CWMU- WHY??

S

sportsmansvoice

Guest
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12 AT 03:26PM (MST)[p]can anyone tell me why we the general public have to wait until late april to find out our tags #s because the dwr needs to assess winter kill, but CWMU tag #s are set now long before herd #s and winter kill is known???

also why are landowner tag #s known years in advance?
 
That is a good question. The only reason why is that is the time line the UDWR has set. CWMUs have to have apps in by August 1 and permit no.s are approved Dec/January annually. Its the way the current RAC tour process is set up.

Here's a WHY for you.

Why shouldn't we be basing our harvestable/surplus buck deer based on a summer count rather basing them on a Nov/Dec. count? Is winter kill over then? That's when they run their model and it spits out no. of permits not the spring as you suggest.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
>Here's a WHY for you.
>
>Why shouldn't we be basing our
>harvestable/surplus buck deer based on
>a summer count rather basing
>them on a Nov/Dec. count?
> Is winter kill over
>then? That's when they
>run their model and it
>spits out no. of permits
>not the spring as you
>suggest.
>
>Todd Black
>
>Visit our YouTube page
>http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum


Because hunters aren't willing to wait until Summer to find out where and if they are hunting.

It's easier to classify deer when they are congregated on winter range.

Close? No cigar? Just the butt?


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
It's easier to classify deer when they are congregated on winter range.

Easy is right. Wish it was that easy. An EASY button for mule deer management, that's what we need I guess.

I was expecting more BUTT though:)
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12
>AT 03:26?PM (MST)
>
>can anyone tell me why we
>the general public have to
>wait until late april to
>find out our tags #s
>because the dwr needs to
>assess winter kill, but CWMU
>tag #s are set now
>long before herd #s and
>winter kill is known???
>
>also why are landowner tag #s
>known years in advance?


I am suprised you even had to ask. MONEY. In order for the CWMU to compete on the open market against other guides/oufitters in other states they can't wait until all that money is spent in other states. Remember, CWMU's were created to HELP make ranching profitable, not for any biological reason.


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!
 
CWMU's were created to
>HELP make ranching profitable, not
>for any biological reason.

Actually there is a very important biological reason for the CWMU program and it also benefits the public.

The biological agreement is that the properties enrolled in the program are not open to development, but rather wildlife management. A management plan must be written by the CWMU with the help of an area biologist, the management plan acts as a contract between the landowner and the DWR.

Over 400 tags were issued through the CWMU program last year to public hunters to hunt private property. Over a million acres of land was open to public draw hunters which would have remained closed if it were not for the CWMU program.

While the program is not perfect and does reward land owners with profit, it also provides the public with great hunting opprotunities.

It's really pretty simple. You can choose to have 400 extra tags issued to public hunters and a million acres of property open, or you can choose to NOT have any of that. I personally want the tags and access.
 
YAWN!!! In order to avoid those pesky little taxes, many of these properties are included in the green belt, or ag protetion areas, etc.. meaning they aren't developable. Lets be completely honest, there is NO MARKET for ownership of mtn. land. You can't get loans for it, no investors will front you, so without millions setting around in a coffee can, not much will be developed.

Now Todd, since its not all about money how much do you charge? Why does a elk hunt cost $5000+, I can buy a LE tag for what, $280? Of course its about money. Secondly, just for public debate, exactly how many acres of the land you "run" do you actually own? How much do you pay to lease "your ground" Do you do it "for the love of the game"? CWMU's in theory were set up to help subsidize ranchers that were struggling to turn profits strictly ranching. In order to shut up the outcry about giving away tags, a few were thrown out to the public. If you own the land, you should be able to do what you want, you own it, you pay for it, etc.. HOWEVER, if you can't afford to keep it, then you should loose it. Yeah some of it might get developed, but some also might get bought up by the conservation groups, state, counties, etc, all of which would most likely allow for more than 400 hunters a chance. Todd, I notice your looking for pics of happy CWMU hunters to advertise the great success of the program. I dare you to post those unhappy with how there experience with the program was. Come on, the CWMU program is nothing but rainbows and puppy dogs, why do you have to continue PR for it, everyone loves it. Tell you what, you put out the word for those unhappy, I will split the cost to advertise these people right next to your happy folks, I'm not worried, because after all, WE ALL LOVE THE PROGRAM, and it has been nothing but a complete success!

Not all about money, man I gotta get some of that crack!!!


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!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 02:14AM (MST)[p]Another point to be made is the # of MOOSE permits given to the operators of these CWMU's
91 total bull permits alloted for CWMU's in 2010:

64 private
37 public
these are OIL tags being sold for in most cases 10,000 plus for tag + guide fee

Todd, before you ask how i came up with these figures that came directly from the DWR site. i took the # from the harvest report and took away from the published amount allocated to the public in the application book.

so i want everyone to think about it.. if we had those tags in the main draw for the last 10 years those 640 tags would have driven the MAX group in 2010 from 17 down into the 13 range.....think about that for a couple minutes....
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/10_species_draw.pdf
 
its their property (or lease agreement) they can sell their tag for whatever they want. Its called supply and demand, I swear this place sounds ultra liberal sometimes! If you dont like it, go get you a loan buy the hunting rights or buy the ground if you cant afford to then put in for the draw and get your 5000 elk tag for 280 bucks.
 
Hoss,
There is no argument here, CWMUs are a business and bring in a ton of money every year. I will never afford a CWMU tag and to be honest I don't give a rats. The point is the CWMU program provides "ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HUNTING OPPORTUNITY". I really don't care what the owner or operator does with the private tags and how much he makes on them. The program gives me more options and more property to hunt. There should be no complaints about the program!

What do you think would happen if the program didn't exsist? Do you think the owner would shut down hunting on the property? NO! He would charge a trespass fee similar to what the CWMU fees are now and you would have basically the same operation with no public opprotunity or wildlife management. The CWMU program exsists to provide additional benefits to the pubic. That's really all I care about, and all you should care about. If I had the money to buy a big chunk of property I would probably do the same thing.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 07:20AM (MST)[p]Tree--

IMO you have to think of it this way. Those tags are all on private lands. If the CWMU program went away today. Do you really think the same no. of moose would be harvested on private lands? Highly unlikely. The next thing that would happen is the UDWR would start trapping/selling/trading our moose for some other species to some other state for something else because not enough are being harvested in areas where we have moose that are 90+% private lands. It appears to me YOU would rather trade our wildlife rather than give at least some opportunity for the public of Utah to hunt them. Is that what you are saying

If this were to happen I'm willing to wager that the same people who like to get on here and complain just for that sake of b1tching and complaining about something would be throwing the UDWR the RAC the WB under the bus because we are loosing all our moose to some other state.

You guys are all P green with envy period and period. Not one of you could honestly look me in the face and tell me if you or your family had the acreage/land you wouldn't be doing the same thing. If not your lack of intelligence would really shine through. Wait, wait maybe not, maybe you would be one of those guys who sells out for bigger money and builds 40 acre cabin lots and really eliminates wildlife.

The beauty of our system is your welcome to take your ideas and pitch them to the RAC and WB. Heck I will even give you an audience at a CWMU meeting. Lets year your ideas--come share your plan. Let me know when you are ready to do so.

Blurrrry....please have all those guys you know about contact me. All those angry upset hunters have them send me a picture of their disgusting experience they had on their CWMU hunt. Make sure they put the CWMU they hunted what year. Happy to show that as well. I'm willing to wager that for every one i have ten who enjoyed their experience. Which again I'm willing to wager you couldn't find that with general season public land deer hunters right now.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Without CWMU's we would have alot more public land to hunt. How much of that million plus acres of land are actually owned by the public? I don't begrudge a landowner selling hunting rights on land that he owns but I do get ticked off that he posts public land and makes money from land that we, the public could be hunting. Todd you once posted percentages of private to public land in each CWMU and if I remember correctly some were as high as 30-40% public ground. And don't tell me its all landlocked and not accessable because I know thats not true. CWMU's should consist entirely of private ground, there should be no public land enclosed in a CWMU not allowing the public access to it period!
 
Todd you wrote:
IMO you have to think of it this way. Those tags are all on private lands. If the CWMU program went away today. Do you really think the same no. of moose would be harvested on private lands? Highly unlikely. The next thing that would happen is the UDWR would start trapping/selling/trading our moose for some other species to some other state for something else because not enough are being harvested in areas where we have moose that are 90+% private lands. It appears to me YOU would rather trade our wildlife rather than give at least some opportunity for the public of Utah to hunt them. Is that what you are saying

before the CWMU program was started MOST of this private ground WAS accessable to the public for the asking....with the exceptiom of the desert type ranchs....

Todd you wrote:
You guys are all P green with envy period and period. Not one of you could honestly look me in the face and tell me if you or your family had the acreage/land you wouldn't be doing the same thing. If not your lack of intelligence would really shine through. Wait, wait maybe not

well at one time my brother and i DID have a very nice setup in north west UT, we had the acreage but never joined the program when given the chance.....10+ yrs we managed this property selling just enough trespass permits to pay the lease, more deer were harvested by youth hunters than adults, some yrs double....all it took was one slick talking CWMU operator that had property adjoining ours to lie thru his teeth to the old rancher we leased from that was recovering from a heart attack and we were out....no more youth hunters no more family, now they take DOUBLE the deer we ever shot a yr out....alot of the youth hunters we just knew thru friends.... so yes money does talk and opprotunity has been lost to the general public, so Todd i guess i am not smart enough to make a living off our natural resources at the expense of everyone else....

so YES Todd i could look you in the face and tell you that i would not take your path of making money off selling off our natural resources....
 
HJB- What about making it illegal for private landowners to Land-Lock public grounds..?? The notion of landowners owning their property and everything to high heaven above them- is ridiculous.

The public should have unrestricted access to public lands.

This is not a jab at your comment, but a serious question... I agree having limited access is better than none, but I don't think those should be the only two options...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
perfect example of CWMU's with LARGE ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC LAND are the western Box Elder CWMU's for elk.....most are 50/50 public private.....
 
"Without CWMU's we would have alot more public land to hunt"

Private land is private land. The CWMU program does not turn public land into private land, it turns private land into public opportunity.

CWMUs that include public land are required to provide trade lands to make up for the public land loss, or they can increase the percentage of public tags issued for that CWMU. The reason for any CWMU to include public land is just so that the boundary can be easily identified.

CWMUs that are posting public land illegally should be turned in and the CWMU board can review the incident and decide the penalty. Same goes for someone that has been mistreated on a CWMU. Bring your cases to the CWMU meeting at the expo and they will be addressed.
 
Browningrage. I have herd others say that before but I kill most my elks on cwmus and have not seen landlocked public ground yet. Can you provide examples? Please and thank you.
 
Since were on the topic, the public is losing 13k tags in the draw, how many tags are the CWMUs losing???
 
Many people don't understand that Public land is still accesible to the public when included in a CWMU. You just can't hunt game that the CWMU is given tags for.

For example, if the CWMU does not offer any moose hunts and there is a public access point to BLM that has been included in the CWMU, you have every right to jump the CWMU fence and hunt moose on that BLM land (IF A PUBLIC ROAD OR ACCESS TOUCHES IT).

The public land is given to the CWMU to define a the CWMU boundary. It is still public land and you have every right to be on it. You just can't hunt it with a general permit if the CWMU is authorized to hunt that species. As I previously mentioned, the CWMU is required to provide the public with more tags or trade lands to hunt. So in the end, what ever the CWMU has taken, they have to make up for and give back to the public.
 
>Since were on the topic, the
>public is losing 13k tags
>in the draw, how many
>tags are the CWMUs losing???

It all depends on the Biologist/Land owner agreement. I know Deseret has cut the deer tags in half this year. So yes, some CWMUs are also reducing tags to help the deer pops.

But wait!!! That means DLL will lose money. I guess someone really does care about management on a CWMU.
 
elkassisin, take a look at the western Box Elder CWMU's to see the amount of accessible land included..... most are 45 to 50+% PUBLIC ground....if you want to allot them (landowners) tags make them landowner tags and have them hunt the LE season not for 60+ days.....some years the LE tag holders can only watch the herds hanging out on PUBLIC ground that is included in the CWMU's and end up burning there tags...this is opprotunity lost for LE and spike hunters.....
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 08:28AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 08:26?AM (MST)

well deseret makes up for it when you figure in the # of tags they sold pre CWMU years and now.... an additional 40 or so bull tags now.....what is the going price for a bull nowadays?

PS.... DESERET is one of the FEW CWMU's that DO provide public hunter access where there was none before....so there Todd i do see a positive aspect of the program
 
>elkassisin, take a look at the
>western Box Elder CWMU's to
>see the amount of accessible
>land included..... most are 45
>to 50+% PUBLIC ground....if you
>want to allot them (landowners)
>tags make them landowner tags
>and have them hunt the
>LE season not for 60+
>days.....some years the LE tag
>holders can only watch the
>herds hanging out on PUBLIC
>ground that is included in
>the CWMU's and end up
>burning there tags...this is opprotunity
>lost for LE and spike
>hunters.....

Tree,
Here are several trade lands that are open to the public for hunting in Box Elder not are not deemed "Public" on a map.
wildlife.utah.gov/maps/cwmu/plo_box_elder_1.pdf
wildlife.utah.gov/maps/cwmu/plo_box_elder_2.pdf
wildlife.utah.gov/maps/cwmu/plo_box_elder_3.pdf

That's a bunch of land open to the public that the CWMU has agreed to deem as public for trade lands encompassed inside the CWMU.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 08:31AM (MST)[p]not a single ELK on ANY of those pieces of property.....pretty much a waste of time to hunt them...
 
Tree--

Please provide some proof to this statement below...I won't correct the spelling. By that i mean take the 115+ CWMUs and give me 60 of them (Most would mean over 50%) that allowed public access just for asking. I'm happy to even send you the list and you can put a little check mark by them that you now allowed access. I'm happy to follow up with you and the landowner on a conference all to check your statement. What email address can i send it to?

You siad, "before the CWMU program was started MOST of this private ground WAS accessable to the public for the asking....with the exceptiom of the desert type ranchs...."


With your acreage or 'nice set up' you had--just a lease, you still made money off of wildlife--you still charged a trespass fee. what is the difference? You still excluded the general public.

It doesn't sound like to me you had enough acreage anyway if a 'slick' (smart) operator came in and stole if from you. I said if you or family had the acreage/land. YOU DID NOT. YOU were not the landowner plain and simple. You were, how did you put it, "not smart enough" to make it as a lessee, someone else (smarter I can't say) came in and made a more pleasing offer to the landowner. Do begrudge the landowner for taking more money for the wildlife lease on his property. what is the difference? You still excluded the general public. Right, I mean you posted it, you patrolled it, you just didn't open the gates to anyone did you?
 
Deer--

Most all CWMUs took voluntary cuts with the deer tags. I will have all that info at the expo--stop by. I don't see that overall no. of deer tags will be cut this year in Utah yet, do you have some privy information?

Thanks

Todd
 
You can bet your sweet a$$ the CWMU comes out on the better end of the deal, and I don't think its anywhere close to a 50/50 split. Lets just say there are deer and elk on the enclosed puplic land, and maybe, just maybe a few jackrabbits on the private ground that we magically get access to.
 
>You can bet your sweet a$$
>the CWMU comes out on
>the better end of the
>deal, and I don't think
>its anywhere close to a
>50/50 split. Lets just say
>there are deer and elk
>on the enclosed puplic land,
>and maybe, just maybe a
>few jackrabbits on the private
>ground that we magically get
>access to.

In some cases, the trade lands are just sage flats with not many animals. But some of them are great hunting for sage grouse, chukars, rabbits, sharptails, and winter ground for big game.

If I had my way the trade lands would need to provide the same opportunity for the public to harvest big game, unfourtunatley I don't run the program. I am on the board though and hope to express my opinions about the program and the public opportunity. I represent the public sportsman on the board.
 
In my opinion the CWMU's allocation of Moose tags in more in favor of the public hunter which has resulted in the loss of quality bulls. They have just been giving out too many tags and the size is down. Secondly, from my recollection I do not remember being able to hunt any private ground in the past unless you paid or had a family pass as a friend, etc. This program has opened many doors (gates) to access that wasn't available. Third, its my belief that if were not for the CWMU program, especially in nortern Utah, there would not even be a viable mule deer population. The larger ones make better counts and only suggest harvesting a small percentage of the buck population. This in turn has a spillover effect to the surrounding areas whether it be public or other private.
 
The bad part of the public tags on CWMU land is that some operators have kept the public hunters off certain high producing areas so their clients could get th best chance. It should be that all CWMU hunters get the same opportunity.
 
>In my opinion the CWMU's allocation
>of Moose tags in more
>in favor of the public
>hunter which has resulted in
>the loss of quality bulls.
> They have just been
>giving out too many tags
>and the size is down.
> Secondly, from my recollection
>I do not remember being
>able to hunt any private
>ground in the past unless
>you paid or had a
>family pass as a friend,
>etc. This program has
>opened many doors (gates) to
>access that wasn't available.
>Third, its my belief that
>if were not for the
>CWMU program, especially in nortern
>Utah, there would not even
>be a viable mule deer
>population. The larger ones
>make better counts and only
>suggest harvesting a small percentage
>of the buck population.
>This in turn has a
>spillover effect to the surrounding
>areas whether it be public
>or other private.

Good point. Same goes for elk in some areas. The elk management program on DLL has provided the public with a ton of bulls spilling over to Monte Cristo National Forest.
 
DM---

Those are the rules so if you have proof of 'some operators have kept the public hunters off certain high producing areas' please provide that to the UDWR Boyd Blackwell or myself.

We get lots of hearsay and rumors but very little proof. There is a process for dealing with these kinds of things.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Todd, why dont they just do seperate dates for the public than the paying customer. They can extend the season for either one, because most of the issues revolving cwmu are operators worried about losing opportunity for paying clients.
 
Some CWMUs do have different dates, but I personally think that the dates for the paying and public hunter should remain in the same block. When you separate the dates, usually the paying clients will get the better dates.

We try and keep everything equal for all the CWMU hunters. All the rules are the same and the maps provided on the DWR/CWMU website clearly identify the boundaries and regulations for each CWMU. The web page was created to remove any confusion about the dates, regs, huntable boundaries, and expectations. Also identified are the success rates and average age of harvested animals. This info provides some great info for the public to research before applying.

This has reduced the amount of complaints about CWMUs. The main issue before was the public hunters not doing any research about the CWMU before applying.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/cwmu/info.php
 
I understand all that and when we put in we research all the variables about time and units and such, but on every cwmu that we have hunted we have had to compete with a guide and paying customer for a area. None of the operators have ever been rude or told us to leave a area, but it doesnt make for a great experience. I would like to see in the proclamation 2 set weeks for only the public hunter with and the rest go to the paying customer. Ithink if you extened the paying customer time a week later you would not have landowners complaining, and both parties might have a more enjoyable experience, just my 2cents.
 
> I understand all that and
>when we put in we
>research all the variables about
>time and units and such,
>but on every cwmu that
>we have hunted we have
>had to compete with a
>guide and paying customer for
>a area. None of the
>operators have ever been rude
>or told us to leave
>a area, but it doesnt
>make for a great experience.
>I would like to see
>in the proclamation 2 set
>weeks for only the public
>hunter with and the rest
>go to the paying customer.
>Ithink if you extened the
>paying customer time a week
>later you would not have
>landowners complaining, and both parties
>might have a more enjoyable
>experience, just my 2cents.

I understand your concern. There is a CWMU meeting held in conjunction with the hunt expo on Firday at 10:00AM in the Salt palace. Bring your ideas and opinions and the board we gladly discuss the issues and improvements.

I personally have harvested 4 Big Game animals on CWMUs and have never had to compete with anyone else. But I understand not all CWMUs are the same.
 
Here's from the DWR website.

Twin Peaks-Goose Creek

Location
General location info Counties: Box Elder
Wildlife mgt unit: Box Elder

Property size
An estimate of the property size and the public/private composition Total acres: 15528
Private acres: 5128
Public acres: 10400


This is an outrage, 2/3rds of the CWMU is public ground! Why in the world would the DWR approve this? In the discription of CWMU's in past proclamations it stated that they are "consisting mostly of private land" I guess that went by the wayside did'nt it.

I don't mind landowners selling hunting rights to people on their own ground but why the hell do we allow them to block access to public ground to put money in their pockets at our expense?
 
HJB, dont think that I dislike the program, Its just needs tweeks here and there to improve situations. Some operators are alot better than others, but word gets out fast and makes those a harder draw. I just think that by mandating certain things like timeframe, and such it might bring the other operators in line with what the program was intended for. Both for the public and the landowner. Thanks for hereing me out and I will try to be there if work permits. I will stop by the both and say hello.
 
>Here's from the DWR website.
>
>Twin Peaks-Goose Creek
>
>Location
>General location info Counties: Box Elder
>
>Wildlife mgt unit: Box Elder
>
>Property size
>An estimate of the property size
>and the public/private composition Total
>acres: 15528
>Private acres: 5128
>Public acres: 10400
>
>
>This is an outrage, 2/3rds of
>the CWMU is public ground!
>Why in the world would
>the DWR approve this? In
>the discription of CWMU's in
>past proclamations it stated that
>they are "consisting mostly of
>private land" I guess that
>went by the wayside did'nt
>it.
>
>I don't mind landowners selling hunting
>rights to people on their
>own ground but why the
>hell do we allow them
>to block access to public
>ground to put money in
>their pockets at our expense?
>

I guess you didn't read my previous email stating that CWMUs provide trade lands when they take BLM to make a definable boundary for the CWMU.

Here are the trade lands given back to the public from Goose Creek.
1303private_lands_open_to_public.jpg


You get all this land to hunt, plus you can still access the BLM on Goose creek for hunting non-cwmu species.
What's the problem with that???
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p]As the former Sportsman's Rep on the CWMU Committee, I'll make a few educated guesses as to why things are done the way they are: (I apologize for the length.)

-The old rules (pre-2006) did not protect the public hunter and thus the program received some bad press and black eyes. We re-wrote the Program and instituted many items which will benefit the public. It will take time to forget some of the past CWMU/PHU problems.

- CWMU permits are given for the upcoming year based on the prior year's herd conditions. This allows the CWMU to market the permits for sale. It also allows the UDWR to monitor the herd conditions. I will speculate that IF a CWMU had an extreme die-off between when the permits were authorized and when the hunt started 10 months later that the UDWR Director CAN suspend the hunting activity for the best interest of the Wildlife. This has happened on Public land hunts. It would be rare for this to happen on a CWMU because most are carrying more bucks/bulls/cows than the surrounding areas. It is almost a non-issue except for rare occasions.

-Including public lands is a tough issue. I was against any inclusion of public lands into the CWMU, unless the lands were inaccesible to the general public (landlocked). Who was I to say that some public lands should be off-limits, to people who had used (hunted) the lands for generations, just to make a definable boundary? The Box Elder CWMUs (mainly Grouse Creek) retained the use of the BLM lands because it is a different situation. Too lengthy to type here, but I see it as an appeasement strategy.

-The Moose tags are given at a new rate. Before 2008 the public received around 30% of the bull moose permits on some CWMUs, but the rule dictated the Public should receive 40%. I changed the rule to average the MOOSE permit numbers over a 3 year period, where the Public would receive their full 40% (or more). This change meant more tags for some CWMUs or the CWMU could choose less tags overall. Most (it seems) stuck with the higher number. If there are too many moose permits being issued then the Operator and the Biologist should address the issue. This slight change added somewhere around 10-15 public tags.

The CWMU program is not perfect. It does benefit wildlife. It does benefit surrounding lands. It does benefit the landowner. It has contributed to the monetarization (not a word, but it sounds good) of wildlife, but is not the cause for such. Some operators are excellent, while others are not. Some operators will not conform to UDWR requests with antlerless harvest (mostly elk). The largest problem with the CWMU program is the lack of discipline the UDWR can give to the problem CWMUs. Sure there is a CWMU committee (which I sat on for 5 years), but the committee has no teeth, can not make certain judgments and lacks the power to help the sportsmen who are needed to weed out the problem operators.
 
HJB
Looks like some prime hunting areas there if you ask me, mostly lowland sagebrush and creek bottoms, nice trade off.

Packout
Thanks for the response. I had a Paunsagaunt tag back when the Alton unit was a PHU, I was amazed at the BLM ground that the Heatons were able to post and not allow public access on. As a hunter in the unit I felt like I was being shoved out of some nice hunting areas that I should have been able to hunt. It doesn't seem fair that the State of Utah allows a few landowners the ability to let only paying hunters access to lands that are owned by the public.
If you go through all the CWMU's descriptions there are many that include 100% private ground, in my oppinion that is how all CWMU's should be set up period. NO PUBLIC GROUND ALLOWED.
They are making money off of a public resourse and not allowing the public access to land that should be available to everyone.
 
>HJB
>Looks like some prime hunting areas
>there if you ask me,
>mostly lowland sagebrush and creek
>bottoms, nice trade off.

Valid point. I actually brought this question up in our last meeting. We will have to discuss this issue further and see if there is a solution. Some of the trade grounds are decent, but there are some that are total crap as well.

No program is perfect. There is always room for improvement. The CWMU program has come a long way in the last 5 years. Hopefully we can continue to make the program better in the next few years.
 
I understand where you are coming from, which is why my stance on the issue was such. Of course I lost that issue, but I won (or helped win) many. To be honest, there are landlocked public lands which are inaccessible to the public (unfortunate over-sight by those who came before us). Allowing the CWMU to use these land-locked areas does give more opportunity to the public (higher splits or other access). But the accessible lands should not be included. I had a friend who lost their hunting/camping spot to make a CWMU boundary more "definable". I asked him to come out and voice his opinion, but he didn't want to deal with the process.
 
While we have the attention of blandingboy, HJB and packout, this is my primary question regarding with CWMU's. The proponents of CWMU's generally justify their existence by arguing two primary points. First, CWMU's are made up of primarily private property and so landowners should be able to do whatever they want with their property. Second, CWMU's provide hunting opportunities to the general public that would otherwise not be available. I understand both of these arguments but there are also some problems with these arguments. First, although lanowners may own the CWMU property (or at least most of it), they do not own the wildlife on the property. Second, I am not sure that CWMU's create opportunity for the general public. If we did away with CWMU's what options would the landowner have? If he wanted to make money off the hunting rights, his only option would be to charge a tresspass fee to someone who drew a tag in the general draw. If the landowner did not have a handfull of guaranteed tags every year to sell to the highest bidder and was forced to sell tresspass rights to the common folk, I guarantee the prices would come down drastically. As it stands right now, CWMU's can cater to the wealthy by providing guaranteed tags in premier units with guide services built in. The small percentage of tags that are available in the general draw likely pales in comparison to the opportunities that would be available if the average joe who drew a tag had an opportunity to negotiate for the right to hunt private property. As it stands right now, we have created a highpriced market that removes any incentive for landowners to work with the general public, unless they are fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to draw in the public draw. Also, do each of you guide on and/or operate a CWMU? I look forward to your responses. Thanks.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
Hawk--

Your questions--i could only see 2
"If we did away with CWMU's what options would the landowner have?"
1-sale their property for cabin lots, if it was about the money i promise you they would and have done this way before a CWMU option.
2-charge the same amount for trespass fees--fewer guys exclusivity--you pay more.
3-for every 640 acres get a landowner deer tag that can be transferred to a 'lesee'
4-join LO associations and get money that way plus charge trespass fee
5-keep everyone out
6-have UDWR remove all wildlife from their property--or give 72 hour notice and kill them themselves.

All options just a few i could think of real quick.

"Also, do each of you guide on and/or operate a CWMU?"
I do guide on a couple, yes.


Here's your questions...
You said....
"I guarantee the prices would come down drastically. As it stands right now, CWMU's can cater to the wealthy by providing guaranteed tags in premier units with guide services built in."

Would you please provide 2 examples of proof of your guaranteed statement?
What are you basing them on?
What drastically means?
What makes you think there wouldn't still be a guide involved? Look no further than Colorado's system?


I look forward to your responses.

Thanks
Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 04:56PM (MST)[p]Todd sorry for the errors in grammar, i should not type after working a graveyard...

your 1st question:

You siad, "before the CWMU program was started MOST of this private ground WAS accessable to the public for the asking....with the exceptiom of the desert type ranchs...."

this was in reference to the moose hunt. with the exception of DLL ETC most ranches with moose WERE open to the public by knocking on a door or simple trespass fee.....not $10,000+

2nd question:

With your acreage or 'nice set up' you had--just a lease, you still made money off of wildlife--you still charged a trespass fee. what is the difference? You still excluded the general public.

excluded?yes if you mean there was not an open gate policy. but ALOT of YOUTH hunters hunted AT NO COST, even a few kids we stopped on the county road and took them up and got them a deer above camp. any given year we sold between 1 to 6 permits, the years we sold a couple tags my brother and i PAID to hunt..the years we sold more than 4 we broke even or a little better.


3rd:

the property we had access to did have enough acreage to be a CWMU but we chose not to join up. we did discuss it a few times, but did not want to be part of the destruction of our deer herds and have an unfair advantage over the hunters on public ground.



Todd it is clear that you make money off our natural resources and will strike out like a rabid coon when ANYBODY talks about your "program".... the continued system of placing a dollar value on OUR natural resources and only giving prime access to those who are able to pay BIG bucks will slowly put an end to hunting as we knew it growing up, before long it will be like europe and ONLY those with money or serious connections will be able to enjoy the HUNT..... i am sure you will be one of those guys cashing that check, never really caring that they had a part in the ruin of it all..
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 04:55PM (MST)[p]Todd sorry for the errors in grammar, i should not type after working a graveyard...
your 1st question:

You siad, "before the CWMU program was started MOST of this private ground WAS accessable to the public for the asking....with the exceptiom of the desert type ranchs...."

this was in reference to the moose hunt. with the exception of DLL ETC most ranches with moose WERE open to the public by knocking on a door or simple trespass fee.....not $10,000+

2nd question:

With your acreage or 'nice set up' you had--just a lease, you still made money off of wildlife--you still charged a trespass fee. what is the difference? You still excluded the general public.

excluded?yes if you mean there was not an open gate policy. but ALOT of YOUTH hunters hunted AT NO COST, even a few kids we stopped on the county road and took them up and got them a deer above camp. any given year we sold between 1 to 6 permits, the years we sold a couple tags my brother and i PAID to hunt..the years we sold more than 4 we broke even or a little better.


3rd:

the property we had access to did have enough acreage to be a CWMU but we chose not to join up. we did discuss it a few times, but did not want to be part of the destruction of our deer herds and have an unfair advantage over the hunters on public ground.



Todd it is clear that you make money off our natural resources and will strike out like a rabid coon when ANYBODY talks about your "program".... the continued system of placing a dollar value on OUR natural resources and only giving prime access to those who are able to pay BIG bucks will slowly put an end to hunting as we knew it growing up, before long it will be like europe and ONLY those with money or serious connections will be able to enjoy the HUNT..... i am sure you will be one of those guys cashing that check, never really caring that they had a part in the ruin of it all..
 
If it is "your" natural resource then just go out and hunt there. It is "Yours" after all, is it not?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12 AT 07:03PM (MST)[p]If you go through all the CWMU's, they are allowed to have 76,514 acres of public land included in their boundaries. Thats 119 square miles of public land that you and I cannot hunt on unless we are lucky enough to draw one of their tags. The biggest ones are, Deseret with 14,700 acres, Grouse Creek with 23,040 acres, and Twin Peaks with 10,400 acres. Now that sure seems like a lot of acreage just to make their boundaries more "definable". I don't know about you but I find it outrageous.
The DWR and the State of Utah has handed over the hunting rights on 76,514 acres of public land to a handfull of outfitters and landowners, total BS if you ask me. I will say it again, CWMU's should consist of private land only, no public land should be included in their boundaries period.
 
Hawkeye- I do not guide on a CWMU, nor do I own, lease or manage any CWMU. We do own a ranch that is too small to be a CWMU, yet we carry 10-15% of the Unit's elk herd on our property at least 40% of the year. We would not consider letting the public at large or even asking strangers access our ranch due to the litigious society in which we live.

I can tell you that carrying more animals is an expense for the landowner. We spend many days and a fair amount of money fixing fences. We also lose pasture and hay to wildlife. I am ok with it because I recognize the value (intrinsic and actual cash) of wildlife. But many ranches have only seen the value of wildlife because they get paid by hunters to hunt their wildlife.

Would CWMU permit prices fall if they had to draw tags and hunt? Probably overall, but there are many ranch tags which would still sell high due to their quality. Would that have a detrimental effect on wildlife? Yes to some ranches and no to others. If the CWMU program was eliminated then I am 100% positive you would see some other type of wide spread program put in place- such as a wide spread landowner permit program.

Landowners can not do whatever they want on their property. They can not shoot animals freely, they must fallow local codes, and are restricted in many other ways. I have never just shot an elk or deer on our ranch without a permit. Most landowners will not go through the effort of subleasing to various different hunters who drew a permit. That litigious thing again.

Apex- I guess we can disagree on the 100% of public lands should be excluded. There are many pieces of public land which can not be legally accessed by the public. No hiking, no hunting. These type of lands, when included in within the CWMU provide either open access to other lands or more tags for the public to hunt the CWMU. I will agree with you on the boundary, exterior lands.

There are still some valid issues which could/should be addressed to better the program. Continued improvement would help everyone.
 
Todd-

I thought only lawyers answer questions with their own questions. Well done. I had to spend three years in law scool to learn that tactic! My main point is I don't believe that CWMU's have really created more opportunity for the general public. Rather, I think they have decreased overall opportunity even though a handfull of tags are available in the public draw. In any event, I am too tired to engage in an online debate tonight but I may stop by your booth at the expo to say hello. Have a good one!

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
There's no question who gets the better end of the bargain when it comes to CWMUs. Landowners get significantly more $$ for those tags with the liberal season dates than they ever could with general season dates. In some cases though that advantage doesn't end up having a down side. If the CWMU is surrounded by other private lands who really cares if they get more time to harvest animals? The biggest drawback to the program for me, and the reason I have never applied for a tag, is the incredibly short season the public hunters are offered. THAT is what needs to be changed. If hunting season is open for 2 months to the private clients then why are the public hunters being restricted to 5 days? If I knew I could have access to a property for scouting and then be able to hunt for 8 weeks+ on a CWMU there's no question I'd be applying. Even if landowners established reasonable season dates ahead of time, and allowed for a fair number of scouting trips it would make a big difference. I just hate to burn points on a tag where scouting and time in the field is up to the discretion of an individual who may be in a bad mood that day!
 
Hawkeye, i am glad that i am not the only person to think that Todd never really answers a question, just asks a bunch of his own.....i have answered numerous questions only to have more thrown at me when i ask my own....

Just remember it all about the money.....
 
Tree--Really? Name one that i didn't answer. Please, I'm sure i must have missed it somewhere amongst the many. I believe I answered Hawk's 2 that he asked. If you can't read my answers I can understand that i suppose.

I just happen to ask him a couple to help me understand his statements and where he is getting his information from. Don't see any harm in that do you?
 
> Todd no way would hunters
>pay the same amount if
>it were gen season dates.

Way! I know from first hand experience of a small amount of private land on a major LE unit that a landowner had 2 hunters pay $5000 each for a tresspass fee. They both killed 350+ bulls on it and didn't blink an eye at the cost. Like Todd said, exclusivity means $$$. They were the only ones that hunted that property that year. And for those of you that think if the CWMU program goes away you will have more public access, think again. I know several landowners that are involved in the CWMU program and those acres would be locked up tighter than a virgins chastity belt on prom night! I would bet that some of the older landowners kids are just waiting for them to die off so they can turn it in to cabin property. Whoever said that mountain property isn't worth anything hasn't ever been to Heber Valley before. Some of those 10 acre "cabin lots" are selling for over $500,000. That's undeveloped mountain property. Oh, and they are building multi million dollar homes on them. Tell me that selling the property all this wildlife enjoys wouldn't make them a helluva lot more money with a lot less hastle. For some LO's it is definately for the love of the wildlife and because they enjoy it.




It's always an adventure!!!
 
El_matador...why shouldn't the landowner get the better end of the bargain?? They're the ones helping others out, not the other way around!! Gawd, listening to some of you guys reasoning is beyond funny...it's like they OWE you something?? Give me a break, they're the ones doing the public a favor!! But no, you want scouting trips, and this and that and this and that...nothing would ever be good enough, they'd still OWE you something right??

~Z~
 
>If hunting season is open
>for 2 months to the
>private clients then why are
>the public hunters being restricted
>to 5 days?

The private clients don't get 2 months to hunt and the public should be getting the same time frame as the private hunters. If you can prove that this is happening please send me the info so we can bring it up in the next meeting.

Some CWMUs like DLL offer 10 day hunts, and some also offer scouting trips and split seasons for better success. You just need to do some research. All CWMUs are different.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-12 AT 07:30AM (MST)[p]HJB- That is incorrect, on many CWMUs. This is an issue which the last Committee discussed. You have private tag holders who hunt from Sept through Nov. and on the same CWMU the public hunter gets 5 days.

I feel that it is up to the Public Hunter to ask questions, but how much research should they expect to do? You have a lot of experience with CWMUs so you know what to look for more than the average hunter. Unfortunately, the over-regulation of these programs is put in place to deal with the few poorly run few at the expense of the many which are ran very well.
 
>If we did away
>with CWMU's what options would
>the landowner have? If
>he wanted to make money
>off the hunting rights, his
>only option would be to
>charge a tresspass fee to
>someone who drew a tag
>in the general draw.
>If the landowner did not
>have a handfull of guaranteed
>tags every year to sell
>to the highest bidder and
>was forced to sell tresspass
>rights to the common folk,
>I guarantee the prices would
>come down drastically. As
>it stands right now, CWMU's
>can cater to the wealthy
>by providing guaranteed tags in
>premier units with guide services
>built in. The small
>percentage of tags that are
>available in the general draw
>likely pales in comparison to
>the opportunities that would be
>available if the average joe
>who drew a tag had
>an opportunity to negotiate for
>the right to hunt private
>property. As it stands
>right now, we have created
>a highpriced market that removes
>any incentive for landowners to
>work with the general public,
>unless they are fortunate (or
>unfortunate) enough to draw in
>the public draw. Also,
>do each of you guide
>on and/or operate a CWMU?
> I look forward to
>your responses. Thanks.
>
>Hawkeye

Hawkeye,

I disagree that the prices would come down drastically. Right now you have a limited number of tags selling at a high price. Lets for fun say that a CWMU has 9 private tags and one public tag (as many CWMUs do). Those 9 deer tags sell for 3500.00 each for a total of $31500.00, even though I think the land owners take a couple of the tags for themselves we will take the total of the full 9 tags.

Now lets say the program is eliminated and the land owner can sell trespass permits to the public. Many landowners will sell trepass permits for $1000.00. You can find several KSL ads for this price during hunting season. 30 trespass fees on 10-15 thousand acres wont do a bit of harm to the deer pops and this land owner can make just as much money as he did before with the CWMU program. 30 trepass fees of $1000.00 each = $30000.00.

So there really wouldn't be much difference in my opinion. The huge properties in the 10,000 to 15,000 acre range can provide hold 30 hunters and not put a dent in the quality or population of the herds on the property. Don't think for one second that a landowner wouldn't allow this. After all is about the money right???

Now lets say the land owner for some reason can't make money and he can't get the high dollar trespass fees. Well, why not make his property a nice little subdivision for california folks looking to move to Utah. Or better yet, how about making a bunch of lots and turning the place into a little resort such as Sourdough, Beaver creek, Sun Ridge, Causey Estates, Echo Creek Ranches, and others??? How do you think these little operations started? Someone owned a bunch of land and wnated to make money.

Now we have little resort parcels you can buy into for $15,000 -$20,000, park your trailer, and chase two points during hunting season. This is exaclty what many of these properties would become without the CWMU program.

Look at the location for the bulk of the CWMUs. The Morgan area is developing very rapidly and people are always looking for retirement property or just a piece of nice property in the mountains. You take Bally Watts, Bear Spring, Durst Mtn, Jacobs Creek, and several others CWMUS away and just see how long it takes before you see cabins and mansions on the land that used to be a draw unit for the public hunter.

There's my opinion and answer you wanted.
HJB
 
>HJB- That is incorrect, on many
>CWMUs. This is an
>issue which the last Committee
>discussed. You have private
>tag holders who hunt from
>Sept through Nov. and on
>the same CWMU the public
>hunter gets 5 days.

In my opinion this is unacceptable and should not be allowed. This should have been a main topic with the board if it is truly happening. The public and Private hunters should have the same regulations and benefits on the property. While the rich give a bunch of money, the public give years worth of points to draw. It should all be equal.

This really pisses me off if it's true. I know on DLL it is equal, and should be on the rest as well.
 
ElkAssassin- My most recent experience with this was last year in the LaSal Mountains. Maps made it look as though there was plenty of public land (and there is) but when we tried to access the higher elevations, there were private ranches around the perimeter that didn't allow access up higher to those public grounds. (Maybe we missed something??)

Anyway, by definition CWMUs are made up of both public and private lands. They say it on their No Trespassing signs for example. It's no secret they use public land, that's why they have a tag or two for public hunters.

Interesting CWMU revenge story:

I have only had one friend draw a public CWMU tag, it was in Northern Utah, for deer. He and his dad had met the operator and were sold on the unit. They were supposed to have 4 days to hunt. He was even promised a "guide" while on the ranch. When he arrived, he was directed to hunt a part of the ranch away from the big money hunters. After seeing no bucks the first day, his "guide" slept in until 10am on the 2nd morning. After only 2 days of hunting, some nasty weather blew in a snow storm and he was informed that they could not travel the access roads so his time was up and asked to leave. Upon his return home and calling his father about the situation, his father (who had spoken to the operator many times prior to the hunt) called the guy and told him they were very disappointed in what they had provided his son. The operator told them they could go out for one more day of hunting. When they arrived, they were again directed away from the big money guys' hunting area. They only saw one deer that morning, a 186" stud of a buck that my friend put down with one shot. When they went back to the camp, the operator was pissed they had shot this trophy buck they had been searching for for one of the big money guys. They couldn't have been happier with the end result and needless to say, they will never return to that unit.


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
HJB-

That is a well thought out response and it basically summarizes what I think would be happening without the CWMU's. Thank you. In my simple mind, I think that would be a better system. Where everyone had to wait in line to draw a tag and hunt the general season dates. If a landowner was willing and able to sell 30 tresspass permits for a $1,000 each to hunters who were lucky enough to draw a tag, more power to the landowner. This would allow 30 individuals who drew a tag in the general draw to potentially hunt the property. If some landowners eventually decided to go another direction and attempt to develop their property, that would be their legal right. Under the current system, I don't like (1) public land being included in the CWMU, or (2) the number of guaranteed, high-dollar tags, with very flexible hunt dates that are available to the highest bidder. That is my only compaint.

Thanks for the response.

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Mathews Drenalin LD
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-12
>AT 07:03?PM (MST)
>
>If you go through all the
>CWMU's, they are allowed to
>have 76,514 acres of public
>land included in their boundaries.
>Thats 119 square miles of
>public land that you and
>I cannot hunt on unless
>we are lucky enough to
>draw one of their tags.
>The biggest ones are, Deseret
>with 14,700 acres, Grouse Creek
>with 23,040 acres, and Twin
>Peaks with 10,400 acres. Now
>that sure seems like a
>lot of acreage just to
>make their boundaries more "definable".
>I don't know about you
>but I find it outrageous.
>
> The DWR and the State
>of Utah has handed over
>the hunting rights on 76,514
>acres of public land to
>a handfull of outfitters and
>landowners, total BS if you
>ask me. I will say
>it again, CWMU's should consist
>of private land only, no
>public land should be included
>in their boundaries period.



I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND THERE IS IN UTAH, BUT THERE ARE NEARLY 53,256,960 ACRES OF LAND IN UTAH. YOU SAY THE STATE HAS ALLOWED 76,514 ACRES TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE CWMU'S... THAT IS .0014% OF UTAH.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT 119 SQUARE MILES IS INSIGNIFICANT, BUT IN THE GRANDE PICTURE, ITS NOT A TON.

I KNOW THAT IN THE 2012 GUIDE BOOK ON CERTAIN CWMU UNITS THEY HAVE TO GIVE THE PUBLIC HUNTERS A CHOICE OF HUNTING BULLS IN NOVEMBER. I THINK WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING ON THIS THREAD IS SLOWLY BEING HEARD BY THE DWR...



It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
@Never_catch: You thought I was complaining? I simply stated that CWMU hunting does not appeal to me right now because of what they offer as compared to what the public LE hunts offer. I'll burn my points on a hunt where I can scout and hunt for a reasonable period of time. If CWMUs start offering those things to the public I could very well change my mind.

I'm sure in many cases the long seasons don't have much of a negative effect on anyone. Like Packout said, many of the units would fill all the tags regardless of season dates. There are definitely exceptions though, look at Alton. There has been a big debate on this site about how their tags were increased while the public tags all around were cut. The deer that reside there are migratory and most of them wouldn't even be near the private land during the rifle hunt. But yet they get to start killing the trophy bucks in September with a rifle while everyone else is still bowhunting. This is one example of a CWMU that takes much more than it gives back to the public.
 
Hawkeye, i think you are spot on in your thinking....the landowner would get his needed revenue....the public would get access to private ground....every hunter would have equal access to our natural resources....but even with this arrangement there would need to be a LIMITED # of CWMU's. lets say 10 to 15 of them. only the BEST survive. ONLY the ones that give the public equal access/time and truly give the hunter access where it never was before. such as DLL. everybody wins..case closed
 
Why not take all the CWMU tags and just make a separate drawing? Give the $10 application fee to the CWMU and let the public have 80% of the tags. The landowners would get plenty of money from the drawing and the public would get to hunt their own animals. Any CWMU misconduct and the DWR would have plenty of leverage to fine them.
 
>If you go through all the
>CWMU's, they are allowed to
>have 76,514 acres of public
>land included in their boundaries.
>Thats 119 square miles of
>public land that you and
>I cannot hunt on unless
>we are lucky enough to
>draw one of their tags.
>The biggest ones are, Deseret
>with 14,700 acres, Grouse Creek
>with 23,040 acres, and Twin
>Peaks with 10,400 acres. Now
>that sure seems like a
>lot of acreage just to
>make their boundaries more "definable".
>I don't know about you
>but I find it outrageous.
>
> The DWR and the State
>of Utah has handed over
>the hunting rights on 76,514
>acres of public land to
>a handfull of outfitters and
>landowners, total BS if you
>ask me. I will say
>it again, CWMU's should consist
>of private land only, no
>public land should be included
>in their boundaries period.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND THERE ARE IN UTAH, BUT THERE ARE NEARLY 53,256,960 ACRES OF LAND IN UTAH. YOU SAY THE STATE HAS ALLOWED 76,514 ACRES TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE CWMU'S... THAT IS .0014% OF UTAH.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT 119 SQUARE MILES IS INSIGNIFICANT, BUT IN THE GRANDE PICTURE, ITS NOT A TON.

I KNOW THAT IN THE 2012 GUIDE BOOK ON CERTAIN CWMU UNITS THEY HAVE TO GIVE THE PUBLIC HUNTERS A CHOICE OF HUNTING BULLS IN NOVEMBER. I THINK WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING ON THIS THREAD IS SLOWLY BEING HEARD BY THE DWR...


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


It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
Actually its .14%. Somebody tried to give me the hunting rights to a few thousand acres of national forest one time and I was like, "Dude, do you know what a small percentage of the state that is?" It wasn't even worth my time.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-12 AT 09:33AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-12 AT 09:21?AM (MST)

How many of the 53 million total acres of land in Utah is prime elk and deer habitat? I know all 76,000 acres of public land in the CWMU's is prime habitat or it wouldn't be there.

How about I find a landowner with 5000 acres of prime elk and deer habitat, lease his ground then stake out another 10,000 acres of adjoining public land, loaded with deer and elk, then pick out 10,000 acres of sagebrush flats, with a few jackrabbits on, that I lease from another landowner and trade that to the state for my "trade lands" and form a CWMU.
I think I can get the flatlands pretty cheap don't you?

Sounds like exactly what goes on in this state, pure BS if you ask me.

HJB
On many CWMU,s 5 days is all the public hunter gets and the landowner usually picks the days. No scouting on most, so you have to find them and shoot them in that time frame.
 
"HJB
On many CWMU,s 5 days is all the public hunter gets and the landowner usually picks the days. No scouting on most, so you have to find them and shoot them in that time frame."

I'm fully aware of the situation. 5 days is the norm for most CWMUs and yet thousands of people keep applying for them with the knowledge that they can't scout, and only get 5 days. It's a chance to get away from public ground, the crowds, and get a decent chance at seeing bucks and bulls.
 
"I'm fully aware of the situation. 5 days is the norm for most CWMUs and yet thousands of people keep applying for them with the knowledge that they can't scout, and only get 5 days. It's a chance to get away from public ground, the crowds, and get a decent chance at seeing bucks and bulls."

That is exactly why the application book tells you to call the landowner prior to applying for any CWMU permit. And the CWMU units that I used to hunt gave the public hunters 5 days, the paying clients 5 days and if they didn't harvest one in those 5 days were generally allowed to come back and try again if time permitted and they weren't being shitheads. I am NOT defending some of the CWMU's that take advantage of the system. I am defending the good ones that everyone seems to lump in with the bad. Also, the CWMU operators I know personally, hire their own private biologists and do more wildlife improvements on their own land that SFW, NWTF or MDF ever thought of doing. Some credit is deserved here fellas.


It's always an adventure!!!
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
832
nfh
nfh
M
JCR, statistics, counts, objectives and harvest reports
Replies
33
Views
2k
mightyhunter
M
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Fantastic Buck for antlerhound
IMG_1688.JPG
20200104_004423_001.jpg
P1200749.JPG
872DA625-6989-47A0-A27D-246EB532D4D3.jpeg
64654E5A-2C0F-4C42-9CE6-FE7177ED95F2.jpeg
695331DE-A649-45A7-8BB9-EE3CA9528DED.jpeg
IMG_2364sat.jpg
IMG_1739.jpeg
12439E58-6557-481A-8FD2-699A108EF003.jpeg
Big Ole Velvet Buck
IMG_1728.png
Back
Top Bottom