Utah meeting's why??? They don't care about the animals just the CASH!!

[tyef350]

We should all show up and tell them there is still a couple two points left alive. Maybe they will sell even MORE tags next year!!!!!

You can see all of the DWR's big game recommendations in the November RAC agenda (PDF).

After you've reviewed the ideas, you can let your Regional Advisory Council members know your thoughts by attending your upcoming RAC meeting or by sending an email to them.

RAC chairmen will share the input they receive with members of the Utah Wildlife Board. The board will meet in Salt Lake City on Dec. 6 to approve rules for Utah's 2013 big game hunts.

Dates, times and locations for the RAC meetings are as follows:


Central Region
Nov. 8, 6:30 p.m.
Springville Public Library Meeting Room
45 S Main Street, Springville

Northern Region
Nov. 7, 6 p.m.
Brigham City Community Center
24 N 300 W, Brigham City

Southern Region
Nov. 13, 7 p.m.
Cedar Middle School
2215 W Royal Hunte Dr

Southeastern Region
Nov. 14, 6:30 p.m.
John Wesley Powell Museum
1765 E Main St, Green River

Northeastern Region
Nov. 15, 6 p.m.
Bingham Entrepreneurship and Energy
320 N Aggie Blvd, Vernal

 

[travishunter3006]

"We should all show up and tell them there is still a couple two points left alive. Maybe they will sell even MORE tags next year!!!!!"


FYI---- DWR has CUT tags multiple years in a row.

 

[tyef350]

FYI - They also sold a butt load of tags on the cache unit. Not to mention all the bow/muzz leftover tags was turned into rifle tags a week before the hunt started. That there is GOOD management. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$ it will keep going till utah sells them self out of deer hunting.

 

[travishunter3006]

I respect your opinion but I have hunted that unit for many many years and a "butt load" of tags is nothing new.


I do agree that the tag rollovers is a horrible idea. Tag numbers are set based on the average harvests and what the area can sustain based on those numbers respectively. So converting leftover archery tags to higher % success rate hunts is poor management IMO. We agree on that TyeF350.

 

[tyef350]

It's just hard to belive that two year's ago it was a 3 day hunt cause the winter kill/to many tags sold for northern utah. Then this year they pulled that stunt. Guess if there running low on money they should not pay so many dwr guys standing around bsing at the game check they had on monte, and spread them out to catch and fine the bad guys. There was some nice deer killed due to the deep snow. Utah could be more like that every year if they pulled there head out.

 

[tyef350]

travishunter3006 how did you do on the cache this year??? I seen some nice deer down. Also a lot of shooting going on all week. Might pass up deer hunting the cache for a few years, and just hunt elk.

 

[travishunter3006]

Tye you missed the "good ol days". Monte Cristo was an amazing place to hunt pre-1996. I remember in 1996 they ran a double doe hunt up that way and in 1997 deer were hard to come by. Now there may have been many other factors contributing to the decline but IMO it was the doe tag slaughter that did the deer in.


That year me and my dad ran into a husband & wife hunting that were gutting their last doe. They both had a buck tag and double doe tag. Between these two hunters they had taken 6 deer. I remember being jealous of their success and opportunity but now wonder what possessed the DWR to issue that amount of doe tags...



I didn't hunt the cache this year and I also stopped rifle hunting UT because of the crowds. I was up that way with my Brother-in-law during his elk hunt and we ran into a good amount of bruisers... just down in te nasty stuff.


Good luck on any of your other hunts this year.

 

[tyef350]

I think monte could be up close with the top deer units if they made it it's own unit and cut way back on tags. The genes are on that mountain but with 3 million hunters will never see it be that good.

 

[travishunter3006]

Are you a rifle guy? Are you young enough to hunt all three hunts?

 

[goofyelk]

While I DO agree, too many permits on a number of units,
You might want to wait until the April/May RACs,,cuz,
That's when they'll set the 2013 permit numbers for everything.

 

[elkassassin]

Correct me if I'm Wrong?

But a Whoppin 500 Permits being cut Statewide is only gonna put us deeper in Debt with the suffering Deer Herd!

What I really get a kick out of(NOT!) is there is/and always will be a handful of decent Bucks taken in Utah/Posted on MM and several JOKERS thinking:Wow,this New Deer Management is really working isn't it?

WAFJ!

On a percentage wise basis I'd like to know how many General Season Buck Hunters took a Buck Wider than 24" in this State in 2012?

If you can't see the Herd/Genetics/decent Bucks/age Class/body Size/management going down hill in this state You'd best wake the Hell up!





Hello Mr. Wisz,This is the UDWR Calling....LMMFAO!
15" Bases?
30" 5ths?
GOOD GAWD A MIGHTY!

 

[elkun]

elkassassin. thier would be a hell of a lot more if the cwmus didnt take the cream of the crop every year, get rid of them and youll see, more gen hunters doing beter,,, 9 days for us, 90+ for them what a joke.

 

[woodruffhunter]

"elkassassin. thier would be a hell of a lot more if the cwmus didnt take the cream of the crop every year, get rid of them and youll see, more gen hunters doing beter,,, 9 days for us, 90+ for them what a joke"

I don't know you, but you are a genius! I 100% agree! CWMU's are one of the biggest scams in Utah. I hate them and wish they were banned!

 

[Horseguy]

This is going to piss people off and I am fine with that but if everyone hates the deer hunt in Utah quit hunting it! All I hear is there are no deer and tons of hunters, so cut deer tags. Listen you can cut tags all you want but if you don't have more does it won't do a dang bit of good. I enjoy the deer hunt, I can go see multiple bucks a day where I hunt (not just 2-points) and I hunt coyotes in those areas all year. Quit complaining unless you are willing to do something to help the problem other that just whine. If you really look at the deer herd and the health of it count does, and fawns per doe. And by the way i don't like CWMU's either, but I also don't like all the "Rich Man" tags Utah offers either. There my 2 cents!

 

[hossblur]

I always find it curious that the big game meetings take place, WHILE there are still big game hunters out hunting. Guess all the harvest info is just meanigless?


"Your just jealous because _____, so you can't know anything!!"

 

[Ticks N Tines]

Ban CWMUs??? And you think that will make everything ok? If you get rid of CWMUs, it doesn't change anything but reduce public opportunity. Do you think if we get rid of CWMUs the land automatically turns into public ladn that we can hunt? Sorry, but it will always be private. Nobody is forced to hunt a CWMU and the CWMUs don't take away any deer from public land either. In most cases they have a management plan 100 times better than the DWR and for that reason they "Take the cream of the crop". The DWR could learn a lesson from some of these CWMUs. Too many tags = crappy hunt.

If you are referring to how CWMUs are run, then that is a different story. I would agree that some of them can be scams, and at time the public are treated badly. My personal opinion is that the public should do everything they can to learn about the CWMU BEFORE they apply and the experience will be much better.

 

[woodruffhunter]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-15-12 AT 11:21AM (MST)[p]"Ban CWMUs??? And you think that will make everything ok? If you get rid of CWMUs, it doesn't change anything but reduce public opportunity. Do you think if we get rid of CWMUs the land automatically turns into public ladn that we can hunt? Sorry, but it will always be private. Nobody is forced to hunt a CWMU and the CWMUs don't take away any deer from public land either. In most cases they have a management plan 100 times better than the DWR and for that reason they "Take the cream of the crop". The DWR could learn a lesson from some of these CWMUs. Too many tags = crappy hunt.

If you are referring to how CWMUs are run, then that is a different story. I would agree that some of them can be scams, and at time the public are treated badly. My personal opinion is that the public should do everything they can to learn about the CWMU BEFORE they apply and the experience will be much better"

HJB:

I suppose your comment was directed at my so here I go:

No, I don't think "banning" CWMU's will "make it ok". No, I never said that "banning" them will turn them into "public" land hunts.

I am not exactly sure on the exact number of CWMU's tags. I am going to make a guess that it is in the 400-500 range. I do believe that without CWMU's, there would be a lot more permission granted to hunters, to gain access to private land (not all of it of course) for either nothing, or a nominal trespass fee. I am sure these number of hunters would come close to the CWMU alowance of tags (but that is MY opinion).

Secondly, is not some public land tied up by CWMU's? From my limited research, I believe it is. If I am wrong, I will be glad to admit it. However, I believe I may be right on at least one CWMU.

Now, ultimately, we probabably don't agree on what I just said. It realy makes no difference to me.

But, I will admit that my biggest gripe against them is how they are ran. The percentage of landowner tags (public to private) is not correct in my opinion. Also, it is ridiculous to me that the public land hunter has a few days to hunt (at the landowners discression) vs. the private tag holder who can hunt 2 months+...

I'll be glad to hear someone prove me wrong, thats OK. I am no expert of course. But, yes I would not care one bit if they banned them.

 

[Ticks N Tines]

I totally agree that there are several issues with the CWMU program. I think you are also correct that the private land could be accessed with permission. But you and I both know that the permission would come at probably the same price as the tags go for. The land owners know the potential and they will make sure they get every penny of what it's worth.

As far as public land being tied up by the CWMUs you are partially correct. Anytime a CWMU includes public land they are required to change the split ratios to include more public tags, or provide trade lands to the public that will account for the lost public lands included into the CWMU.

I'm not saying this is a good practice, I'm just letting you know how it works. I personally think the public should have a say in any decision that is made with public land, but that is not currently the case.

I think the CWMU program has tremendous potential and we just need to manage the program in a way that all parties can have success and opportunity. Many CWMUs treat the public very well, but as you mentioned there are also several that need improvement.

So I disagree that "Banning" the program is the right choice, I think we just need to make some improvements. Any program that can open up private land to public hunting in my book is worth going after.

Matt

 

[travishunter3006]

If an area can only support 100 deer, how many of those deer would you like to be bucks? How many does would you need to keep the level of deer at +/- 10? More does does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if there aren't enogh bucks to breed all of the does.

Do a little research on Nevada and how many bucks are harvested vs. the actual deer population size. You will see this "We Need More Does" business isn't actually true.

IMHO

 

[travishunter3006]

Nevada put their deer population around 112,000. Out of the 112,000 deer, they estimate 35,000 are bucks.


Nevada also estimates their success rate at 40%. That means they are killing an estimated 14,000 bucks a year or 12.5% off all deer.


In UT they estimate the deer population right around 290,000. We kill around 20,000 bucks every year. Thats only 6.8%!!


In just using the %%%, Nevada is killing nearly twice the % of deer as UT.


UT estimates our buck population at a little more than 42,000.


I dare say we can use some doe killing. There will be many who disagree but if UT can only support around 300,000 bucks and we follwed Nevada's management plan then we should have over 100,000 bucks vs the 42,000 we have right now.


Going back to my original "hijack" post above, if an area can only support 100 deer, how many of those do you want to be bucks? How many does will that area need to keep the population at +/- 10% of its objective?

 

[justr_86]

Why don't we just turn out 10 tags on every unit? Makes the Henrys odds not look so bad?

Keep bitching, see what you get...

 

[Zeke]

>Why don't we just turn out
>10 tags on every unit?
>Makes the Henrys odds not
>look so bad?
>
>Keep bitching, see what you get...
>

+1 Oh, this is so true!

I'm all for management but the same people who want to see a 4 pt behind every tree are the ones who howl when opportunity is limited. It's pretty hard to have it both ways.

There are units which could stand to have fewer hunters and there are units which could hold more hunters. We need to give the unit management a chance to actually work before we cut our own throats.

I like to hunt.... every year.... and I'll make the best of it regardless of how many orange blobs are in the field.

Lets keep hunting!
Zeke

 

[woodruffhunter]

"I totally agree that there are several issues with the CWMU program. I think you are also correct that the private land could be accessed with permission. But you and I both know that the permission would come at probably the same price as the tags go for. The land owners know the potential and they will make sure they get every penny of what it's worth.

As far as public land being tied up by the CWMUs you are partially correct. Anytime a CWMU includes public land they are required to change the split ratios to include more public tags, or provide trade lands to the public that will account for the lost public lands included into the CWMU.

I'm not saying this is a good practice, I'm just letting you know how it works. I personally think the public should have a say in any decision that is made with public land, but that is not currently the case.

I think the CWMU program has tremendous potential and we just need to manage the program in a way that all parties can have success and opportunity. Many CWMUs treat the public very well, but as you mentioned there are also several that need improvement.

So I disagree that "Banning" the program is the right choice, I think we just need to make some improvements. Any program that can open up private land to public hunting in my book is worth going after"

You do make a good arguement and back it up with some facts; I can surely see your point. You are right, there probably is a lot of pontential with the program. I do wish they would make some changes.

Looking at the big picture, I do think there are many from the DWR who probably care. I think everyone on this board would (or should agree) that our deer herd is not good. However, I believe it can come back. I am surely willing to sacrifice where needed. I do feel lucky that we can hunt every year.....

I was actually for the management units. I sure do hope that they will be managed (numbers kept in check). I believe it can help the herd!

 

[justr_86]

Its not even worth farming it anymore, the landowner makes quite a bit more money off of tags than he does farming it.... Why even feed into the bs anymore? If they want animals they can let the public hunt. If they want to farm, put up a higher fence.... I think its high time we quit paying landowners for damage, or giving them tags. One time fix, build a fence.....

 

[qvelvet]

I think that we have lost the original point of this post. I hunted in the Cache unit this year, as I have for the past 17 years, the dwr added thousands of extra rifle tags from the remaining un-drawn archery and muzzleloader tags. There is always an enormous amount of hunters in the unit, but this year seemed excessive. This website alone shows evidence of the slaughter that happened in October.
It seems to me that the dwr is in it for the $$$. They claim that it is for hunting opportunity, but at what expense? I hunted the archery, muzzy, and rifle seasons for deer and tagged along with my brother for an elk hunt. I saw only a handful of mule deer bucks and a lot less does than I have seen in my hunting experiences in the past on the unit. Many days I saw nothing at all. I don't know if this is happening in other units across the State of Utah, but it doesn't, IMHO, seem to be helping the deer herds in the area.
Therefore, what is the purpose of these meetings? Is it merely a show to the general public that their input means a damn? Then followed up by the dwr which does whatever it wants to do to raise a quick $100,000 or much more (2000*35+(application fees and hunting permit fees or combination licenses)) or more regardless of public input.
More than $100,000 in 1 unit out of 30...multiple this by all 30 units and the dwr receives $3,000,000. AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT!

I agree with tyef350, WHY???

 

[cache]

Qvelvet there were 200 and some odd tags that ended up rolling over to rifle tags on the cache this year not "thousands"

 

[Tree]

>I am not exactly sure on
>the exact number of CWMU's
>tags. I am going
>to make a guess that
>it is in the 400-500
>range. I do believe
>that without CWMU's, there would
>be a lot more permission
>granted to hunters, to gain
>access to private land (not
>all of it of course)
>for either nothing, or a
>nominal trespass fee. I
>am sure these number of
>hunters would come close to
>the CWMU alowance of tags
>(but that is MY opinion).
>
>
>Secondly, is not some public land
>tied up by CWMU's?
>From my limited research, I
>believe it is. If
>I am wrong, I will
>be glad to admit it.
> However, I believe I
>may be right on at
>least one CWMU.
>

2013 statewide allocations for bucks and bulls for CWMUs is 936 permits. Antlerless tags are in addition to this number.

FYI, Double Cone CWMU is comprised of 45%/4,365 acres public land and Twin Peaks/Goose Creek is comprised of 67%/10,400 acres public land.

The rest are under 7% public and many don't contain public land.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall be
exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural resources
for the public as a whole, for the average man and the
average woman who make up the body of the
American people."