November 2023 Rac packets and proposals.

JakeH

JakeH

Long Time Member
Messages
4,295

RAC, Board meeting agendas, materials & minutes

Action items on the agenda are voted on by the RACs and the Board. Wildlife Board meetings usually occur a few weeks after the Northern, Central, Northeastern, Southeastern and Southern RAC meetings.
wildlife.utah.gov wildlife.utah.gov

Here is the link to the November RAC Proposals.

After you click on the link you will have to hit the little triangle next to "proposals, share your feedback."

Let us know what you think, just put out today.
 
Some interesting stuff for sure.
I'm kind of "laffin" that people complain the the DWR isn't listening.
The muzzle loader part is going to be a **** show. But who couldn't see that coming.
The mandatory reporting is a nice touch. Hopefully they can incorporate a deer sighted portion so we can get a accurate count of population.
 
AAA said:
Please take time to carefully review each proposal and submit your feedback! If you do not like or agree with something, please try to provide detail and suggestions.
Click to expand...

This! I don’t even care if we share the same opinions on the proposals, please get involved. We need more people involved. We got into the mess we are because there was a vacuum created by only a small number of the same people involved in everything.
 
I agree with Vanilla and the AAA. The more feedback the better. We all get stuck sometimes thinking that everyone thinks the same way we do (until we voice that opinion and get feedback). I am not sold on the success rates being due to scopes because many guys I've seen in the field, myself included, still don't have scopes on their muzzy and the data isn't separated by whether the hunter is using a scope or not. Obviously, I don't care one way or another on the scopes for me, but I would lean toward leaving it be as is.

I know I am asking to get blasted by some for posting this, but I'm pretty curious about what others would think of this idea concerning the research study portion of the proposal.

When a season is shortened, instead of putting all the hunters in the field at the same time could you make two seasons and keep total tag numbers equivalent?

Instead of doing a single 2 week archery hunt, 5 day muzzleloader hunt, and 5 day ALW hunt with all the tags in their respective season, I would suggest making 2 hunts that each have half of the tags.

For example lets say a unit currently has 1,000 archery deer tags, 1,000 muzzleloader deer tags, and 2,000 ALW deer tags.

Archery season 1 - Similar Start Date to current structure - 2 Weeks - 500 of the total 1,000 tags
Archery season 2 - starts the day after season 1 ends - 2 weeks - 500 of the total 1,000 tags

Muzzleloader season 1 - Similar Start Date to current structure - 5 Days - 500 of the total 1,000 tags
Muzzleloader season 2 - starts the day after season 1 ends - 5 Days - 500 of the total 1,000 tags

ALW season 1 - Similar Start Date to current structure - 5 Days - 1,000 of the total 2,000 tags
ALW season 2 - starts the day after season 1 ends - 5 Days - 1,000 of the total 2,000 tags

This would provide the exact same number of tags, the overall seasons for each weapon type would be almost exactly the same days that they currently are, still limit the individual hunter to the shorter season, yet provide an experience that would be 50% less crowded in the field.
 
JakeH said:

RAC, Board meeting agendas, materials & minutes

Action items on the agenda are voted on by the RACs and the Board. Wildlife Board meetings usually occur a few weeks after the Northern, Central, Northeastern, Southeastern and Southern RAC meetings.
wildlife.utah.gov wildlife.utah.gov

Here is the link to the November RAC Proposals.

After you click on the link you will have to hit the little triangle next to "proposals, share your feedback."

Let us know what you think, just put out today.
Click to expand...
Do you know what they are going to be proposing for archery?
 
Here are the links to the RAC agenda and the presentations/online feedback portal. (The full RAC packet will be posted later today.) I also wanted to drop in a reminder that the 2024 big game season dates passed last year. You can find the hunt tables for those in the November 2022 RAC packet.

And to echo the earlier comments, please take some time to either submit your feedback online or attend your local RAC meeting. Whether you agree, disagree or have a suggestion somewhere in the middle, we want to hear from you!
 
Last edited:
I strongly urge everyone on this site who has been involved and following mine and others threads on the technology committee proposals.
Blair Stringham explains it all in one summary.

I also love that mandatory reporting on GS hunts, we as hunters have begged for this for many years and finally get it.

Also, I am in full support of these "Test Units" of Antler Point Restrictions, reduced hunting day restrictions and weapons restrictions on these units.
Four years should give us measurable data, positive or negative on all aspects.

Looking forward to the next four years!
 
Did We really Have To Wait This Long For Mandatory Harvest Reports?

JFP!

Without It, The Success Rates Posted Don't Mean Much!

Now How GAWD-DAMNED Hard Is That To Figure Out?
 
elkassassin said:
Did We really Have To Wait This Long For Mandatory Harvest Reports?

JFP!

Without It, The Success Rates Posted Don't Mean Much!

Now How GAWD-DAMNED Hard Is That To Figure Out?
Click to expand...
The proof is in the pudding. Do you really expect a major change in the success rates? I don't.
And will you believe them when they come out?
I never did see a good way to improve the population counts from the experts on here. I suppose that is next.
 
slamdunk said:
I strongly urge everyone on this site who has been involved and following mine and others threads on the technology committee proposals.
Blair Stringham explains it all in one summary.

I also love that mandatory reporting on GS hunts, we as hunters have begged for this for many years and finally get it.

Also, I am in full support of these "Test Units" of Antler Point Restrictions, reduced hunting day restrictions and weapons restrictions on these units.
Four years should give us measurable data, positive or negative on all aspects.

Looking forward to the next four years!
Click to expand...
Wish more units would be tested
 
Dangbig said:
Wish more units would be tested
Click to expand...
I'm sure, and dependent on positive findings, more units will be chosen.

I absolutely love what they are doing on Dutton and Boulder, especially since they share a lot the same deer due to their adjacent locations.

Wyoming still uses a lot of APR's throughout their state with good success.

Four years will tell a story, good or bad.
 
slamdunk said:
I'm sure, and dependent on positive findings, more units will be chosen.

I absolutely love what they are doing on Dutton and Boulder, especially since they share a lot the same deer due to their adjacent locations.

Wyoming still uses a lot of APR's throughout their state with good success.

Four years will tell a story, good or bad.
Click to expand...
 
Deerlove said:
Years ago when they had shortened Seasons people saw the Improvement but the dwr insisted that just as many Bucks were getting killed?
Click to expand...
If my memory serves me right, it was assessed that hunters felt they had to shoot early or not fill their tags.
More young bucks were harvested than before when people could pass the first few days.
 
slamdunk said:
I strongly urge everyone on this site who has been involved and following mine and others threads on the technology committee proposals.
Blair Stringham explains it all in one summary.

I also love that mandatory reporting on GS hunts, we as hunters have begged for this for many years and finally get it.

Also, I am in full support of these "Test Units" of Antler Point Restrictions, reduced hunting day restrictions and weapons restrictions on these units.
Four years should give us measurable data, positive or negative on all aspects.

Looking forward to the next four years!
Click to expand...
I got my comments in and most of them mirror what I have already stated on several MM threads. It will be interesting to see what the final vote is on proposal 4. I am interested in the results of the test units as well.
 
More units statewide need this testing. They should pick 1-2 units per region for the restricted and shortened seasons. Only using some of the southern units is missing a good opportunity for statewide info gathering. Please DWR, increase the unit restrictions...........
 
I sent in feedback.
How do you access the feedback sent in by other hunters to get a feel of general concensus?
 
slamdunk said:
I'm sure, and dependent on positive findings, more units will be chosen.

I absolutely love what they are doing on Dutton and Boulder, especially since they share a lot the same deer due to their adjacent locations.

Wyoming still uses a lot of APR's throughout their state with good success.

Four years will tell a story, good or bad.
Click to expand...
I hunted the wellsville when it had APR in the 80s it was great as soon as they opened it up it was a shoot feast and has never been the same since
 
Feedback submitted.

And my personal experience with antler restrictions was with 3 pt or better on the Fishlake. The hunting was phenomenal back then. The year they opened it up they slaughtered them and it’s not been even close to what it was since.

I hope they expand apr across the state on a few units in each region.
 
Silentstalker said:
Feedback submitted.

And my personal experience with antler restrictions was with 3 pt or better on the Fishlake. The hunting was phenomenal back then. The year they opened it up they slaughtered them and it’s not been even close to what it was since.

I hope they expand apr across the state on a few units in each region.
Click to expand...
Another failure of APR.
 
Slam/ anyone else on the committee - when evaluating success rates, did the unknown of whether successful tag holders have a scope on their muzzy get discussed?
 
I support everything, except 7 new CWMU and landowner tags that can be sold.

The new landowner lotto is just a new outfitter handout.

Landowners should get a few tags, and should be able to transfer them to whomever they feel.

But not sold. And yes I realize that will lead to Utards doing an access fee with a free tag. Utards will always be Utards
 
I agree with most of the recommended proposals. Mandatory reporting is a great recommendation and is way overdue.

I am in favor of point restrictions on the Pine Valley unit, but wouldn't be opposed if youth were still allowed to shoot any buck on that unit. Also, shorting the season on the Beaver and SW Desert is worth a try.

Until I watched the video I did not know that restricted weapons also meant no scopes on centerfire rifles. What is the logic behind this and how many bolt action centerfire rifles have been manufactured with iron sights in the last 20 years?

I do believe that the proposals for the Boulder are way too drastic; 4 point or better, shorter seasons and can't even have a scope on your rifle! I don't see too many bucks being killed on the Boulder if this gets approved. I know what unit I will put in for the first year after this experiment is done. LOL At least the DWR is giving an option to the current Boulder unit dedicated hunters to get out of the program if these restrictions get approved.
 
Nevadahunter said:
I agree with most of the recommended proposals. Mandatory reporting is a great recommendation and is way overdue.

I am in favor of point restrictions on the Pine Valley unit, but wouldn't be opposed if youth were still allowed to shoot any buck on that unit. Also, shorting the season on the Beaver and SW Desert is worth a try.

Until I watched the video I did not know that restricted weapons also meant no scopes on centerfire rifles. What is the logic behind this and how many bolt action centerfire rifles have been manufactured with iron sights in the last 20 years?

I do believe that the proposals for the Boulder are way too drastic; 4 point or better, shorter seasons and can't even have a scope on your rifle! I don't see too many bucks being killed on the Boulder if this gets approved. I know what unit I will put in for the first year after this experiment is done. LOL At least the DWR is giving an option to the current Boulder unit dedicated hunters to get out of the program if these restrictions get approved.
Click to expand...
I would love to see a 2 point or less on Pinevalley.
What an awesome family hunt!
Everyone in party tagging out for the meat while seeing big bucks all day looking for a two point or less.
If not Pine Valley, somewhere else please.
 
Nevadahunter said:
Come on, get real. You really think this is a smart idea to put this many restrictions on a single unit?
Click to expand...
I think the point of the study is to try different things on different units in the same region to see what effects it has on the units. Putting all the restrictions on one unit as well as having a couple units where no changes is made will help them distinguish what each individual change will accomplish, and whether or not they can combine the strategies for a better result.

They are studying the effects, to see if they can extrapolate any or a combination of any of the different studies on other units in the state.

I commend them for this out of the box thinking, still not sure how I feel about it. It is a lot to take in for sure.

I will also add, the study is not being done on my home turf, so it's an easier pill to swallow when it won't be affecting me.
 
JakeH said:
I think the point of the study is to try different things on different units in the same region to see what effects it has on the units. Putting all the restrictions on one unit as well as having a couple units where no changes is made will help them distinguish what each individual change will accomplish, and whether or not they can combine the strategies for a better result.

They are studying the effects, to see if they can extrapolate any or a combination of any of the different studies on other units in the state.

I commend them for this out of the box thinking, still not sure how I feel about it. It is a lot to take in for sure.

I will also add, the study is not being done on my home turf, so it's an easier pill to swallow when it won't be affecting me.
Click to expand...
I wish the weapon restrictions were on my home turf.
It sucks a guy needs to go down south to take advantage of these new opportunities.
 
Silentstalker said:
Not a failure of APR. a failure of management. It worked incredibly well until they pulled the plug.
Click to expand...
You have to eventually pull the plug.
You can’t keep killing all the good genes of big bucks and leave an area full of spikes and forkies to pass on their genes for breeding.
Bring on an APR area for study but make it two points or less.
Then when the unit is at CC with big fellers, issue some >2 point tags on a limited basis.
That would be a fun hunt.
Not unlike some of our spike only Elk units.
 
There were great bucks all over the unit. To say otherwise is simply false.

The argument to your thought process is that all the deer carry the genes. The does carry half the genes. A 2 point has the same genes that he will when he is a 190” 4 point.

Why is there this weird thought process that only big bucks have big genes. Big bucks were once little bucks too.

A 3 or 4 point or better unit managed properly and not severely overhunted is a great idea.
 
If they do APR on these units, they need to implement a waiting period for successful hunters.
We all know it's the same people killing big bucks consistently.
 
Thanks! Just submitted my feedback. I complimented them on trying to collect data this time around on the deer units before ramming through new management strategies statewide. I made mention to how they didn't do that on trail cams and muzzleloader scopes and how it pisses people off. They are going to have a lot more buy in when they want to change things around when they have actual data to go along with it. IMO they have made too many changes lately based on social pressure and money.
 
Silentstalker said:
There were great bucks all over the unit. To say otherwise is simply false.

The argument to your thought process is that all the deer carry the genes. The does carry half the genes. A 2 point has the same genes that he will when he is a 190” 4 point.

Why is there this weird thought process that only big bucks have big genes. Big bucks were once little bucks too.

A 3 or 4 point or better unit managed properly and not severely overhunted is a great idea.
Click to expand...
Some bucks, just like humans, just don’t have great genes.
Two very tall humans usually make a tall kid.
Two short humans, usually a short kid.
One human of each=crap shoot.
 
Silentstalker said:
There were great bucks all over the unit. To say otherwise is simply false.

The argument to your thought process is that all the deer carry the genes. The does carry half the genes. A 2 point has the same genes that he will when he is a 190” 4 point.

Why is there this weird thought process that only big bucks have big genes. Big bucks were once little bucks too.

A 3 or 4 point or better unit managed properly and not severely overhunted is a great idea.
Click to expand...
It's called dilution of the gene pool. Not that difficult to understand.
 
I'm so glad they aren't trying this on my home turf. This should better the odds of me drawing here, so I'm all for it. I can tell you what will happen on the APR units, and that's exactly the opposite of what people are thinking.

With no APR, most people will shoot a buck that's 3-point or less and go home. On 4-point or better APR, people are forced to stay and hunt for bigger bucks, resulting in more 4-points being killed, leaving fewer to become really big bucks.

Additionally, the gene pool WILL be diluted, meaning there will be old bucks that are 3-point or less and they will always be so. They will be protected and left to do the breeding, making more genetically weak animals.

But go for it. I never hunt there so what do I care?
 
slamdunk said:
Thanks @JakeH

NH.....please give us a logical reason why it wouldn't give some type of result, good, bad or neutral?
Click to expand...
Slam, I am in favor of these experiments in our southern units to find out which works best to bring up our deer herds and give hunters and better experience.

These restrictions and shortened hunt dates on the Boulder will lower the success rate on this unit.

It is a smarter plan to try different experiments on different units like the DWR is proposing to do to see what works best. When you combine all these different experiments on one unit how will you know which is the best way to move forward?

Also, the proposed experiments should be something that is practical and accepted by the majority of hunters that could be implemented in all our general season units.

Do you believe the DWR would manage ALL our general units like they are proposing for the Boulder? I think the majority of hunters in state will be completely pissed.

Long story short don’t waste time with a crazy hunting experiment on a general season unit that would never be implemented state wide.
 
Iron sights on a rifle is not that drastic. I would break out the ole 300 Savage 99 and have a ball. Out to 175/200 yards or so it will work just fine. I bet about half the deer are shot anyway under 200. Spend a week or so in a deer rich area ( assuming the restrictions work which I think they would to some degree ) with a bow and think about how easy it would have been with even a model 94 30-30.
 
Nevadahunter said:
Slam, I am in favor of these experiments in our southern units to find out which works best to bring up our deer herds and give hunters and better experience.

These restrictions and shortened hunt dates on the Boulder will lower the success rate on this unit.

It is a smarter plan to try different experiments on different units like the DWR is proposing to do to see what works best. When you combine all these different experiments on one unit how will you know which is the best way to move forward?

Also, the proposed experiments should be something that is practical and accepted by the majority of hunters that could be implemented in all our general season units.

Do you believe the DWR would manage ALL our general units like they are proposing for the Boulder? I think the majority of hunters in state will be completely pissed.

Long story short don’t waste time with a crazy hunting experiment on a general season unit that would never be implemented state wide.
Click to expand...
Great points, thank you for giving your insight.

I think the whole Boulder experiment IS to lower success rates temporarily and let some bucks off the meat poles for a few years.
I personally would hunt it with restrictions simply for the opportunity to hunt and knowing I may not harvest.
But if I do, I know it'll be a 4x buck I take home.

I do agree it'll be all but impossible to give credit to one of the restrictions when utilized all in one place.
But as they explain in the video, that's why they chose different tasks on different units.

If the Boulder buck numbers increase faster than the others, they may realize it takes a multitude of things to boost the census.
Just my hypothesis, definitely not an educated assessment.

I'll give them this.....at least they are admitting that what we're currently doing is taking us down a rabbit hole.

Pray for consecutive years of moisture and hopefully these new tools can have a positive impact ?
 
slamdunk said:
Great points, thank you for giving your insight.

I think the whole Boulder experiment IS to lower success rates temporarily and let some bucks off the meat poles for a few years.
I personally would hunt it with restrictions simply for the opportunity to hunt and knowing I may not harvest.
But if I do, I know it'll be a 4x buck I take home.

I do agree it'll be all but impossible to give credit to one of the restrictions when utilized all in one place.
But as they explain in the video, that's why they chose different tasks on different units.

If the Boulder buck numbers increase faster than the others, they may realize it takes a multitude of things to boost the census.
Just my hypothesis, definitely not an educated assessment.

I'll give them this.....at least they are admitting that what we're currently doing is taking us down a rabbit hole.

Pray for consecutive years of moisture and hopefully these new tools can have a positive impact ?
Click to expand...


That is true.

I'm ANTI tag cut. So I'm welcoming anything and everything that keeps that away.

Boulder gonna be a bunch of Enfield's, Springfield's, 94's, and 99's. Could be a freaking blast
 
Vanilla said:
This! I don’t even care if we share the same opinions on the proposals, please get involved. We need more people involved. We got into the mess we are because there was a vacuum created by only a small number of the same people involved in everything.
Click to expand...
This forum has about 5,000 members and I would be surprised if more than 20% (1,000) have ever posted here. Additionally, if you look on who are current visitors at almost any time on any day, you'll see only a few members names you remember, but lots of names you've never seen on a post. AND how many guests visiting at any one time is about 7-8 times as many. (A few moments ago there were about 60 members and 460 guests.) Imagine ALL of us responding to the proposal survey with written opinions! Please do it!!!
 
elkfromabove said:
This forum has about 5,000 members and I would be surprised if more than 20% (1,000) have ever posted here. Additionally, if you look on who are current visitors at almost any time on any day, you'll see only a few members names you remember, but lots of names you've never seen on a post. AND how many guests visiting at any one time is about 7-8 times as many. (A few moments ago there were about 60 members and 460 guests.) Imagine ALL of us responding to the proposal survey with written opinions! Please do it!!!
Click to expand...
I've definitely noticed this as well during this conflict.
I'm like.."who are all these people and where did they come from?" LOL

@Founder loves it, great for traffic!?
 
Nevadahunter said:
Slam, I am in favor of these experiments in our southern units to find out which works best to bring up our deer herds and give hunters and better experience.

These restrictions and shortened hunt dates on the Boulder will lower the success rate on this unit.

It is a smarter plan to try different experiments on different units like the DWR is proposing to do to see what works best. When you combine all these different experiments on one unit how will you know which is the best way to move forward?

Also, the proposed experiments should be something that is practical and accepted by the majority of hunters that could be implemented in all our general season units.

Do you believe the DWR would manage ALL our general units like they are proposing for the Boulder? I think the majority of hunters in state will be completely pissed.

Long story short don’t waste time with a crazy hunting experiment on a general season unit that would never be implemented state wide.
Click to expand...
I would celebrate if this went state wide!
 
Need more than 1 sacrificial unit throughout the state.
Need to add: Beaver, North Manti, Kamas, Deep Creeks, Yellowstone Vernal.
 
ktg said:
I'm so glad they aren't trying this on my home turf. This should better the odds of me drawing here, so I'm all for it. I can tell you what will happen on the APR units, and that's exactly the opposite of what people are thinking.

With no APR, most people will shoot a buck that's 3-point or less and go home. On 4-point or better APR, people are forced to stay and hunt for bigger bucks, resulting in more 4-points being killed, leaving fewer to become really big bucks.

Additionally, the gene pool WILL be diluted, meaning there will be old bucks that are 3-point or less and they will always be so. They will be protected and left to do the breeding, making more genetically weak animals.

But go for it. I never hunt there so what do I care?
Click to expand...
You don't do it for 20 years 2 or 3 years Max
 
ktg said:
It's called dilution of the gene pool. Not that difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
It never happened. That’s too hard to understand??

Shooting the top gene bucks did not ruin fish lake. Pulling the plug did.

So, allowing hunters to kill all the bucks is a better option? Under 3 pt or better on Fish Lake there were a lot more mature bucks breeding does then there are now. That’s not a dilution if the gene pool.
 
elkantlers said:
I bet the lifetime license holders are licking their lips. They will slick up all the tags and the guys on here that think it's a great idea will be watching from the sidelines.
Click to expand...

They’re licking their lips to go to a unit that will be void of big bucks because only the top end bucks can be killed?

Nah, not this LL holder. This LL holder wants the rule to include a provision that anyone applying in the southern region for this mess has to stay there forever. You want this crap? You can have it. But stay out of the rest of the state and don’t push everyone else to the rest of the state either.

Build a wall and make the southern RAC pay for it, is what I say.
 
I Heard Through The Grapevine They Wanna Start A Committee To YANK The LL's!

They Say It Just Won't Be Fair On Beaver & Other Areas With The Changes They Wanna Make To Let The LifeTimers Rule The Roost!

EASY Niller!

EASY Niller!

:D:D:D!


Vanilla said:
They’re licking their lips to go to a unit that will be void of big bucks because only the top end bucks can be killed?

Nah, not this LL holder. This LL holder wants the rule to include a provision that anyone applying in the southern region for this mess has to stay there forever. You want this crap? You can have it. But stay out of the rest of the state and don’t push everyone else to the rest of the state either.

Build a wall and make the southern RAC pay for it, is what I say.
Click to expand...
 
I was super happy to hear about the changes to Boulder. Especially because I am currently sitting on 8 general preference points. That should put me in the driver's seat for a hunt in 4 years when things get spicy there. lol
 
If 1 General Hunt Unit Improves?

Do You realize Where LT'ers Are Gonna Pull Tags?

I Know It Was Brought Up Once?

But Does Anybody Know How Many LT'ers There Are?




Mallardsx2 said:
I was super happy to hear about the changes to Boulder. Especially because I am currently sitting on 8 general preference points. That should put me in the driver's seat for a hunt in 4 years when things get spicy there. lol
Click to expand...
 
I'm a NR. I don't fall into that pool of Lifetime license trouble.

My guess is that a metric shitton of them are still alive and yes, I am sure they are licking their lips in hopes that these pass.
 
Silentstalker said:
There were great bucks all over the unit. To say otherwise is simply false.

The argument to your thought process is that all the deer carry the genes. The does carry half the genes. A 2 point has the same genes that he will when he is a 190” 4 point.

Why is there this weird thought process that only big bucks have big genes. Big bucks were once little bucks too.

A 3 or 4 point or better unit managed properly and not severely overhunted is a great idea.
Click to expand...
Isnt that, in essence, a LIMITED ENTRY unit as we have now? Dont get me wrong, Id love to be able to hunt big bucks every year or other year. But I have 18 deer points and want to hunt big bucks and have been holding out for the Pauns for 19 years now.
 
Mallardsx2 said:
I'm a NR. I don't fall into that pool of Lifetime license trouble.

My guess is that a metric shitton of them are still alive and yes, I am sure they are licking their lips in hopes that these pass.
Click to expand...
There are close to 4,000 of them still alive.
 
My brother, who doesnt care to hunt anymore now has 12 general s
Mallardsx2 said:
I was super happy to hear about the changes to Boulder. Especially because I am currently sitting on 8 general preference points. That should put me in the driver's seat for a hunt in 4 years when things get spicy there. lol
Click to expand...
season points. So, likewise, when things get "good", I should be able to get several of us some tags if the lifetimers dont take them all!
 
Robiland said:
Isnt that, in essence, a LIMITED ENTRY unit as we have now? Dont get me wrong, Id love to be able to hunt big bucks every year or other year. But I have 18 deer points and want to hunt big bucks and have been holding out for the Pauns for 19 years now.
Click to expand...
And you're taking me along when you draw it!!
I'm your huckleberry ?
 
Vanilla so am I wrong those that were saying tag cuts wouldn’t help the deer, are excited for this change because it will help the deer. Is the herd going to be more healthy or just more bucks.
I wish they would do all the restrictions state wide. Unless an area is having die off because they are at or over carrying capacity then look at adding a few extra days to hunt them.
I’ve said it before but I have always hated the Buck to doe ratio plan, they should only look at shooting more deer if they are starving to death, all these restrictions will allow more hunters with less success rates.
 
@cantkillathing
I'll chime in for entertainment on your question to Vanilla.

Saving bucks only keeps buck on the landscape, it's not necessarily a "healthier" herd, it's just more "fun".

As for these new restrictions on a few units.
These are simply a 4 year test.
If they see improvements, we should expect to see more implementations abroad.
 
cantkillathing said:
Vanilla so am I wrong those that were saying tag cuts wouldn’t help the deer, are excited for this change because it will help the deer. Is the herd going to be more healthy or just more bucks.
I wish they would do all the restrictions state wide. Unless an area is having die off because they are at or over carrying capacity then look at adding a few extra days to hunt them.
I’ve said it before but I have always hated the Buck to doe ratio plan, they should only look at shooting more deer if they are starving to death, all these restrictions will allow more hunters with less success rates.
Click to expand...

Can’t, I like to hunt. And I like you being able to hunt. I genuinely loved seeing pics of your family’s hunt adventures this year. It truly brought me happiness.

I guess not everyone feels the same way about liking to hunt and liking others to be able to hunt and finding joy in success wherever it comes. i guess that’s the best way I can answer your hypothetical above.

I’m going to move away from you specifically and start talking to the “proverbial you” out there. It is time for you people to start owning your real positions. No more hiding being faux arguments for restrictions that will simply benefit you. Own it. If you people simply are selfish PLICKS, (as my good friend bessy would say) then own it.

Quit hiding behind fake arguments. You “tag cut so there can be a trophy only for me” folks grow a set and own it. We all know where you are at anyway! You are terrible at hiding it. Grow a pair and say what we all know you’re saying anyway.

If you can’t tell, I’m fed up with the BS.
 
elkassassin said:
Could Be A whole Bunch Of People Learning How to Shoot/Hunt Again!
Click to expand...
I've said it before on this forum, "When you change the rules of the game, you change the way it is played." Too many times, the people making the rules forget that and are surprised when the results don't turn out the way they envisioned.

There will indeed be a whole lot of people learning how to shoot/hunt (along with other things they are not now doing) and, thus, the purpose(s) for making these rules will be for naught. It may take a year or two but by the end of this little experiment, the success rates will be what they are now or higher.
 
@slamdunk
Based on what I've read, you are a part of the tech committee.. Forgive me if I am mistaken. I'll ask again, when evaluating success rates, did the unknown of whether successful tag holders have a scope on their muzzy get discussed? And as a moderator, I figured directing the question to you would be best.

I would assume that knowing this piece of information would allow the committee to evaluate success between hunters with scoped and non-scoped muzzies each year rather than assuming all success changes are due to muzzies. There are a lot of variables every year that cause fluctuations, but having the success rates in the same year/unit/etc and then comparing them by use vs non use of scopes by each hunter would give a clearer picture of the impact of scopes. If you don't have the information from the survey, which I don't believe you do, that is ok. However, making a proposal based on data that could or couldn't be right is a bad precedent in my opinion.

I am honestly more curious about the process than anything? I think insight into how deep the discussions on the committee went would bring light to the process for everyone who wasn't privy to the meetings (positive or negative). Was data looked at in a superficial process to reach a predetermined proposal position, or was there deeper dives that questioned all the things that could influence the numbers and what they actually reflect? I don't agree with the statistical analysis of simply subtracting the average increase of ALW success from the average increase of Muzz success and being comfortable with that number.

Again, I don't use a scope on mine, so no dog in this particular fight. But I don't love the idea of taking options away from others without rock solid evidence that it will help or address an issue as one of those "takes" could very soon impact me.
 
@Simpleton

The idea of asking if a hunter used a scope to fill their tag on the survey was discussed, yes.
But the end result was not to ask it due to keeping the survey as short as possible and an obvious fact that the vast majority of hunters today do use a scope.
I don't feel many could argue that scopeless harvested more game than scoped.
The survey was basically directed at two things, scopes and yardages.
 
slamdunk said:
@Simpleton

The idea of asking if a hunter used a scope to fill their tag on the survey was discussed, yes.
But the end result was not to ask it due to keeping the survey as short as possible and an obvious fact that the vast majority of hunters today do use a scope.
I don't feel many could argue that scopeless harvested more game than scoped.
The survey was basically directed at two things, scopes and yardages.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the reply. I will agree to disagree with your stance that it is an "obvious fact that the vast majority" of muzzleloader "hunters today do use a scope." It isn't obvious, or vast, (to me) based on what I see in the field. I'd make the assumption based on the near 50-50 split of people wanting to remove them vs not remove them, that it is likely close to that split for who does, and doesn't have them.

Even if your assumption is right that more people are using scopes and they are accounting for more harvests by volume, the question would still be valid and helpful. It isn't about the number that use a scope, it would be about the harvest success rate of scope users and non-scope users. This would give a much clearer picture on harvest rates and give the committee actual data to go off. The numbers would either surprise you, or reinforce your assumptions. Either way, then it would be a known.

I hope you know, this is not an attack on you or the committee, everyone's experience is different and we all love hunting or we wouldn't be here having these conversations. Again, thanks for the reply.
 

Similar threads

JakeH
Dwr proposed tag number videos.
Replies
8
Views
644
elkassassin
elkassassin
andygrand
Mexico 2023 Video
Replies
9
Views
856
ridgerunner
ridgerunner
Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
16
Views
885
Bluehair
Bluehair

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

B3E0D54B-2D75-4C64-8D23-07A37A2000DD.png
IMG_5428.MOV
Imported Photos 00071.jpg
IMG_2375.jpeg
Screenshot_20220825-080730_Gallery.jpg
20191018_093328.jpg
F11108CB-2CCB-4702-8AB9-9D17C64C91B9.jpeg
464F8CBE-8B42-4ABB-872F-BB8F8A437EE7.png
DB92BFA2-2529-4D1C-A0A7-F6F1EBDDBE9B.jpeg
C9982E20-DADB-445C-A861-7BEC63D2C1EE.jpeg
20141026_104436.jpg
Unit 9 2005 036.jpg
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom