division killing or paying money is a win win for the public.

I think the dates need to be adjusted to the same dates as the rest of the state though. This would keep the deer more evenly spread out.

90/10 is fair.

Field photos need to be taken of the deer that are harvested and given along with a hunter satisfaction survey or you don't get a deer tag general or le again. We can't scout these areas so we need to see what an average deer being harvested by the public looks like.
 
HJB

Then you are doing something without the biology behind it. The total tag alotment is suppossed to be biologicaly based/calculated.
 
>HJB
>
>Then you are doing something without
>the biology behind it.
>The total tag alotment is
>suppossed to be biologicaly based/calculated.

Not always. The CWMU can request less tags anytime they want, they just can't request more.

Look at Skull Crack CWMU. Its one of the bigger CWMUS and supports a ton of deer and bucks out the wazoo. I drive through there every year and see awesome bucks. Yet they only offer 10 tags total (public and private). There would be no problem at all issueing one more tag to that pool.

We are talking 10,000 - 20,000 acres on many of these CWMUS. Are you telling me the biologists are only allowing 10 tags be given out for this amoutn of property?

Look at Monte Cristo in Northern Utah, that's about the size of two CWMUs and they have about 5,000 hunters in there every year and people still kill big bucks.
 
I believe Gator, in post #21, had a good idea in allowing the nonresident hunter to apply for CWMU hunts. Perhaps allocate 10% of the public vouchers/permits to nonresidents, or the same formula that is used for the Limited Entry hunts. Not all CWMU properties would have enough public vouchers/permits, where the nonresident could be included, but there are a few.
 
na let the non res buy the tag!


avatar_2528.jpg
 
Sounds like a CWMU operator. 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/]
 
HJB, maybe you are on to something. A 90/20 split would make a lot of sense in cases where a 10% tag increase is feasible.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-08-12 AT 09:01PM (MST)[p]>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!

Reliable? Guess so.

Now you can be sure how they are used. :D The truth is all 10 bucks comes in to the division and they write a check to the draw company.

2010

Applications - Annual 396,310

Application Fee Revenue $3,963,100.00
% of Costs

Licensing Staff - Draw Group $281,429.20 8.9%

Credit Card Discount Fees $399,251.00 12.7%

SCI Contract - Fallon $1,108,800.51 35.1%

Postage Costs - Reimbursed $289,000.00 9.2%

Front Counters-50% of their time $433,508.00 13.7%

Proclamations $97,300.00 3.1%

Paper for Draw permits $16,428.57 0.5%

Outreach Staff - 10% of their time $47,262.00 1.5%

RAC and Board Costs $92,534.00 2.9%

Wildlife/Aquatics Section Prep $165,170.40 5.2%

Proclamation Review Chair $73,794.00 2.3%

Overhead 18% of Direct Labor $150,478.78 4.8%

$3,154,956.46 100%


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
HJB. 90/20 split.? The only chance you would have with that ratio are on the units that get 10 tags or less. HJB that was the best sudgestion to come from this topic but now what are you going to tell the Units there going to get by giving up more tags? Another 10days? You can't just simply walk in and tell the landowner, operators ect to bad your going to a higher split or tuff crap.
 
>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.

All true!! But I DON'T get given products to sale on the open market. I don't get 8 times the ammount of time to do what the public does. In short, if you want to be private, go for it. Like Todd said, you most likely would get depredation tags, you could do what you do now, BUT YOU WON'T get the free advertising, hunts during the rut ect... Oh and since your about being private, I guess you won't be grazing on public land right??



When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
>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!!!

My good friend AWLB,

You need to come to the present day. YOU CANNOT GET LOANS FOR 2nd houses and recreation property. Yes there may be some deep pockets that have the scratch, but the 40 acre cabin site line from Todd is GONE!! Look on KSL.com under recreation property, you can't sell it because the banks won't finance it.

Second, for Todd and whoever else.
I don't like the program its no secret. The state of Utah has no problem telling me I can't sell a beer in my cafe, its private property. I can't build a shed without the governments OK, so why is wildlife on private property different?

Third, CWMU's SHOULD BE under the same rules as you and I. I am currently on a 5 year wait for an elk tag. If its good enough for me, its good enough for Denny Austad. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BYPASS THE WAITING PERIOD BY BUYING TAGS!!!

Last, if your a landowner and want to drop the program, GREAT. If you then want to turn around and want depredation tags, GREAT. But if you sale them for profit, the DWR should then get to CHARGE YOU A FEE for every animal on your property. A poached elk is worth $5000 a head? Then we would be glad to charge the landowner, who is selling theses animals the same ammount. If the landowner wants to kill every elk, deer, etc.. on his ground thats his right, but if he doesn't 10ft fence his property afterwards, then he can pay us per head for OUR deer/elk that he kidnaps/highjacks by not preventing them from entering his property.

The biggest problem with the program is the DWR's involvement!! A landowner could simply sell access to hunt his property which would achieve the same control he has now. The reason the landowner wants the program IS the free advetising, GENEROUS SEASONS, and special rules. You can have the same program without the DWR, just with the same seasons we all have, and without the DWR selling it for you(proclamations). But without the cherry seasons and regs, and with the waiting periods the money WOULD NOT BE THERE!



When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
Q: What are they going to get?

A: The opportunity to remain in the program.

"You can't just simply walk in and tell the landowner, operators ect to bad your going to a higher split or tuff crap."

When something is off balanced you should be able to say that. (In a more tactful way of course)
 
>HJB. 90/20 split.? The
>only chance you would have
>with that ratio are on
>the units that get 10
>tags or less.
>HJB that was the best
>sudgestion to come from this
>topic but now what are
>you going to tell the
>Units there going to get
>by giving up more tags?
>Another 10days? You can't
>just simply walk in and
>tell the landowner, operators ect
>to bad your going to
>a higher split or tuff
>crap.

Why not? Hunters have been told rules change to their detriment as long as I can remember and told tuff crap. Nobody has carte blanche protection from it. CWMU's do not hold special entitlement. Every year hunters are faced with more restrictions on dates, tags, draws, area restrictions, ect. Why should CWMU's be any different. Nobody ever signed them into some sort of CWMU Magna Carta.




4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
80/20 and call their bluff, simple as that. CWMU's shouldn't be immune from anything. How is it that the rest of the state and public hunters have had to endure unpopular compromises and loss of tags/opportunity and all through this the CWMU's have been exempt? Time to bring the CWMU's in line with reality. 80/20.
 
[blockquote]...what are you going to tell the Units there going to get by giving up more tags?[/blockquote]
Nobody would be giving up any tags with a 90/20 split. Operators would still get the same number of tags they get now, the public would just get a few more. And I agree with the fact that things are always changing for us hunters. The DWR is not afraid to put hunters out by changing laws, why should they be afraid of a handful of CWMU operators?

Of course there are cases where this wouldn't work so well. Alton has a proportionally larger number of tags than the surrounding Paunsaugunt unit so increasing their tags by 10% ain't gonna fly. But since they are already at 110% of where they should be, just move them to an 80/20. Deseret gives more than 20% of their deer and antelope tags out already so you'd only need to look at elk on that one.

And thanks to my reliable source for posting the info on application fees. Looks like a lot of operating costs are covered by the 65% of funds used by the DWR.
 
If they dont want the 80/20 split they can opt out of the program and hunt the gen seasons through the draw. IF they draw? Good luck with that with 30 units a lot of potential clients WONT draw that unit. The DWR will have them by the b-lls.
 
+1 80/20 split or go home! They shouldn't be getting landowner permits either. Just another way of whoring out the public wildlife. No free landowner permits in Montana or Wyoming and they do just fine!
 
CAUTION: be very careful of how you voice your opinions about this program, you might offend somebody.....he is very protective of his RIGHT to use-abuse-and make a living off OUR natural resource.... except for the FEW operators that provide access where it was not before, flush the rest if they don't want to give more tags, access for the OPPROTUNITY to hunt beyond the GENERAL SEASONS.....if they don't like it....get out

I was P.M'd that if DESERET left the program they would HIGH FENCE the 215,000 acres and CULL all animals....and he says he has a PhD????

when i get a chance i will cut and paste ALL his negative/stupid responses to my questions and how much we need the "program" to save our deer herds....looks like they are doing great...there tag #'s never go down....we take the hit...there season stays the same we got cut to 3 days a few years back....great job, thanks for saving us...
 
Division: Hi CWMU Operator.

CWMU: Hello Division.

Division: You are going to have to increase the amount of public tags that you allow on your CWMU. But we are not going to increase the total number of tags. IE; 80/20 split.

CWMU: No! that is dumb I won't do it. I'll just pull out of the program and issue private land vouchers!

Division: Ok. Just so you know, instead of having all of your tag vouchers just "given" to you to sell to the highest paying client and being able to pick the season dates that they can come and hunt, You will be subject to the same season date and season date changes as the public hunters are.

CWMU: Well wait just a second there!!


Division: Oh ya, by the way your property is in two different units, so your private voucher client will have to pick and choose which part they will hunt.

CWMU: Well let me weigh out the options here....
- I can loose my premium hunt dates that "I" get to choose.
- I will loose my return/repeat clients that like the liberal hunt dates.
-I essentially have to split my property into two and reduce the chance of my private voucher hunter returning because opportunity was just reduced by 50%.


CWMU: Division, I think I will stay in the cwmu Program because I have weighed my options and do not like having hunt dates like the rest of Utah's hunters are subject to nor having my land split between 2 units.

Division: That's what we thought. Don't worry I'll spread the news via MONSTERMULEYS.COM. I do believe that your other cwmu buddies will have the same opinion as you have come to have.

CWMU: Thank you Division for your generosity in allowing me to stay in the program.








It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
I am getting very sick of all the different groups taking more and more and more. Before long you will have to be very rich to take your grand kids hunting. Here is an idea for the CWMU, 50/50 tag split, NO! Public land included , and hunt the same dates as every one else in the state. If this wont work out for you, sell your ground for cabin lots.
 
We can moan about it...myself included, but what can we do about it? What has to take place for a change to 80/20? Do we need signatures to get it on the ballot next Fall? Or is there only a certain way? Someone please educate us? thanks
 
As you can see from this thread HJB, that most of the public response to this topic is a demand for the 80/20 split. This is what should be presented at the March meeting. If the CWMU operators don't like it and want to walk, then let them walk.

It needs to be demanded that the DWR makes some changes on updating/adding/correcting information to the CWMU info links on their website.

The DWR needs to put a system together where hunters have to leave feedback after their hunts that include photos. (Not just a rating system 1-5).

Of course the operators won't like the ideas due to several reasons but it will make things more fair/balanced for the operators and the public and will make the program more appealing to the public. (Increase in CWMU hunt applications)

There have been more than plenty of ideas expressed on this thread! Now they just need to be acted on.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-12 AT 02:42PM (MST)[p] Monday morning I would like each of you to walk into your bosses office and DEMAND a 10% pay cut for everyone because you want more for yourself. That's what you asking here! How many coworkers are you going to have on your side. Oh ya let's here the public wildlife argument again because private land means nothing.
 
If you are making out like a bandit and you know you are, especially if you put this in context with how some of the other western states are run...Wyoming and Montana for example, then to give another 10% back to the public shouldn't be a problem. "The rich man always complains about giving back to the poor." You're looking at this in the wrong context. Why not just dissolve CWMUs and all landowner vouchers and run it like Montana. What would you do then. We are not asking for a 50/50 split, just some common courtesy. We public hunters have nothing to lose and your agrument that 10% more going public will break the Operators is undefendable. Raise your prices 10% and its a wash...believe me people will pay...just look at Texas. It's more a matter of courtesy for us public hunters than opportunity, not like a 10% increase in CWMU tags is really going to mean that much to us...maybe one extra tag in our pocket over a lifetime.
 
On another note excluding the controversial tag issue, I think we public hunters just want to be treated fairly by the CWMUs when after years of applying we finally get to hunt. Now don't get me wrong there are several CWMUs that do a first class job and I wouldn't change a thing like Alton and Deseret, but there are others that we can't even put in for...because we know we'll be treated like 3rd world citizens if we draw. Photos on field reports would help others not falling into the same trap, but it won't cure the problem. We need some measure to make sure we get treated fairly/equally with the paying customers. The paying customers shouldn't come first, but we all should be treated the same. Not the sorry, you can't shoot that buck there because I have paying clients coming in next week. (Yes this happened to me). We just want equality for our opportunity. The opportunity to harvest the same quality animals the paying customers get to.
 
Garth "Monday morning I would like each of you to walk into your bosses office and DEMAND a 10% pay cut for everyone because you want more for yourself. That's what you asking here!"

According to your rationalle they will accept. After all, you yourself told us:
"Most of the landowners I know are in the program for the extra protection against trespassing & poaching "NOT THE MONEY""

Well they will still have that extra protection.

Change it to 80/20. When they threaten to bail from the program. Call their bluff. The few that are not bluffing may leave. We will thank them for their prior participation and leave them an open invitation to return under 80/20 in the future.

Also, I am not agaist a gradual transition from 90/10 to 80/20 (spread out over a couple years)

90/10 is too lopsided in favor of the landowner.
50/50 is too lopsided in favor of the public hunter.
80/20 is "reasonable" for BOTH sides
 
The fact that the number of CWMU's participating in the program has increased dramatically over the last few years leads me to believe that they see something of value there. (I am not sure how many have dropped out.)


If they were to lose 10% to the public, or maybe give an extra 10% I don't see them being traumatized to the point of quitting.
If they quit that is good feed back and valuable info on the balance point of what the market will bear. Things could be adjusted next year.
You will NEVER know where the balance point is until a change is tried.
 
Hell with the 80/20 split you need to ask for a 70/30 split look how many more public hunters would be out of the point game pool in 5 years.

Like Garth said they are in for the protection from trespassers and such. SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYONE PULLING OUT. 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/]
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-12 AT 07:58PM (MST)[p]+1 gator, kinda like dealing with the wife....aim high settle better than you had before....i say 50/50....as someone already said our wildlife their property....case closed.....win win...as for you Garth, the property owners still will have their protection, they are not in it for the money....correct??
 
If you think your not going to get a major pull out then go force your agenda & lets see what change brings.
Today at the SLC show I was surprised to see two more Utah outfitters enter the high fence world. How many more private acres that you have no control over are you willing to loose?
 
Some of them are fencing in public animals. Anyone who thinks fencing out public animals is an ok road to go down has no clue to how many herds summer on, winter on, or migrate through those areas. Welcome to Texas! Some of you guys have no clue - 0 - on how the program works. Reminds me of the old saying about babies being thrown out with the bath water.

Not against the public having a larger share, but some of the comments seem like they'd rather have the government confiscate the lands from ranch owners who have owned their ranches for generations.
 
Garth, just curious who were the two outfitters you claim went over to the dark side and are going to do high fence hunts next year? Please name names.
 
Utah DWR fencing in the high fence places or the owner poning up the cost. Do you have any idea how much deer and elk fencing cost, Above your pay grade.
Last I heard they can't fence in public animals if they do they come out and shoot them.
I use to rent land next to a place that had alots of deer and elk on the Alfalfa fields 640ac next to the land 80ac I rented, The farmer and the DWR didn't see eye to eye so the DWR fenced it off and shoot all the deer caught inside. I no long rent the land next door because the deer and elk don't come across it as much.
Now that farmer can't back out because of the cost DWR put out, and I believe he is kicking himself now,The money he use to get from hunters is gone too.He sold cow tags for 500 and trespass fees for deer started at 300 for archery, 500 for rilfe.Family don't even go up to the ranch and hunt now because it is fenced off and HAS no deer or elk on it.

NM has alot of those type places fenced off in Unit 10 and it hasn't changed how I hunt it.

"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/]
 
>Today at the SLC show I
>was surprised to see two
>more Utah outfitters enter the
>high fence world. How
>many more private acres that
>you have no control over
>are you willing to loose?

I read an interesting thing in the CWMU rule today. It states that high fence hunting operations that include domesticated elk should not be considered for the CWMU program.

Isn't Broadmouth a high fence/domesticated elk ranch?
 
Just got word from the UDWR!

Within a couple years the Tags will be a 50/50 Split!

I wonder who will get to shoot the first 50% of the Animals?





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




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
Garthcarter (17 posts)
Feb-09-12, 08:04 PM (MST)
137. "RE: CWMU Public Changes"
If you think your not going to get a major pull out then go force your agenda & lets see what change brings.
Today at the SLC show I was surprised to see two more Utah outfitters enter the high fence world. How many more private acres that you have no control over are you willing to loose?

Garth why would it surprised that an outfitter would enter the HIGH FENCE WORLD....$$$$$..easy hunts..quick turnaround of clients....glossy pictures of BIG deer/elk for their website/your MAGAZINE.

IF they were to fence off their ground at considerable cost, what the hell are they going to do with it....there is only so much demand for HIGH FENCE HUNTS, texas has a year round market for exotics/whitetails,....fencing + BUYING the animals to stock their HIGH FENCEd ranch....lots of money to protect themselves from trespassers..

Apexmtnman has a good point...can they even fence it if their id public ground mixed in....
 
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-12
>AT 02:42?PM (MST)
>
> Monday morning I would like
>each of you to walk
>into your bosses office and
>DEMAND a 10% pay cut
>for everyone because you want
>more for yourself.
> That's what you
>asking here! How many
>coworkers are you going to
>have on your side.
>Oh ya let's here the
>public wildlife argument again because
>private land means nothing.


Garth, for 20 years I was a freelance drywaller, every house I did was me walking in and setting my price. I never once cared about how much the plumber wanted, or the framer. I knew what I wanted/needed and that was my price. Guess what, I lost a lot of jobs, but like I said, i did it for 20 years, and until Obamas depression, I was succesful. Are you really telling me you don't want more money at your job so you coworker makes more?? REALLY???

Private land doesn't mean anything. I pay the state, county, city every year for it. I can't build a storage shed unless I ask permission. I can't have certain fences, colors, trees, flags, number of dogs, horses, chickens, etc. I don't get any more special rules for "owning" my house and property than anyone else, CWMU's aren't special.


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
Also, I would like to see lifetime bans for law breakers. If you are a professional outfitter/guide and break game laws you loose your CWMU. If you are a landowner and your guide breaks the law, you loose your CWMU. RULON JONES, has been nothing but a pain in the azz to the state and county and a black eye to sportsmen, but last I checked WE still have him as a CWMU owner/operator. Ask a truck driver about getting a DUI and how his trucking company likes it. Ask a cop about how long he is employed if he is a law breaker. PROFESSIONAL MEANS PROFESSIONAL!!!


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
Now that most are looking at it from the public view, lets ask the CWMU operators what they would like changed.....I'm not a operator, but know some as freinds. I think most would love to see a decrease in public hunter access. Say 5%. The deal was struck several years ago with the public in mind. It's been reasonable for years. Why all the public whining now? Could it be that this country is becoming more entitlement minded? I think so. Private property is private property. I realize that the public owns the animals that live there, but it's not like the land owners are not paying a price to have them there. Tags aren't cheap anymore....especially for out of staters. I do agree the program is far from perfect, but the way I see it is that it's been pretty successful. I think 10% is fair and reasonable. I think if there was a 20% public take, the operators would just increase the amount of tags they needed to offset their loss.....in the end more animals are killed and the quality goes down. Not just on that ranch but the public land around it.

I would like to see a better way for public hunters to get more information on each CWMU. Mandatory reporting to the operators as well as the DWR would be a start. I think the system has deteriorated over the years. It was started with the large ranches in mind. Now days there are CWMU's that have several small ranches joined up into one unit that have kitty corner connections and public land within their unit. I don't like it. No public land should be included in a CWMU, rather ranches that have public land within its borders(landlocked) should garauntee access to the public land through their ranch. The program needs to be audited. All operators and land owners need to have compliance rules and requlations. Voilators should be kicked out.
 
section6, i respect your opinion about the landowners point of view and can see your point to the extent of the LARGE ranches that the program was started for...the small ranches with the kiddie corner BS and LARGE amounts of public land that is included in some cases to provide the operator a CWMU is the biggest problem. the ALTON cwmu should not exist as it is today....it should be 50/50 isn response to them killing most/all their deer during a time when PUBLIC hunters are packing a bow
 
Maybe the best rule change would be that each CWMU's rules would be individually set. A board or review comprised of DWR people, public, other operators, etc. That way thing like percent of public land(if any) seasons, etc could be adjusted for particular circumstances. Grievances have a sounding board, etc. Some of the rules proposed here are crazy. A field photo of every animal? Now the CWMU has to put personnel with every single hunter? Then half the public would complain about wanting to hunt/stalk without a parade. Are we going to have a rule about how close the camera is to the animal to not distort its size? No paid hunter can hunt until the public fills? Grandpa draws the tag and can't walk, see, shoot anymore so nobody else can hunt? So just give the public the first hunt? So now the CWMU puts your deer hunt mid-Sept with all the leaves still on the trees and the bucks are vampires. Some of you people need to think about how the things you want could be implemented. High fence would kill a bunch of public ground around some CWMU. DLL might have 1000 elk calves hit the ground in a year and kill 300 elk. Where do you think the others go? There are 100's who leave out onto Monte etc. The bigger best operations don't sale any more tags than they did prior to the CWMU program.
 
Nobody feels entitled to someone else's property... but why do they CWMU operators feel entitled to hunt the public animals.

The public is saying that we want more access to public animals.

Nothing more nothing less.



It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
>Nobody feels entitled to someone else's
>property... but why do they
>CWMU operators feel entitled to
>hunt the public animals.
>
>The public is saying that we
>want more access to public
>animals.
>
>Nothing more nothing less.
>
>
>
>It was a big bodied 2
>point. (this is my signature)
>
Maybe they feel a little entitled because they provide EVERYTHING those animals need to exist??? That might have something to do with it. So which is better - give the public some access, the state some money and some profit for the land owner or have the state have to pay to deal with damage or pay to just kill and waste the animals? Third option, have the land owner totally turn the habitat into pasture for sheep and cattle so the wildlife leaves on its own?
 
By entitlement I meant,the entitlement some public hunters feel they have to take more than what they are currently given. Isn't that what it is, you currently get 10% and want 20%? Most of us will get Medicare, but some want government health care for all.....entitlement. I know, a bit of a stretch but I feel they're both entitlement minded.
 
That's a whole lot of comments/suggestions/complaints.. you taking notes on these HJB ha?.. appreciate your help no matter what or how it all goes down!
 
>>Nobody feels entitled to someone else's
>>property... but why do they
>>CWMU operators feel entitled to
>>hunt the public animals.
>>
>>The public is saying that we
>>want more access to public
>>animals.
>>
>>Nothing more nothing less.
>>
>>
>>
>>It was a big bodied 2
>>point. (this is my signature)
>>
>Maybe they feel a little entitled
>because they provide EVERYTHING those
>animals need to exist??? That
>might have something to do
>with it. So which is
>better - give the public
>some access, the state some
>money and some profit for
>the land owner or have
>the state have to pay
>to deal with damage or
>pay to just kill and
>waste the animals? Third option,
>have the land owner totally
>turn the habitat into pasture
>for sheep and cattle so
>the wildlife leaves on its
>own?

If the bigger operations that run sheep/cattle didn't have cheap public grazing and in turn grazed there own ground that wouldn't be true. Second, they can kill them all, then fence it off. By the way. Check your mortgage papers. Do you own the minerals on your land? Oil under your house? Is there a easment for the cable company? Private property is private property. Commerical property is different. Once you start a buisness you change your private status. If you strike gold in your back yard, try to tell the state and feds its your property why should you be subject to OSHA or MSHA, or IRS, or whatever gov. regulator there is. Get real, the majority of CWMU's are NOT RUN by the land owner. Most DO NOT winter feed. Most have not EVER spent a dime on breeding or genetics programs. Other than Deseret, how many employ biologists?
This isn't some dude letting guys hunt in there alphalfa fields. Most offer guide services, cooks, lodging, butchering, etc., they are WAY past farmer brown selling access.



When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
Just use mine and it all will be good. LOL
70/30 split and NR in CWMU draws too.

"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/]
 
Section6,

I understand where you are coming from. I think that I as a public hunter am fighting for access to animals.

I think that the Land owner if fighting for his right (and it is his right)to keep control of access to his land.


The one thing that sucks is Public access to animals means stepping on land owners toes.

I want to talk about something that has been brought up a few times on this thread... CWMU's that feed the animals. There is a lot of talk that operators make crap for money because they spend all their "private" dollars on "public" animals. These animals are not fed out of the kindness of the Operator' heart and good will. DLL feeds the elk because without "public" elk, "Private" dollars aren't made.

One thing I think CWMU's do that do not benefit them but only benefit the public hunter is something else already brought up on this thread. I am grateful that DLL, Ensign Ranches and other CWMU's have taken care of the animals on their land as these animals reproduce and wander onto public for all of us to harvest/enjoy.


I don't really have a bittch with CWMU's, I only would like to see at least one more tag given to the public.

I believe that a CWMU could require a public drawer of a tag to be guided??? I don't know how that would work or if it would be possible, but I believe tat might be a way to recoup the cost of giving an extra tag, but since I don't know all of the ins and outs I don't know if that would be possible??


This is just my 2 cents(X10) LOL








It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
[blockquote]"I believe that a CWMU could require a public drawer of a tag to be guided??? I don't know how that would work or if it would be possible, but I believe tat might be a way to recoup the cost of giving an extra tag, but since I don't know all of the ins and outs I don't know if that would be possible??"[/blockquote]

They can require you to be accompanied by a guide but they are not allowed to charge for it. It must be provided for free.

Most of the CWMU operators are loving the program and most definitely want to keep it around. They are very aware of the benefits and they understand the need to keep the public happy. In light of this I believe there is a good chance we'll see the 80/20 split become a reality pretty soon. If the public is happy the operators will feel a lot more secure about the future of the program.
 
Garth, I'm not known for being PC..So this pretty much sums up my thoughts...I hope you have a cyber hanky handy: (no that aint me, incase you were wondering)

ShowLetter-2.jpg
 
Reddog, your wife looks like a man & I'm sorry she is so fat! Poor woman don't have any Vowels. If we give Ulga a tag will that make her feel better?
 
Nice one REDDOG!

Sad part is ole Garth does have enough money to buy the Vowels!



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




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
Just so you boys know, I'm taking a ton of notes and still paying close attention to all posts. I recently attended the CWMU association meeting which is the group formed by all the operators and land onwers in the program. Several showed up and voiced concerns. The DWR and "Blanding_Boy" (Todd) himself was there and spoke to the land owners about the importance of public treatment and some other good info.

Next month we will have the CWMU advisory committee meeting and we will discuss all the stuff in my notes and anything else that comes up.

Thanks to everyone that provided realistic ideas and thoughts about the program and improvements. I appreciate the input.

I will be sure and post the results of the meeting.
 
Hey thanks HJB for taking these notes and help spread the word for us public hunters. We hope this thread will bring some new ideas to the table.

Can't wait to hear the changes.

I don't know if just anyone can go these meetings but I'd probably be interested in listening in on those meetings.
If it is possible for anyone to show up, PM me with the details.
 
Id like to see the the 60 day season sized down to 30 days or the month of October! If you dont have enough time within that time frame to guide/kill your quota you either have to many tags to fill or your clueless. There are a few crooked operators and alot of worthless cwmu that give the whole program a black eye.
 
careful smokepole, you actually make sense, you are about to get a lesson from our resident expert in how bad we need the CWMU's and that they are the reason our deer herds are so healthy....because we NEED them or our deer/elk herds will dwindle to nothing...

NOTE: don't take this as a complaint, i am happy that the CWMU's had a 60 season when ours was cut to 3 or 5, no reduction in tag #s when we got ours reduced, that they have the option to hunt bucks up to nov 10th and bulls until december. that they include thousands of acres of non-landlocked public ground that in some cases are MORE than the private acres. it makes me warm and fuzzy to know that the state of Utah has given these guys the key to the wildlife treasure chest and given them the OK to rob it blind...
 
Great discussion. First off I think the CWMU program is a great opportunity for average guys to hunt private property. The program is not perfect but I a personally see a lot of good that comes from it. To many people on here focus 100% on the negative.

Here a my suggestions for change.

1. Some have suggested 2 scouting days. I think 2 extra hunting days is better. If you want to use them to scout so be it. That would mean a 7 day season instead of 5. In most cases it takes 2 days to learn the area/property and to find the animals and then you would have 5 days to hunt.

2. Create a comment section on the DWR website under each CWMU where people can leave positive and negative feedback and upload pictures of their harvest. This would keep operators more in check and allow hunters to read comments and decide for themselves if they want to hunt. It would also save time for the operators not having to answer so many phone calls about the property.

3. Mandatory posting of exact season dates. This allows people to choose if dates are desirable before putting in.

I have called MANY operators about different hunts and I have found most of them to be very honest and upfront about the hunt and very willing to help. I have spoken with a few that were rude and unwilling to work with the hunter. I chose not to put in for those hunts. It is that simple. If you do your homework there are some great opportunities to hunt private land that otherwise would not be possible. Of course these landowners are benefitting financially but we are getting additional hunting opportunities. If we owned land we would not let others hunt it unless there was a gain in it or a benefit of some kind. They are human and I appretiate the 10% of tags we get. (and would appreciate 20% even more):)



Jason Yates
http://www.BasinArcheryShop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
HJB,

I too thank you. A couple questions.

1. What is Blanding Boys role, or official positon? In our discussions I still havent got how much land he owns. If he is not a landowner and is just a guide/outfitter, why is he there, and why are his(and other is his role) opinions worth any more than any of us?

2. Why is the waiting period only valid for draw hunters? Is there a mechanism(money I can pay the DWR) to get off the waiting period IF I just want to hunt public land? If not, why is a guy buying his way off the waiting period on a CWMU given the vehicle to do so, if I can't do the same on public ground?

Again thanks



When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
852
nfh
nfh
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla
runamuk
Idaho wildlife federation
Replies
10
Views
926
devobrodie
devobrodie

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

B50DC7E5-DEA5-4FAE-BC48-B7967A8D8559.jpeg
20201226_214059.jpg
456 copy copy.jpg
IMG952999.jpg
31F08659-DC34-4966-BAC4-E5C8D8576C9A.jpeg
30A8317E-5C2C-4CDF-801D-B4DBAFCCFEFB.jpeg
Screenshot_20221018-134904.png
20230807_212836.jpg
004.JPG
Caliente A.jpeg
IMG_9469.jpeg
217D8693-30F2-4F4D-A2A1-B2366A799CE2.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom