UDWR Technology Survey

[Smokepole]

I received an email from the UDWR to follow a link and do a Technology survey concerning hunting big game. Many of the questions asked are what you would expect based on the recent news associated with restricting trail cameras and long range hunting, along with a few other issues. Opinions will differ but, I hope there are enough respondents to cause the UDWR to seriously look at all these technology advancements (including all the different weapons used for hunting big game) and modify the regulations appropriately to help our wildlife and maintain reasonable/fair hunting opportunities.

 

[Deerlove]

I'll look for it. Ban trail cams and bait, but it will be hard to get the cows back in the barn with weapons.

 

[Utahlefty]

I'm currently in my 6th (of 8) year as a sitting RAC member and 1st (of 4) year on the Wildlife Board nominating committee.

I've voted against use of most of these tech tricks but have often been in the minority.

Here's the thing to understand:

The RAC/WB are charged with making decisions thusly: biology>regulatory>social.

ie, biological considerations are foremost followed by regulatory considerations with social considerations last in the algorithm.

The DWR sees this issue as not biologically or regulatorily relevant but social in nature and as such is going to be a "majority rules" sort of thing.

Change will have to come from a change in hunter opinion rather than edicts from above.

 

[heartshot]

Good insight Utahlefty. Thanks for chiming in.

 

[BLooDTRaCKeR]

Any man-made variable that negatively impacts our wildlife needs to be considered by the division just as the other variables mentioned above.

 

[wildfin]

I am with bloodtracker, any thing that does not make you hunt should be out. while I want you to hunt we mine as well shut down half the roads only during season, maybe making every have to hunt may not be such a good idea.

 

[hossblur]

I'm currently in my 6th (of 8) year as a sitting RAC member and 1st (of 4) year on the Wildlife Board nominating committee.

I've voted against use of most of these tech tricks but have often been in the minority.

Here's the thing to understand:

The RAC/WB are charged with making decisions thusly: biology>regulatory>social.

ie, biological considerations are foremost followed by regulatory considerations with social considerations last in the algorithm.

The DWR sees this issue as not biologically or regulatorily relevant but social in nature and as such is going to be a "majority rules" sort of thing.

Change will have to come from a change in hunter opinion rather than edicts from above.

commercial>biology>regulatory>social.

Feel like you made a typo.

Or did I miss the vote we all took to hand out 500+ welfare tags?

Its funny. When Casey runs a bill we hear hear that's not the place for it. Now you come in to tell us the RAC/WB isn't the place for it.

 

[Utahlefty]

commercial>biology>regulatory>social.

Feel like you made a typo.

Or did I miss the vote we all took to hand out 500+ welfare tags?

Its funny. When Casey runs a bill we hear hear that's not the place for it. Now you come in to tell us the RAC/WB isn't the place for it.

Apologies in advance for the length...


There are two parts to reply to but they are related:

1) the DWR's position is that the technology issue is largely social. As such they tend to go with majority opinion -- something that's true whether you go through the RACs or the legislature as Congress critters are very aware of public opinion. You may have missed the part in my original post that I tend to vote against tech tricks but am usually out-voted. Either way, changing the tech laws is going to involve changing public opinion (read: majority hunter opinion).

2) The conservation tag system is also largely social. It does not have a biologic impact. We did vote on it and it comes up for reconsideration at regular intervals. Utah hunters overwhelmingly support it (literally above 90%). Again, changing it = changing public opinion.


Aside: The CWMU program has an impact on all three parts of the algorithm (all 4 in your case). The impacts are all largely positive though. I and another RAC member had a concern about where those tags were going- we were concerned many we going to non-residents. We did a study and discussed it at a RAC meeting last year. 100% of the draw tags go to residents and over 80% of the purchased tags do to, which surprised me. I guess that explains why the CWMU program also enjoys overwhelming public (hunter) support.

 

[UtyoteKiller]

Apologies in advance for the length...


There are two parts to reply to but they are related:

1) the DWR's position is that the technology issue is largely social. As such they tend to go with majority opinion -- something that's true whether you go through the RACs or the legislature as Congress critters are very aware of public opinion. You may have missed the part in my original post that I tend to vote against tech tricks but am usually out-voted. Either way, changing the tech laws is going to involve changing public opinion (read: majority hunter opinion).

2) The conservation tag system is also largely social. It does not have a biologic impact. We did vote on it and it comes up for reconsideration at regular intervals. Utah hunters overwhelmingly support it (literally above 90%). Again, changing it = changing public opinion.


Aside: The CWMU program has an impact on all three parts of the algorithm (all 4 in your case). The impacts are all largely positive though. I and another RAC member had a concern about where those tags were going- we were concerned many we going to non-residents. We did a study and discussed it at a RAC meeting last year. 100% of the draw tags go to residents and over 80% of the purchased tags do to, which surprised me. I guess that explains why the CWMU program also enjoys overwhelming public (hunter) support.

I would have thought someone on the rack would have known that only residents can apply for cwmu. That is how you got your 100% resident draw number. Unless I misunderstood how you were trying to explain that piece.

 

[Utahlefty]

I would have thought someone on the rack would have known that only residents can apply for cwmu. That is how you got your 100% resident draw number. Unless I misunderstood how you were trying to explain that piece.

Yes, all the draw tags go to residents but they're only 10% of the total (bucks&bulls). The point I was trying to make was that we documented the other 90% that comprise the for-sale tags mostly go to residents too -- over 80% of them (which did pleasantly surprise me)

 

[Deerlove]

) The conservation tag system is also largely social. It does not have a biologic impact. We did vote on it and it comes up for reconsideration at regular intervals. Utah hunters overwhelmingly support it (literally above 90%). Again, changing it = changing public opinion.
This is farce!