B
BLTSO
Guest
To those of you who have taken the time to write letters to the RAC and board, thank you. I have enjoyed hearing your input, and have done my best to represent as many of you as possible.
Here is what my proposal is to the board. I sent it this morning. I just thought you should know where I stand.
Members of the RAC and Board,
Thank you for your time and dedication to the wildlife in the State of Utah. Your time is invaluable, and greatly appreciated.
As I am sure you all were, I have been inundated with copious amounts of e-mails regarding the buck to doe ratios across the state. From my table of extrapolated information I have determined that, (from those who voiced their opinions through written word) most people want something completely different from the next person, for completely different reasons. I'm assuming you all have found something similar.
Although I know there is no clear way to make everyone happy, and equally balance hunter opportunity with trophy class dear hunting, I do believe we can make a step in that direction. Given that the state has been broken down into "micro-units" I find it only fitting that we utilize that move, and use it to the advantage of the management. The approach we are taking at this point, come across to me as if we are trying to put out a large fire, with a garden hose.
Without getting to wordy, or drawn out, here is my proposal.
I move that the state Wildlife Board sets in place a wide objective for the state at between 10-25 bucks per every hundred does. Following that move, the determination for each unit will be moved to the region in which the unit resides for discussion and professional input. At that point, a narrower objective will be determined for each unit (ie, 15-17, 18-20, etc.) I understand the overall objective is very broad, however, so is the state. There are units in the North East Region (where I reside) that have historically never had buck numbers over 12/100. Ever. In the history of recording the data. Ever. If we set the objective on that unit for 15-17, there will be no chance for tag regeneration in the future and we will eliminate the opportunity to hunt in that area.
I urge you to consider all of the emails in their entirety, and see it as I have. Although I would like to someday have the opportunity to learn each individual region, unit, mountain, etc. I have not had that opportunity and as such feel as if I don't have the right to vote on what the management should be in those locations. Fortunately, we have a large division of people who are paid specifically to study and understand those locations. I feel it only necessary to hear their input on each unit, before making an educated decision.
Thank you for your time, and hard work.
Sincerely,
Carrie Mair
NE Region RAC
At Large
4357248511
Here is what my proposal is to the board. I sent it this morning. I just thought you should know where I stand.
Members of the RAC and Board,
Thank you for your time and dedication to the wildlife in the State of Utah. Your time is invaluable, and greatly appreciated.
As I am sure you all were, I have been inundated with copious amounts of e-mails regarding the buck to doe ratios across the state. From my table of extrapolated information I have determined that, (from those who voiced their opinions through written word) most people want something completely different from the next person, for completely different reasons. I'm assuming you all have found something similar.
Although I know there is no clear way to make everyone happy, and equally balance hunter opportunity with trophy class dear hunting, I do believe we can make a step in that direction. Given that the state has been broken down into "micro-units" I find it only fitting that we utilize that move, and use it to the advantage of the management. The approach we are taking at this point, come across to me as if we are trying to put out a large fire, with a garden hose.
Without getting to wordy, or drawn out, here is my proposal.
I move that the state Wildlife Board sets in place a wide objective for the state at between 10-25 bucks per every hundred does. Following that move, the determination for each unit will be moved to the region in which the unit resides for discussion and professional input. At that point, a narrower objective will be determined for each unit (ie, 15-17, 18-20, etc.) I understand the overall objective is very broad, however, so is the state. There are units in the North East Region (where I reside) that have historically never had buck numbers over 12/100. Ever. In the history of recording the data. Ever. If we set the objective on that unit for 15-17, there will be no chance for tag regeneration in the future and we will eliminate the opportunity to hunt in that area.
I urge you to consider all of the emails in their entirety, and see it as I have. Although I would like to someday have the opportunity to learn each individual region, unit, mountain, etc. I have not had that opportunity and as such feel as if I don't have the right to vote on what the management should be in those locations. Fortunately, we have a large division of people who are paid specifically to study and understand those locations. I feel it only necessary to hear their input on each unit, before making an educated decision.
Thank you for your time, and hard work.
Sincerely,
Carrie Mair
NE Region RAC
At Large
4357248511
