Open House DWR?
- Thread starter quest
- Start date
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-15 AT 11:02PM (MST)[p]>Did anyone go to the open
>house in Cedar City put
>on by DWR? I think
>it was on Feb 12?
>
Yes! What do you want to know?
BTW, the open house in Richfield has been changed to Feb. 26th instead of the 19th. Same place, same time.
>house in Cedar City put
>on by DWR? I think
>it was on Feb 12?
>
Yes! What do you want to know?
BTW, the open house in Richfield has been changed to Feb. 26th instead of the 19th. Same place, same time.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
>
>I'd also like to know what
>was discussed about units 29
>and 30.
>
>
>There's always next year
These open houses are NOT formal meetings! Any discussions consisted of the attendees individually asking questions of individual DWR employees or each other. In other words, much like a family or class reunion, there were several "discussions" going on at any one time and the DWR was just answering questions and receiving input. Each attendee was allowed to fill out a comment sheet (some did, some didn't) which was put in a box, so unless you happened to talk to the attendee, you would have no way of knowing what he/she wrote.
I can tell you this. I did see a sheet from "Partners in Pine Valley", in the box, but I didn't see the comments. However, since they previously made a proposal to the Mule Deer Planning Committee, I imagine they still want to cut permits and shorten the adult any weapon hunt to 5 days until the unit reaches a population of 16,000 which is 3,200 more than the current objective, and until it reaches a buck to doe ratio of 23/100 which 3/100 more than current ratio objective.
On the other hand, we (UWC) want to stick to the statewide plan which calls for a population objective of 12,800 (the population is now 13,500, 700 over) and a b/d ratio of 18-20 (it's now 21.5/100, 1.5 bucks over ratio). So, we didn't think we needed to comment.
We did recommend that the Zion unit become a new extended archery area since it also is way over population and buck to doe ratio objectives. (We also made that recommendation for the Panguitch Lake unit.)
What other proposals were made by whom is unknown to me.
The Southern Region DWR will review the comments and come up with some recommendations at the RAC's and Wildlife Board meeting. I still have no idea what the other regions are doing!
>I'd also like to know what
>was discussed about units 29
>and 30.
>
>
>There's always next year
These open houses are NOT formal meetings! Any discussions consisted of the attendees individually asking questions of individual DWR employees or each other. In other words, much like a family or class reunion, there were several "discussions" going on at any one time and the DWR was just answering questions and receiving input. Each attendee was allowed to fill out a comment sheet (some did, some didn't) which was put in a box, so unless you happened to talk to the attendee, you would have no way of knowing what he/she wrote.
I can tell you this. I did see a sheet from "Partners in Pine Valley", in the box, but I didn't see the comments. However, since they previously made a proposal to the Mule Deer Planning Committee, I imagine they still want to cut permits and shorten the adult any weapon hunt to 5 days until the unit reaches a population of 16,000 which is 3,200 more than the current objective, and until it reaches a buck to doe ratio of 23/100 which 3/100 more than current ratio objective.
On the other hand, we (UWC) want to stick to the statewide plan which calls for a population objective of 12,800 (the population is now 13,500, 700 over) and a b/d ratio of 18-20 (it's now 21.5/100, 1.5 bucks over ratio). So, we didn't think we needed to comment.
We did recommend that the Zion unit become a new extended archery area since it also is way over population and buck to doe ratio objectives. (We also made that recommendation for the Panguitch Lake unit.)
What other proposals were made by whom is unknown to me.
The Southern Region DWR will review the comments and come up with some recommendations at the RAC's and Wildlife Board meeting. I still have no idea what the other regions are doing!
huntinfanatic
Active Member
- Messages
- 778
Like EFA said, it was not formal just a bunch of tables with unit info on them and small groups of people talking to DWR reps. I talked to a couple guys from Partners in Pine Valley (I think that was the groups name) and they said they were there to submit a suggestion to raise the B/D ratio on Pine valley to 20-25 bucks per hundred does.
I was there mainly to see what the current info on the Zion unit was. After the 2014/15 winter counts the current population est. is 15000 deer and the objective is 9000. I submitted a recommedation to raise the pop. objective in the new management plan to at least 15000 deer . There is absolutely NO way the western half of the Zion unit is at carrying capacity! From my research the objective of 9000 was put in place a few years after the big winter kill at least 17+ years ago that wiped out a good portion of the herd. Since then, according to DWR stats, the population has steadily climbed upward surpassing the objective of 9000. Now that the herd has been above objective for the last 7 years I believe it is time to make the change to allow for the population objective to increase to AT LEAST what they claim is currently on the unit.
While I respect the opinion of UWC I could not disagree more with the idea of turning the entire Zion unit into an extended archery unit! IMO we need to raise the population objective at a bare minimum to at least what is currently on the unit NOT try and kill an additional six thousand deer just to get down to some number they came up with almost twenty years ago soon after most the herd was lost to winter kill.
I was there mainly to see what the current info on the Zion unit was. After the 2014/15 winter counts the current population est. is 15000 deer and the objective is 9000. I submitted a recommedation to raise the pop. objective in the new management plan to at least 15000 deer . There is absolutely NO way the western half of the Zion unit is at carrying capacity! From my research the objective of 9000 was put in place a few years after the big winter kill at least 17+ years ago that wiped out a good portion of the herd. Since then, according to DWR stats, the population has steadily climbed upward surpassing the objective of 9000. Now that the herd has been above objective for the last 7 years I believe it is time to make the change to allow for the population objective to increase to AT LEAST what they claim is currently on the unit.
While I respect the opinion of UWC I could not disagree more with the idea of turning the entire Zion unit into an extended archery unit! IMO we need to raise the population objective at a bare minimum to at least what is currently on the unit NOT try and kill an additional six thousand deer just to get down to some number they came up with almost twenty years ago soon after most the herd was lost to winter kill.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
>Like EFA said, it was not
>formal just a bunch of
>tables with unit info on
>them and small groups of
>people talking to DWR reps.
>I talked to a couple
>guys from Partners in Pine
>Valley (I think that was
>the groups name) and they
>said they were there to
>submit a suggestion to raise
>the B/D ratio on Pine
>valley to 20-25 bucks per
>hundred does.
>
>I was there mainly to see
>what the current info on
>the Zion unit was. After
>the 2014/15 winter counts the
>current population est. is 15000
>deer and the objective is
>9000. I submitted a recommedation
>to raise the pop. objective
>in the new management plan
>to at least 15000 deer
>. There is absolutely NO
>way the western half of
>the Zion unit is at
>carrying capacity! From my research
>the objective of 9000 was
>put in place a few
>years after the big winter
>kill at least 17+ years
>ago that wiped out a
>good portion of the herd.
>Since then, according to DWR
>stats, the population has steadily
>climbed upward surpassing the objective
>of 9000. Now that the
>herd has been above objective
>for the last 7 years
>I believe it is time
>to make the change to
>allow for the population objective
>to increase to AT LEAST
>what they claim is currently
>on the unit.
>
>While I respect the opinion of
>UWC I could not disagree
>more with the idea of
>turning the entire Zion unit
>into an extended archery unit!
>IMO we need to raise
>the population objective at a
>bare minimum to at least
>what is currently on the
>unit NOT try and kill
>an additional six thousand deer
>just to get down to
>some number they came up
>with almost twenty years ago
>soon after most the herd
>was lost to winter kill.
>
I'm sorry, but I see that my previous post was misleading regarding making Zion an extended archery area. Actually, we didn't/don't intend for the whole Zion unit to be considered for an extended archery area, but just a designated portion of it, just like the other extended archery areas. And the area boundaries and season would be designated according to public vs private property, summer/winter range, access per road closures, etc.
Regarding population objectives vs. carrying capacity, carrying capacity generally only considers habitat, but depredation issues, private property, predation, grazing rights, the danger of auto/animal collisions, total area, elk, pronghorn, moose, sheep and goat population objectives, endangered species conflicts, tourism, other public land uses, etc, all play a part in determining deer population objectives.
Additionally, on what number will we all agree that there are enough deer or bucks on any unit? Or are we just going to keep raising the population and buck to doe ratio objectives until all units are officially Limited Entry? Is that the ultimate goal for proposing and passing Option #2? It sure looks like it!
>formal just a bunch of
>tables with unit info on
>them and small groups of
>people talking to DWR reps.
>I talked to a couple
>guys from Partners in Pine
>Valley (I think that was
>the groups name) and they
>said they were there to
>submit a suggestion to raise
>the B/D ratio on Pine
>valley to 20-25 bucks per
>hundred does.
>
>I was there mainly to see
>what the current info on
>the Zion unit was. After
>the 2014/15 winter counts the
>current population est. is 15000
>deer and the objective is
>9000. I submitted a recommedation
>to raise the pop. objective
>in the new management plan
>to at least 15000 deer
>. There is absolutely NO
>way the western half of
>the Zion unit is at
>carrying capacity! From my research
>the objective of 9000 was
>put in place a few
>years after the big winter
>kill at least 17+ years
>ago that wiped out a
>good portion of the herd.
>Since then, according to DWR
>stats, the population has steadily
>climbed upward surpassing the objective
>of 9000. Now that the
>herd has been above objective
>for the last 7 years
>I believe it is time
>to make the change to
>allow for the population objective
>to increase to AT LEAST
>what they claim is currently
>on the unit.
>
>While I respect the opinion of
>UWC I could not disagree
>more with the idea of
>turning the entire Zion unit
>into an extended archery unit!
>IMO we need to raise
>the population objective at a
>bare minimum to at least
>what is currently on the
>unit NOT try and kill
>an additional six thousand deer
>just to get down to
>some number they came up
>with almost twenty years ago
>soon after most the herd
>was lost to winter kill.
>
I'm sorry, but I see that my previous post was misleading regarding making Zion an extended archery area. Actually, we didn't/don't intend for the whole Zion unit to be considered for an extended archery area, but just a designated portion of it, just like the other extended archery areas. And the area boundaries and season would be designated according to public vs private property, summer/winter range, access per road closures, etc.
Regarding population objectives vs. carrying capacity, carrying capacity generally only considers habitat, but depredation issues, private property, predation, grazing rights, the danger of auto/animal collisions, total area, elk, pronghorn, moose, sheep and goat population objectives, endangered species conflicts, tourism, other public land uses, etc, all play a part in determining deer population objectives.
Additionally, on what number will we all agree that there are enough deer or bucks on any unit? Or are we just going to keep raising the population and buck to doe ratio objectives until all units are officially Limited Entry? Is that the ultimate goal for proposing and passing Option #2? It sure looks like it!
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,788
YES THE OBJECTIVE OF OPT 2 WAS TO PUT MORE DEER ON EVERY UNIT. As you are stating that must not be a concern of UWC. With more deer come more bucks. More deer create more opportunity! You say when is it enough??? I say when we hit enough that we have to issue antleless permits because there so far beyond carrying capacity. We've had over 1 million deer in the state of Utah in that past. We are currently at 350k to 400k??? But from the sounds of it UWC is content with that!
I hope everyone reads Lees full comment there. He does not say too many bucks or surplus bucks he specifically says when is enough deer enough???? Just another example of the UWC showing they are more concerned with opportunity right now instead of building expanded opportunity for the future. It's not about the deer it's about having a tag in your pocket every single year regardless of number of deer in Utah. That's been the UWC's core goal from the start, first it was the evil SFW and Wildlife Board now it's the Pine Valley group.
I hope everyone reads Lees full comment there. He does not say too many bucks or surplus bucks he specifically says when is enough deer enough???? Just another example of the UWC showing they are more concerned with opportunity right now instead of building expanded opportunity for the future. It's not about the deer it's about having a tag in your pocket every single year regardless of number of deer in Utah. That's been the UWC's core goal from the start, first it was the evil SFW and Wildlife Board now it's the Pine Valley group.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-15 AT 11:54AM (MST)[p]>YES THE OBJECTIVE OF OPT 2
>WAS TO PUT MORE DEER
>ON EVERY UNIT. As
>you are stating that must
>not be a concern of
>UWC. With more deer
>come more bucks. More
>deer create more opportunity!
>You say when is it
>enough??? I say when we
>hit enough that we have
>to issue antleless permits because
>there so far beyond carrying
>capacity. We've had over
>1 million deer in the
>state of Utah in that
>past. We are currently
>at 350k to 400k??? But
>from the sounds of it
>UWC is content with that!
>
>
>I hope everyone reads Lees full
>comment there. He does
>not say too many bucks
>or surplus bucks he specifically
>says when is enough deer
>enough???? Just another example of
>the UWC showing they are
>more concerned with opportunity right
>now instead of building expanded
>opportunity for the future.
>It's not about the deer
>it's about having a tag
>in your pocket every single
>year regardless of number of
>deer in Utah. That's
>been the UWC's core goal
>from the start, first it
>was the evil SFW and
>Wildlife Board now it's the
>Pine Valley group.
Your response is very revealing! It not only shows your distain of opportunity hunters, but it shows your inability or unwillingness to see what's right under your nose, and it's another lump-everything-together response which is typical of you.
I too hope that everyone reads my full comment, especially where I wrote "On what number will we all agree that there are enough deer OR BUCKS on any unit?" and "Or are we just going to keep raising the population AND BUCK TO DOE RATIO objectives ...", as well as the middle paragraph that explains the differences between population objectives and carrying capacity.
Your accusation that UWC is ONLY interested in opportunity at the expense of wildlife couldn't be more off base!
Our mission statement reads:
"In recognition of our civic duty to take an active interest in wildlife conservation, the mission of the United Wildlife Cooperative is to promote responsible and informed participation in the creation of sustainable and biologically sound management regulations, and to lobby for the welfare of wildlife and our proud fishing and hunting traditions."
Note: "ACTIVE INTEREST IN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION", "RESPONSIBLE AND INFORMED PARTICIPATION", "SUSTAINABLE AND BIOLOGICALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS", "LOBBY FOR THE WELFARE OF WILDLIFE". The only reference that could be attributed to opportunity is "OUR PROUD FISHING AND HUNTING TRADITIONS", which have, indeed, provided opportunity for the vast majority of Utah's outdoorsmen and women, and that comes only AFTER the welfare of wildlife. The animals have and will always come first, but management should be based on responsible, informed, sustainable, and biologically sound regulations, not social, ever-changing, unconfirmable, perceived ideas of a few trophy oriented hunters.
In proposing and passing Option#2, SFW and the Wildlife Board agreed to the current buck to doe ratios and the population objectives, and also agreed to an increase of opportunity if those numbers were exceeded, but that isn't what we are now hearing. They want to up the ante. All UWC is asking for is that SFW and the Board stick to their agreement, and we've proposed a way to do that without "overcrowding", but because we're now asking we're now the bad guys in your eyes.
Your approach to this dilemma, is like a local soup kitchen promising more seats at the table, but only when they get to 100 more, with no increases until then. Then when it looks like there is going to be enough food for 100 more, they up the ante to 150. Why should patrons believe their upgraded promise if they wouldn't keep their original promise?
This is not about the number of deer in Utah! It's about the number of surplus bucks in several individual units in the Southern Region. And since bucks don't give birth, removing them will have no impact on the population. It'll still go up!
I'll ask again, what are the final NUMBERS on the Zion unit, the Panguitch Lake unit, the Pine Valley unit and the Mt Dutton unit which are all over both objectives, and the SW Desert unit which is close to population and over buck to doe ratio. And what do you plan to do in the meanwhile?
>WAS TO PUT MORE DEER
>ON EVERY UNIT. As
>you are stating that must
>not be a concern of
>UWC. With more deer
>come more bucks. More
>deer create more opportunity!
>You say when is it
>enough??? I say when we
>hit enough that we have
>to issue antleless permits because
>there so far beyond carrying
>capacity. We've had over
>1 million deer in the
>state of Utah in that
>past. We are currently
>at 350k to 400k??? But
>from the sounds of it
>UWC is content with that!
>
>
>I hope everyone reads Lees full
>comment there. He does
>not say too many bucks
>or surplus bucks he specifically
>says when is enough deer
>enough???? Just another example of
>the UWC showing they are
>more concerned with opportunity right
>now instead of building expanded
>opportunity for the future.
>It's not about the deer
>it's about having a tag
>in your pocket every single
>year regardless of number of
>deer in Utah. That's
>been the UWC's core goal
>from the start, first it
>was the evil SFW and
>Wildlife Board now it's the
>Pine Valley group.
Your response is very revealing! It not only shows your distain of opportunity hunters, but it shows your inability or unwillingness to see what's right under your nose, and it's another lump-everything-together response which is typical of you.
I too hope that everyone reads my full comment, especially where I wrote "On what number will we all agree that there are enough deer OR BUCKS on any unit?" and "Or are we just going to keep raising the population AND BUCK TO DOE RATIO objectives ...", as well as the middle paragraph that explains the differences between population objectives and carrying capacity.
Your accusation that UWC is ONLY interested in opportunity at the expense of wildlife couldn't be more off base!
Our mission statement reads:
"In recognition of our civic duty to take an active interest in wildlife conservation, the mission of the United Wildlife Cooperative is to promote responsible and informed participation in the creation of sustainable and biologically sound management regulations, and to lobby for the welfare of wildlife and our proud fishing and hunting traditions."
Note: "ACTIVE INTEREST IN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION", "RESPONSIBLE AND INFORMED PARTICIPATION", "SUSTAINABLE AND BIOLOGICALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS", "LOBBY FOR THE WELFARE OF WILDLIFE". The only reference that could be attributed to opportunity is "OUR PROUD FISHING AND HUNTING TRADITIONS", which have, indeed, provided opportunity for the vast majority of Utah's outdoorsmen and women, and that comes only AFTER the welfare of wildlife. The animals have and will always come first, but management should be based on responsible, informed, sustainable, and biologically sound regulations, not social, ever-changing, unconfirmable, perceived ideas of a few trophy oriented hunters.
In proposing and passing Option#2, SFW and the Wildlife Board agreed to the current buck to doe ratios and the population objectives, and also agreed to an increase of opportunity if those numbers were exceeded, but that isn't what we are now hearing. They want to up the ante. All UWC is asking for is that SFW and the Board stick to their agreement, and we've proposed a way to do that without "overcrowding", but because we're now asking we're now the bad guys in your eyes.
Your approach to this dilemma, is like a local soup kitchen promising more seats at the table, but only when they get to 100 more, with no increases until then. Then when it looks like there is going to be enough food for 100 more, they up the ante to 150. Why should patrons believe their upgraded promise if they wouldn't keep their original promise?
This is not about the number of deer in Utah! It's about the number of surplus bucks in several individual units in the Southern Region. And since bucks don't give birth, removing them will have no impact on the population. It'll still go up!
I'll ask again, what are the final NUMBERS on the Zion unit, the Panguitch Lake unit, the Pine Valley unit and the Mt Dutton unit which are all over both objectives, and the SW Desert unit which is close to population and over buck to doe ratio. And what do you plan to do in the meanwhile?
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,080
MULEY_73,
SFW has taken more tags away than any group ever has in the state of Utah. Why is it that back in the day, you could go buy a tag friday night and go hunt? We had over 250,000 hunters in the field when I 1st started hunting. We all hunted, and there were always deer killed. Yes, I know something has changed, but SFW is one of those groups that has hurt the average hunter more than ever before. If they had it their way, they would auction off all tags just to line their pockets. All LE tags go to auction, we are dang near there. I think UWC is only trying to get the average hunter in the field. To say they want to keep the deer herd in low numbers is false. We all know that bucks do not give birth.
I guess we can get that dead horse out and beat him some more.
SFW has taken more tags away than any group ever has in the state of Utah. Why is it that back in the day, you could go buy a tag friday night and go hunt? We had over 250,000 hunters in the field when I 1st started hunting. We all hunted, and there were always deer killed. Yes, I know something has changed, but SFW is one of those groups that has hurt the average hunter more than ever before. If they had it their way, they would auction off all tags just to line their pockets. All LE tags go to auction, we are dang near there. I think UWC is only trying to get the average hunter in the field. To say they want to keep the deer herd in low numbers is false. We all know that bucks do not give birth.
I guess we can get that dead horse out and beat him some more.
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,788
Robi,
Go reread Lees post it says when is enough deer enough. Yes???? My comments are based off of what he posted. To say that SFW wants to auction off all tags and we are almost there now? Come on that is ludicrous. If you honestly believe that you are as out of touch with reality as Lee is. You can go back and look at the number and truly educate yourself and see that the majority of the 250,000 had left before the cap. The cap was based off of the most current tag sales at the time. Why did they all leave???? Because the damn deer herd had crashed and to this very day has not even come close to recovering, not even half way there!!! So Lees asks when is enough deer enough, well I say it's when we approach the #s that allowed us to sell 250,000 deer tags. And then we should figure out how grow even more.
Go reread Lees post it says when is enough deer enough. Yes???? My comments are based off of what he posted. To say that SFW wants to auction off all tags and we are almost there now? Come on that is ludicrous. If you honestly believe that you are as out of touch with reality as Lee is. You can go back and look at the number and truly educate yourself and see that the majority of the 250,000 had left before the cap. The cap was based off of the most current tag sales at the time. Why did they all leave???? Because the damn deer herd had crashed and to this very day has not even come close to recovering, not even half way there!!! So Lees asks when is enough deer enough, well I say it's when we approach the #s that allowed us to sell 250,000 deer tags. And then we should figure out how grow even more.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
>I don't think we have enough
>deer lets up the numbers.
>
Yes, let's do! And let's increase the buck tags in proportion as we do it!
>deer lets up the numbers.
>
Yes, let's do! And let's increase the buck tags in proportion as we do it!
Robiland
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,080
Muley_73,
How many auction tag are there?
How many banquets are there selling tags?
How many Total tags are there going to those with deep pockets and taken from the average guy?
A few years ago, I believe there were roughly 550 tags. THATS A LOT!!! And I would not be surprised if that number has gone up.
Any by golly, I havent seen our deer #'s sky rocket by "all the conservation $" that has been made.
Now Mother nature has helped a lot the last few years with the weather.
How many auction tag are there?
How many banquets are there selling tags?
How many Total tags are there going to those with deep pockets and taken from the average guy?
A few years ago, I believe there were roughly 550 tags. THATS A LOT!!! And I would not be surprised if that number has gone up.
Any by golly, I havent seen our deer #'s sky rocket by "all the conservation $" that has been made.
Now Mother nature has helped a lot the last few years with the weather.
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
There's probably a way you can research that info Robiland. I'm not against auction tags as long as they're being used appropriately. As far as our deer herds go's I think the objected levels are to low and we need to hold on let the herd build up. I believe will have both quality and quantity in the long run..
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-15 AT 10:24PM (MST)[p]>Robi,
>Go reread Lees post it says
>when is enough deer enough.
> Yes???? My comments are
>based off of what he
>posted. To say that
>SFW wants to auction
> off all tags
>and we are almost there
>now? Come on that is
>ludicrous. If you honestly
>believe that you are as
>out of touch with reality
>as Lee is.
>You can go back and
>look at the number and
>truly educate yourself and see
>that the majority of the
>250,000 had left before the
>cap. The cap was
>based off of the most
>current tag sales at the
>time. Why did they
>all leave???? Because the damn
>deer herd had crashed and
>to this very day has
>not even come close to
>recovering, not even half way
>there!!! So Lees asks when
>is enough deer enough, well
>I say it's when we
>approach the #s that allowed
>us to sell 250,000 deer
>tags. And then we
>should figure out how grow
>even more.
So, I guess we're not going to get any future numbers from you on the Zion unit and I suppose we won't be able to recommend that we increase the tags until you tell us it's time per the statewide numbers. Don't worry, we'll be here.
Oh, and by the way, NONE of those current numbers came from UWC nor was UWC solely responsible for the mule deer plan. We're just following the numbers which came from the DWR and the Wildlife Board and we're just following the current Mule Deer plan which came from the 2014 Mule Deer Committee which consisted of 16 members including 5 SFW members (including SFW's President and also your father). And that plan went through the RAC's and Wildlife Board and was approved. If you don't like our making a proposal (Which you couldn't possibly have read because you apparently assumed that our proposal mandated the killing of does, which was only one of the set up parameters which also included time, length and area), then I suggest you take it up with the above named folks because the majority of them also liked the idea of additional extended archery areas.
Lastly, if your intent is to reasonably come to an agreement on the subject at hand, ie; the over objective populations and/or buck to doe ratios on the Southern Region units, then that would be fine with me and I'll continue, but if your intent is to somehow get back at, shut down or embarrass me or UWC, then I'll carry on this discussion on this thread or elsewhere without you.
>Go reread Lees post it says
>when is enough deer enough.
> Yes???? My comments are
>based off of what he
>posted. To say that
>SFW wants to auction
> off all tags
>and we are almost there
>now? Come on that is
>ludicrous. If you honestly
>believe that you are as
>out of touch with reality
>as Lee is.
>You can go back and
>look at the number and
>truly educate yourself and see
>that the majority of the
>250,000 had left before the
>cap. The cap was
>based off of the most
>current tag sales at the
>time. Why did they
>all leave???? Because the damn
>deer herd had crashed and
>to this very day has
>not even come close to
>recovering, not even half way
>there!!! So Lees asks when
>is enough deer enough, well
>I say it's when we
>approach the #s that allowed
>us to sell 250,000 deer
>tags. And then we
>should figure out how grow
>even more.
So, I guess we're not going to get any future numbers from you on the Zion unit and I suppose we won't be able to recommend that we increase the tags until you tell us it's time per the statewide numbers. Don't worry, we'll be here.
Oh, and by the way, NONE of those current numbers came from UWC nor was UWC solely responsible for the mule deer plan. We're just following the numbers which came from the DWR and the Wildlife Board and we're just following the current Mule Deer plan which came from the 2014 Mule Deer Committee which consisted of 16 members including 5 SFW members (including SFW's President and also your father). And that plan went through the RAC's and Wildlife Board and was approved. If you don't like our making a proposal (Which you couldn't possibly have read because you apparently assumed that our proposal mandated the killing of does, which was only one of the set up parameters which also included time, length and area), then I suggest you take it up with the above named folks because the majority of them also liked the idea of additional extended archery areas.
Lastly, if your intent is to reasonably come to an agreement on the subject at hand, ie; the over objective populations and/or buck to doe ratios on the Southern Region units, then that would be fine with me and I'll continue, but if your intent is to somehow get back at, shut down or embarrass me or UWC, then I'll carry on this discussion on this thread or elsewhere without you.
I will be the first to admit that I am no wildlife biologist, but this
"And since bucks don't give birth, removing them will have no impact on the population. It'll still go up!"
makes no sense to me? Don't we need some "mature" not these little dink spikes, 2 and spindly 3 points, to breed the does? Or can 1 or maybe 5 "mature" bucks breed 100 does in the first estrus?
What's the number? 1, 5, 10 mature bucks per 100? Has anyone figured it out? I know what Colorado has determined, but whats Utah determined?
"And since bucks don't give birth, removing them will have no impact on the population. It'll still go up!"
makes no sense to me? Don't we need some "mature" not these little dink spikes, 2 and spindly 3 points, to breed the does? Or can 1 or maybe 5 "mature" bucks breed 100 does in the first estrus?
What's the number? 1, 5, 10 mature bucks per 100? Has anyone figured it out? I know what Colorado has determined, but whats Utah determined?
Muley_73
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,788
Lee,
You missed my point. You simply stated when is enough deer enough. I responded to that comment. You are trying to play too much into that my comment. I am very simply not content with the current number of deer in Utah. Call me greedy or a trophy hunter or a quality whore or SFW kool aid drinker I don't care it won't waiver my drive to increase our deer herds, above and beyond offering more tags!! When we get back to 800,000 plus then I'll probably rethink my views. SFW has publicly talked about 425,000 deer, good for them! But guess what I'm VERY outspoken with those in the SFW that I am not content with that number! WE NEED MORE DEER IN UTAH, bottom line it will provide more opportunity for ALL types of hunters!!!!
As far as more extended archery units. Well I'll tell you this. 2 years ago I had many in depth conversations with individuals that have sat on the Wildlife Board, SFW, Mule Deer Committee and more. My #1 solution to more opportunity and decreasing point creep was adding 3 to 5 more archery only extended units within the state of Utah hopefully in each region. I continue to push for this with the individuals that I believe can make this happen. Call them napkin meetings or what ever you like. Its how I've got results I support in the past and its the approach I will continue to pursue. Don't always assume you know all that is happening and in play within those you consider a threat.
Also don't ever get embarrassed if you believe what you believe that is great. I don't take these battles personal and I don't expect those I disagree with to either. Its nothing more than different views on how we manage something we both love!!!
You missed my point. You simply stated when is enough deer enough. I responded to that comment. You are trying to play too much into that my comment. I am very simply not content with the current number of deer in Utah. Call me greedy or a trophy hunter or a quality whore or SFW kool aid drinker I don't care it won't waiver my drive to increase our deer herds, above and beyond offering more tags!! When we get back to 800,000 plus then I'll probably rethink my views. SFW has publicly talked about 425,000 deer, good for them! But guess what I'm VERY outspoken with those in the SFW that I am not content with that number! WE NEED MORE DEER IN UTAH, bottom line it will provide more opportunity for ALL types of hunters!!!!
As far as more extended archery units. Well I'll tell you this. 2 years ago I had many in depth conversations with individuals that have sat on the Wildlife Board, SFW, Mule Deer Committee and more. My #1 solution to more opportunity and decreasing point creep was adding 3 to 5 more archery only extended units within the state of Utah hopefully in each region. I continue to push for this with the individuals that I believe can make this happen. Call them napkin meetings or what ever you like. Its how I've got results I support in the past and its the approach I will continue to pursue. Don't always assume you know all that is happening and in play within those you consider a threat.
Also don't ever get embarrassed if you believe what you believe that is great. I don't take these battles personal and I don't expect those I disagree with to either. Its nothing more than different views on how we manage something we both love!!!
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,122
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-15 AT 01:13PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-15 AT 12:58?PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-15 AT 12:23?PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-15 AT 12:21?PM (MST)
>Lee,
>You missed my point. You
>simply stated when is enough
>deer enough. I responded
>to that comment. You
>are trying to play too
>much into that my comment.
> I am very simply
>not content with the current
>number of deer in Utah.
> Call me greedy or
>a trophy hunter or a
>quality whore or SFW kool
>aid drinker I don't care
>it won't waiver my drive
>to increase our deer herds,
>above and beyond offering more
>tags!! When we get back
>to 800,000 plus then I'll
>probably rethink my views.
>SFW has publicly talked about
>425,000 deer, good for them!
>But guess what I'm VERY
>outspoken with those in the
>SFW that I am not
>content with that number! WE
>NEED MORE DEER IN UTAH,
>bottom line it will provide
>more opportunity for ALL types
>of hunters!!!!
>
>As far as more extended archery
>units. Well I'll tell
>you this. 2 years
>ago I had many in
>depth conversations with individuals that
>have sat on the Wildlife
>Board, SFW, Mule Deer Committee
>and more. My #1
>solution to more opportunity and
>decreasing point creep was adding
>3 to 5 more archery
>only extended units within the
>state of Utah hopefully in
>each region. I continue
>to push for this with
>the individuals that I believe
>can make this happen.
>Call them napkin meetings or
>what ever you like.
>Its how I've got results
>I support in the past
>and its the approach I
>will continue to pursue. Don't
>always assume you know all
>that is happening and in
>play within those you consider
>a threat.
>
>Also don't ever get embarrassed if
>you believe what you believe
>that is great. I
>don't take these battles personal
>and I don't expect those
>I disagree with to either.
>Its nothing more than different
>views on how we manage
>something we both love!!!
I didn't miss your point! You missed mine! We were discussing the Zion unit management plan and you went off by applying my statements (which you continue to misquote and/or misinterprete) and my proposal to the state management plan. Neither one apply! Of course we need more deer in UTAH and UWC wants more as much or more than you want more, but just not in the Zion unit, Panguitch Lake unit and several others, especially at the expense of opportunity. We have enough (or more than enough) in those units and to keep adding more at this stage is a losing proposition for the deer, the hunters, and the DWR AND it will not increase opportunity! (We've already gone through the hunter "overcrowded" issue with the numbers of deer we had on that unit back then, so what makes you think we'll be able to socially increase permits with more deer?)
I have no idea whether or not you've read the Zion unit deer plan, but maybe if you read it (or re-read it), we can put a better light on this discussion. (Go on the DWR website, type in "deer unit management plans" on the search slot, upper right corner, click on the current plans and then click on the Zion unit and print a copy.) One thing you need to know about me, I seldom, if ever, make a decision based solely on emotion because I figured out a long time ago while growing up with my older brother, emotions change and they can get you in more trouble than you can logically get out of. So, I've done my homework on this proposal, actually a couple of years ago.
Per the Zion Unit Deer Management Plan April 2012:
Range Area and Approximate Ownership (calculating the numbers)
Total Range - 781,928 acres
Forest Service - 61,908 acres - 7.9%
BLM - 288,684 acres - 36.9%
Utah State Trust Lands - 46,804 acres - 6.0%
Native Am Trust Lands - 2,226 acres - 0.3%
Private - 278,951 acres - 35.7%
Nat'l Parks - 103,355 acres - 13.2%
So, nearly 1/2 of the total range (49.2%) is off limits to the average hunter. Additionally, what these figures don't tell you is that 67,479 BLM acres is wilderness (and that doesn't count the Wilderness Study Areas), some of the state and BLM land is landlocked by private property and gated private roads, 8,000 plus BLM acres were burned to the ground by the Shingle Fire in July 2012, and recent Forest Service road closures require hiking or horses to access thousands of acres. Bottom line, there's no places to put more hunters!
Back to the plan.
The 9,000 population objective isn't some obsolete figure that we've overlooked! It's the major issue of study EVERY time a unit plan is updated. In fact, I'm surprised it's still that high given the fact that the human population of Washington County has gone up 304% since 1990, the dynamics of that population is more and more non-hunters and anti-hunters, the desert tortoise and Virgin River fish are restricting access, pinyon and juniper encroachment is at an all time high, highway mortality is significant and rising, the invasion of cheatgrass is growing, and the range classification has gone from poor (1998) to very poor (2003 to current).
Also remember that the population objectives of the DWR have to coincide with the population objectives of the Federal Agencies controlling the land (FS, BLM, NPS). It may be one thing to increase the population objective with the DWR, but you'll also have to deal with the Federal Government (and the local farmers and ranchers who own land or grazing rights on deer habitat, developers, animal rights organizations, timber companies, etc., etc., etc.) Good luck with that. Not everybody wants more deer! Oh, and FWIW, we're in a drought with only 52% of our normal water amounts this year. Some of my water holes are likely to be dry during archery season.
Sure, we can improve the habitat with projects, put in more fencing and escape ramps and flashing signs, and put in more guzzlers and catchments which will increase the population. But it will be a losing and costly proposition with no return because no matter how many deer we have on this particular unit, we can't increase the opportunity by issuing more general permits. We can only increase opportunity by creating special hunts like the late muzzy hunt or issuing doe permits or more landowner tags or depredation hunts or spreading out hunters for a longer period of time, thus our proposal.
Or, we can increase the population objective and leave the extra 6,000 deer on the unit and add to our magical state numbers and keep kicking the can down the road, but sooner or later we'll have to pay the piper and I don't think it will be pretty.
Edited: I forgot two things listed on the plan.
1) "The target population size will be achieved through the use of antlerless harvest."
2) "This unit plan was approved by the Wildlife Board on ______ and will be in effect for five years from that date, or until emended. (There's no date listed, but the Wildlife Board had to approve it in order for it to be officially placed on the DWR website.) Amend it if you want to, but we'll continue to make our proposal.
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-15 AT 12:23?PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-15 AT 12:21?PM (MST)
>Lee,
>You missed my point. You
>simply stated when is enough
>deer enough. I responded
>to that comment. You
>are trying to play too
>much into that my comment.
> I am very simply
>not content with the current
>number of deer in Utah.
> Call me greedy or
>a trophy hunter or a
>quality whore or SFW kool
>aid drinker I don't care
>it won't waiver my drive
>to increase our deer herds,
>above and beyond offering more
>tags!! When we get back
>to 800,000 plus then I'll
>probably rethink my views.
>SFW has publicly talked about
>425,000 deer, good for them!
>But guess what I'm VERY
>outspoken with those in the
>SFW that I am not
>content with that number! WE
>NEED MORE DEER IN UTAH,
>bottom line it will provide
>more opportunity for ALL types
>of hunters!!!!
>
>As far as more extended archery
>units. Well I'll tell
>you this. 2 years
>ago I had many in
>depth conversations with individuals that
>have sat on the Wildlife
>Board, SFW, Mule Deer Committee
>and more. My #1
>solution to more opportunity and
>decreasing point creep was adding
>3 to 5 more archery
>only extended units within the
>state of Utah hopefully in
>each region. I continue
>to push for this with
>the individuals that I believe
>can make this happen.
>Call them napkin meetings or
>what ever you like.
>Its how I've got results
>I support in the past
>and its the approach I
>will continue to pursue. Don't
>always assume you know all
>that is happening and in
>play within those you consider
>a threat.
>
>Also don't ever get embarrassed if
>you believe what you believe
>that is great. I
>don't take these battles personal
>and I don't expect those
>I disagree with to either.
>Its nothing more than different
>views on how we manage
>something we both love!!!
I didn't miss your point! You missed mine! We were discussing the Zion unit management plan and you went off by applying my statements (which you continue to misquote and/or misinterprete) and my proposal to the state management plan. Neither one apply! Of course we need more deer in UTAH and UWC wants more as much or more than you want more, but just not in the Zion unit, Panguitch Lake unit and several others, especially at the expense of opportunity. We have enough (or more than enough) in those units and to keep adding more at this stage is a losing proposition for the deer, the hunters, and the DWR AND it will not increase opportunity! (We've already gone through the hunter "overcrowded" issue with the numbers of deer we had on that unit back then, so what makes you think we'll be able to socially increase permits with more deer?)
I have no idea whether or not you've read the Zion unit deer plan, but maybe if you read it (or re-read it), we can put a better light on this discussion. (Go on the DWR website, type in "deer unit management plans" on the search slot, upper right corner, click on the current plans and then click on the Zion unit and print a copy.) One thing you need to know about me, I seldom, if ever, make a decision based solely on emotion because I figured out a long time ago while growing up with my older brother, emotions change and they can get you in more trouble than you can logically get out of. So, I've done my homework on this proposal, actually a couple of years ago.
Per the Zion Unit Deer Management Plan April 2012:
Range Area and Approximate Ownership (calculating the numbers)
Total Range - 781,928 acres
Forest Service - 61,908 acres - 7.9%
BLM - 288,684 acres - 36.9%
Utah State Trust Lands - 46,804 acres - 6.0%
Native Am Trust Lands - 2,226 acres - 0.3%
Private - 278,951 acres - 35.7%
Nat'l Parks - 103,355 acres - 13.2%
So, nearly 1/2 of the total range (49.2%) is off limits to the average hunter. Additionally, what these figures don't tell you is that 67,479 BLM acres is wilderness (and that doesn't count the Wilderness Study Areas), some of the state and BLM land is landlocked by private property and gated private roads, 8,000 plus BLM acres were burned to the ground by the Shingle Fire in July 2012, and recent Forest Service road closures require hiking or horses to access thousands of acres. Bottom line, there's no places to put more hunters!
Back to the plan.
The 9,000 population objective isn't some obsolete figure that we've overlooked! It's the major issue of study EVERY time a unit plan is updated. In fact, I'm surprised it's still that high given the fact that the human population of Washington County has gone up 304% since 1990, the dynamics of that population is more and more non-hunters and anti-hunters, the desert tortoise and Virgin River fish are restricting access, pinyon and juniper encroachment is at an all time high, highway mortality is significant and rising, the invasion of cheatgrass is growing, and the range classification has gone from poor (1998) to very poor (2003 to current).
Also remember that the population objectives of the DWR have to coincide with the population objectives of the Federal Agencies controlling the land (FS, BLM, NPS). It may be one thing to increase the population objective with the DWR, but you'll also have to deal with the Federal Government (and the local farmers and ranchers who own land or grazing rights on deer habitat, developers, animal rights organizations, timber companies, etc., etc., etc.) Good luck with that. Not everybody wants more deer! Oh, and FWIW, we're in a drought with only 52% of our normal water amounts this year. Some of my water holes are likely to be dry during archery season.
Sure, we can improve the habitat with projects, put in more fencing and escape ramps and flashing signs, and put in more guzzlers and catchments which will increase the population. But it will be a losing and costly proposition with no return because no matter how many deer we have on this particular unit, we can't increase the opportunity by issuing more general permits. We can only increase opportunity by creating special hunts like the late muzzy hunt or issuing doe permits or more landowner tags or depredation hunts or spreading out hunters for a longer period of time, thus our proposal.
Or, we can increase the population objective and leave the extra 6,000 deer on the unit and add to our magical state numbers and keep kicking the can down the road, but sooner or later we'll have to pay the piper and I don't think it will be pretty.
Edited: I forgot two things listed on the plan.
1) "The target population size will be achieved through the use of antlerless harvest."
2) "This unit plan was approved by the Wildlife Board on ______ and will be in effect for five years from that date, or until emended. (There's no date listed, but the Wildlife Board had to approve it in order for it to be officially placed on the DWR website.) Amend it if you want to, but we'll continue to make our proposal.
huntinfanatic
Active Member
- Messages
- 778
EFA,
I am glad to hear UWC in not wanting to turn the entire Zion unit into an extended archery unit. While portions of the unit could handle it there are many that could not.
After reading your posts I actually agree with many of the points you've made but there are a few that our opinions are on different ends of the spectrum. I agree with you 100% on the number of hunters on the GS hunts is about maxed out with the amount of public land available! Before Option 2(according to dwr stats)the muzzy hunt on the unit averaged about 190 hunters per year between 2008-11. Now with option 2 there are over 600 muzzy tags! Many have no idea where to go or get frustrated with the zoo on the public land and feel the need to trespass onto private property to get away from other hunters. The dwr has crammed 1000 extra hunters per year onto the public portion of the unit over the last 10 years and IMO needs to stop increasing GS permits every year and leave them the same for the forseeable future.
The point I disagree with most is the population objective. IMO the Zion unit can easily handle an objective of somewhere in the 16000-20000 range. I do understand that there are many limiting factors that go into coming up with a population objective but I believe the objective of 9000 to be flawed and outdated. I believe it is time to start working with all the agencies involved and update and increase the population objective.
1) Highway mortality is basically non existant now on I-15 and there not much that can be done on SR 14,20 and 89 other than warning signs.
2)The desert tortoise in not a limiting factor on the Zion unit. Don't know where you've wanted to go hunt that you can not because of the turtle.
3)The range classifications on the unit are laughable at best! There are only 6 range study transects (because of the vast amount of private and park) and they are placed in some of the worst habitat in the unit and not to mention the scores are from 2003 and as far as I know have not been updated since then. They are not current! You can not tell me the range is in bad condition on Kanarra mtn., Upper and Lower Kolob, Websters Flat, Cedar Mtn, East Zion and most of the Pinks to name a few.
4)I've talked to Jason and depredation issues are very minimal on the unit and have been able to be addressed without drastic measures.
So to sum up my thoughts and opinion,
1)The population objective can and should be raised.
2)Leave GS permit numbers about were they are at. Stop increasing permits because of high B/D ratios. We will never get down to 18-20 per hundred does because of the large amount of private and park. No matter how hard we hammer and pound the public land the b/d ratio is going to stay high, the only thing increasing GS permits is going to accomplish is to decrease the overall public land hunting experience and have extremely low b/d ratios on public land and having high b/d ratios on land that is not accessible to the average hunter. IMO there is nothing wrong with having a few extra bucks.
3)Come up with some new hunts to spread hunters out during the year if it really is that big of a deal to have an extra 2-5 bucks per hundred does. I really like the new late muzzy hunt idea and could support a section of the unit being an extended archery area if it really is necessary(as of now I do not).
4)Let's let the herd thrive NOT try and cut it almost in half! I do not understand the logic that it will be a losing and costly proposition with no return to have more than 9000 deer on the unit. What is wrong with some extra bucks make it through the hunts? Just because the herd is doing well shouldn't mean we have to try and kill most of them.
I am glad to hear UWC in not wanting to turn the entire Zion unit into an extended archery unit. While portions of the unit could handle it there are many that could not.
After reading your posts I actually agree with many of the points you've made but there are a few that our opinions are on different ends of the spectrum. I agree with you 100% on the number of hunters on the GS hunts is about maxed out with the amount of public land available! Before Option 2(according to dwr stats)the muzzy hunt on the unit averaged about 190 hunters per year between 2008-11. Now with option 2 there are over 600 muzzy tags! Many have no idea where to go or get frustrated with the zoo on the public land and feel the need to trespass onto private property to get away from other hunters. The dwr has crammed 1000 extra hunters per year onto the public portion of the unit over the last 10 years and IMO needs to stop increasing GS permits every year and leave them the same for the forseeable future.
The point I disagree with most is the population objective. IMO the Zion unit can easily handle an objective of somewhere in the 16000-20000 range. I do understand that there are many limiting factors that go into coming up with a population objective but I believe the objective of 9000 to be flawed and outdated. I believe it is time to start working with all the agencies involved and update and increase the population objective.
1) Highway mortality is basically non existant now on I-15 and there not much that can be done on SR 14,20 and 89 other than warning signs.
2)The desert tortoise in not a limiting factor on the Zion unit. Don't know where you've wanted to go hunt that you can not because of the turtle.
3)The range classifications on the unit are laughable at best! There are only 6 range study transects (because of the vast amount of private and park) and they are placed in some of the worst habitat in the unit and not to mention the scores are from 2003 and as far as I know have not been updated since then. They are not current! You can not tell me the range is in bad condition on Kanarra mtn., Upper and Lower Kolob, Websters Flat, Cedar Mtn, East Zion and most of the Pinks to name a few.
4)I've talked to Jason and depredation issues are very minimal on the unit and have been able to be addressed without drastic measures.
So to sum up my thoughts and opinion,
1)The population objective can and should be raised.
2)Leave GS permit numbers about were they are at. Stop increasing permits because of high B/D ratios. We will never get down to 18-20 per hundred does because of the large amount of private and park. No matter how hard we hammer and pound the public land the b/d ratio is going to stay high, the only thing increasing GS permits is going to accomplish is to decrease the overall public land hunting experience and have extremely low b/d ratios on public land and having high b/d ratios on land that is not accessible to the average hunter. IMO there is nothing wrong with having a few extra bucks.
3)Come up with some new hunts to spread hunters out during the year if it really is that big of a deal to have an extra 2-5 bucks per hundred does. I really like the new late muzzy hunt idea and could support a section of the unit being an extended archery area if it really is necessary(as of now I do not).
4)Let's let the herd thrive NOT try and cut it almost in half! I do not understand the logic that it will be a losing and costly proposition with no return to have more than 9000 deer on the unit. What is wrong with some extra bucks make it through the hunts? Just because the herd is doing well shouldn't mean we have to try and kill most of them.
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.