Would you support doubling the cost on General Season deer tags if...

[HoofingIt]

Would you support doubling the cost of a General Season tag if they reduced the number of tags in half and initiated a 4 point or bigger clause? I was just reading on the general forum about people complaining about the size of bucks in Utah (and I agree) but then shooting smaller bucks. People also complaining about the fact Utah sells more tags than bucks living on a respective unit.

We all know the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. That said, the dollar and revenue generated drives the tags numbers in Utah. If there were a way to increase the cost of the tags thus not decreasing the revenue hit, would you support it? I personally would love to hit the woods and not think I hit the once in a lifetime jackpot when I see a 4 point on a general unit. $100 for a chance at a decent buck every couple of years (assuming you draw a tag every 2-3 years)... yes please.

Thoughts?

 

[Elkslayer]

That would turn it into a limited entry unit for sure. Four points or better is a hard reach for most people to want. I like the idea though.

 

[rmanwill]

NO, NO WAY, NO HOW.

I would agree to have a couple more limited/trophy units for those that wish to only hunt 4 points, but it already takes 2 or more years to draw a general buck tag in alot of units.

Young hunters will not stay or become interested in hunting with the opportunity only coming 4 or more years apart. Then shooting a smaller buck, because it is their first or one of few first bucks.

I know you don't want to hear this, but people put in for limited or premium units to collect points and at the same time put in for and draw general tags and shoot smaller bucks and complain.

Maybe put in for one or the other (general or limited) use deer points on any deer drawn or possibily you put in for limited or premium tags and you only get a 1/2 of a general deer point or less giving those that want to hunt and not just looking for horns a better chance and more opportunities to hunt and enjoy the family outing and camping with a tag in their pocket.

General deer units and hunting is what most do. If horns are what a person is after. Sacrifice and build points, but don't ask everyone to sacrifice to meet a horn/trophy hunters desire. If you want bigger horns hunt less in better units or out of state every couple years.

However, young hunters, h&11 even myself don't want to pay close to out of state prices to hunt their resident state.

Less hunter pressure in limited units and less trophy pressure in general units.

Sorry, just my opinion and thinking about all hunters and not just us that are well enough off to pay whatever the price if it means big horns/bucks.

Us with $$$ or in a better spot in our life can apply and play the application game in our own state and several other states to meet our horn additions.

 

[Downrange]

I would agree to it but without the 4pt or better rule. A guy or youth hunter should be able to shoot any legal buck he wants to.

 

[hornkiller]

I have hunted non res ut gen season for the last 8 years. I stopped supporting the general deer this year at normal cost lmmfao hell no I wouldn't give them double!

 

[sagebb]

Already bumped the price up 100 bucks for non res....and you would want to further double the price again? For general deer? Dont think so.

 

[shootem]

Hell to the NO! I believe there are other issues causing the decline of deer. Simply cutting tags and charging more is not going to fix the problem.

 

[hunt30]

I would gladly pay 4x the price on the condition that nobody brings up the hair brain idea of antler point restrictions again.....

 

[roadrunner]

Already bumped the price up 100 bucks for non res....and you would want to further double the price again? For general deer? Dont think so.

And, to reduce your chances further on even filling your tag? Yeah, I double don't think so.

 

[HoofingIt]

I would gladly pay 4x the price on the condition that nobody brings up the hair brain idea of antler point restrictions again.....

Haha!

 

[dogvalleymule]

Would you support doubling the cost of a General Season tag if they reduced the number of tags in half and initiated a 4 point or bigger clause? I was just on the general forum about people complaining about the size of bucks in Utah (and I agree) but then shooting smaller bucks. People also complaining about the fact Utah sells more tags than bucks living on a respective unit.

We all know the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. That said, the dollar and revenue generated drives the tags numbers in Utah. If there were a way to increase the cost of the tags thus not decreasing the revenue hit, would you support it? I personally would love to hit the woods and not think I hit the once in a lifetime jackpot when I see a 4 point on a general unit. $100 for a chance at a decent buck every couple of years (assuming you draw a tag every 2-3 years)... yes please.

Thoughts?

 

[Founder]

I’m a lifetime license holder, so I’d pay double what I do now. Ha ha
Seriously, I hate to see opportunity go away. I’m not a fan of tag cuts. I say cut technology, reduce success rates somehow so that we can have quality and opportunity.
I can get a response of hundreds of posts in a thread about my consulting that gives 4-5 guys a year a very slight advantage, but you sure don’t see people screaming to dial rifles back from 1000 yard killing tools to 300 yard tools. Trail cams litter the woods, but nothing. Muzzleloader shooting 500 yards, but nothing. And the list goes on. You know what I mean.
In the end, tag cuts will probably be the answer though. I just don’t think sportsmen will give up their advantages, at least not that I’ve seen.

 

[all4freedom]

They would be able to shoot any legal buck they wanted. 4 point or better would be the legal buck.

 

[all4freedom]

I would pay double if they would quit giving away so many fu@#ing tags to all the raffles, expos, etc. And landowner’s tags should not be unit wide! If you’re having a bigger animal problem than the tags you’re allowed then let the average Joe hunt your land.

 

[notdonhunting]

4 point or better!
So I suppose you want 3 points gene's doing the breeding?

You want to decrease the number of tags so it takes 2 to 3 years to draw out to hunt general Unit?
With numbers of buck permits currently being released it takes right around 2 points on average to draw out.

Pay $100 for a general season buck permit?
I would pay more for a general season buck permit if the state of Utah would allow the extra money raised by increasing cost to be used strictly on helping deer herd numbers.
But raising permit fees could have negative effect on the future hunyer numbers.

 

[Robiland]

What would paying double for the tag do? Will that help grow more deer? NO. Will it help with point creep, not really. Paying more money will do nothing for the deer herd UNLESS it is used strictly for fences, habitat, water guzzlers, and so on.

You may not agree with me, but Utah is a LIMITED ENTRY units all across the state.

AND HELL NO to point restrictions!!!!

 

[HoofingIt]

What would paying double for the tag do? Will that help grow more deer? NO. Will it help with point creep, not really. Paying more money will do nothing for the deer herd UNLESS it is used strictly for fences, habitat, water guzzlers, and so on.

You may not agree with me, but Utah is a LIMITED ENTRY units all across the state.

AND HELL NO to point restrictions!!!!

The idea of doubling the costs is ONLY because we all know there’s no way in hell the state would allow tag cuts and lose revenue. Increasing the cost would likely be the only way the state would allow tag cuts. Trust me, I’d like to hunt every year just like everyone else but the reality is this model isn’t working.

 

[HoofingIt]

4 point or better!
So I suppose you want 3 points gene's doing the breeding?

You want to decrease the number of tags so it takes 2 to 3 years to draw out to hunt general Unit?
With numbers of buck permits currently being released it takes right around 2 points on average to draw out.

Pay $100 for a general season buck permit?
I would pay more for a general season buck permit if the state of Utah would allow the extra money raised by increasing cost to be used strictly on helping deer herd numbers.
But raising permit fees could have negative effect on the future hunyer numbers.

I’m just tossing out ideas... I was curious what the feedback of those ideas would be. Lots of interesting reactions for sure. What I do know is status quo isn’t the answer. Maybe 4 point or better is a bit radical but last year I saw multiple spikes the size of my dog taken which definitely isn’t the answer either.

 

[wstrntines]

We could make it mandatory to buy a 5 or 10 dollar mule deer habitat improvement stamp.

 

[fullthrottle]

Or they could let you take a lion with your deer tag.

 

[notdonhunting]

I like the mule deer stamp idea.

 

[Vanilla]

Would you support doubling the cost of a General Season tag if they reduced the number of tags in half and initiated a 4 point or bigger clause?

No to any of the three things you listed there, let alone all of them. No, no, no.

 

[hossblur]

I'd pay triple if we could get out "conservation" tags.

You should be more concerned with any buck making it.

"Meat shortage" will mean few are passing anything this year

 

[all4freedom]

Or they could let you take a lion with your deer tag.

I could have easily killed 3 lions during my hunt last year. 3 lions in about 2 square miles and I’m pretty certain they were all 3 different lions. I whole heartedly agree with your statement.

 

[Gator]

so double the cost of a tag would put some hunters out the running due to cost with MORE hunters needed for a strong front against the non hunting crowd would hurt not help us. IMO

 

[travishunter3006]

I don’t think we need to fund any extra stamps, licenses or taxes. We need to manage properly and remove all politics from wildlife. Problem solved.

 

[Elkslayer1125]

I’ve hunted 3 point or better units in Idaho and thought the hunting was far better than Utah’s general season deer hunts. I saw plenty of deer and almost every camp had multiple mature bucks in their camps. Letting 2 points grow to be mature is not a bad thing. Why not have a system where youth or first time hunters can shoot any deer and then when you have a few years under your belt you are restricted to shooting 3 point or better? Obviously the system we have now isn’t working because it seems the trophy hunters and the opportunity hunters both are frustrated with our deer numbers.

 

[Dirt_Road_Warrior]

Nope. I’m not going to support limiting our opportunities in the name of trophy hunting for selfish hunters who want it to be easier for them to find and kill bigger deer than they currently are. If you could come up with another reason to do so in conjunction with a muledeer plan the state follows that will ALLOW deer, specifically buck numbers, to increase over time, then I could support that. But the way the plan is now, all your suggestions will do is give the state more money to pizz away, artificially create more “trophy” opportunities, while limiting and restricting hunting to many, many people, while only a few lucky ones can go play every year. Gee, that plan sounds familiar... ? *insert utahs LE elk, deer and OIL management plan*

oh ya. We already do that. And that’s not working out great either!

 

[deadibob]

I’m a lifetime license holder, so I’d pay double what I do now. Ha ha
Seriously, I hate to see opportunity go away. I’m not a fan of tag cuts. I say cut technology, reduce success rates somehow so that we can have quality and opportunity.
I can get a response of hundreds of posts in a thread about my consulting that gives 4-5 guys a year a very slight advantage, but you sure don’t see people screaming to dial rifles back from 1000 yard killing tools to 300 yard tools. Trail cams litter the woods, but nothing. Muzzleloader shooting 500 yards, but nothing. And the list goes on. You know what I mean.
In the end, tag cuts will probably be the answer though. I just don’t think sportsmen will give up their advantages, at least not that I’ve seen.

Utah need to address all the issues if anything is going to change. Addressing any single issue isn't going to do enough. A slight reduction in tags probably wouldn't hurt but 50% is unrealistic. We could probably actually increase tag numbers if we had primitive type hunts. Choose between applying for either L.E. or general hunts in the draw should help draw odds a bit.
The DWR really needs to get a better real time handle on what is going on with the herds. It seems the data given is often questionable. They seem to have a hard time admitting when there's a problem, when they do see a problem they minimize it and when they do act it's too little too late. Politics and special interest groups have too much input on wildlife management these days.

Advanced technology in all hunting tools really needs to be addressed but that is a very slippery slope and I don't know where they could draw the line (which is worse prohibiting range finders, dial turrets and 25x scopes so people won't attempt 1,000 yard shots or let them try making 600 yard shots with nothing but a six power weaver?).

Human encroachment into wildlife habitat is a big factor. I would like to see that addressed by outlawing the migration of Californians into Utah, that'll solve lots of problems.

Hunting and big money do not belong together. Get rid of welfare/auction tags or at least cut the numbers drastically.
I miss the good old days of hunting when it was much simpler and less emphasis was placed on the size of the animal to determine if a hunt was successful or not (for me the good old days were the 80's).

There are lots of ongoing problems with wildlife here in Utah, many of them have been going on for decades. I think a good place to start would be for the DWR to throw out all the old ways and old ideas, clean house and start from scratch.

 

[hornkiller]

The 3 point or better WAS working in wy until 3 bad winters and unlimited tags! The wy game & fish will tell you 90% of wy is managed for opportunity not quality even in g & h! Go ahead and ask them people just want a chance to go hunting. Let's face it the world has double the hunters now compared to 15-20 years ago. Doubling the price of a tag could and will help out habit improvements if they use the funds wisely. But the only way to get the heards back strong is to limit opportunity and restrict technology! Most of the limited entry hunts in every state are mostly oil tags now unless you get lucky and people do get lucky but most won't! Im all for raising tag fees if it helps the herds out hell ut just raised the $hit out of non res this year. Gotta pay to play!

 

[deerkiller]

Let's face it the world has double the hunters now compared to 15-20 years ago.

*insert sarcastic tone* But how could that be! Hunter numbers are at an all time rapid decline! Impossible.

I just got done being learned by some professional on another forum that even though hunter numbers APPEAR to be growing in Utah, his data actually suggests that they are at a sharp decline! Hahahahahaha I love when guys who never leave the house all year tell me about my personal experiences and how I misinterpreted them wrong ??

 

[DBLung]

The DWR has never been close to accurate on deer numbers in my area. Cut the tags back 50% and the next year they'll count 100% more deer. Tag numbers will be back to the same quota and we're still paying double. $$$$$ The DWR would be in money paradise.

IF the DWR would or could be more accurate at deer counts this could possibly work.

 

[mulebuck]

As Hornkiller & Founder touched on, restricting technology HAS to happen at some point. I'd love to see a reasonable proposal drawn up on the matter. I wonder what western state, if any, will attempt it first?

 

[Muley_73]

I'd triple or quadruple the cost and support 4 point or better....However there are other options out there as well.

#1 eliminate range finders on all season.
#2 eliminate scopes on muzzy and only allow side lock open sights.
#3 limit rifle scopes to 9 power.
#4 more primitive weapon hunts and less rifle hunts.

Either we address the actual technologies that have a big impact on success rates or we should cut tags. The resource can not sustain so many hunters with the added technologies.

 

[Gator]

I'd triple or quadruple the cost and support 4 point or better....However there are other options out there as well.

#1 eliminate range finders on all season.
#2 eliminate scopes on muzzy and only allow side lock open sights.
#3 limit rifle scopes to 9 power.
#4 more primitive weapon hunts and less rifle hunts.

Either we address the actual technologies that have a big impact on success rates or we should cut tags. The resource can not sustain so many hunters with the added technologies.

Do you think taking a rangefinder will take away hunters shooting at a big buck 500 yds away. IF he is big there will be lead in the air.
Same deal on #2 I would hope that if a Buck is 300 yds away I guy wouldn't pull the trigger on a nonscoped Muzzy. BUT enough guys will and if they shoot him somewhere that doesn't kill him right off you have a dead buck still that might not be found.
#4 that makes alot of sense I wish they had more HAM hunts.

 

[Muley_73]

Do you think taking a rangefinder will take away hunters shooting at a big buck 500 yds away. IF he is big there will be lead in the air.
Same deal on #2 I would hope that if a Buck is 300 yds away I guy wouldn't pull the trigger on a nonscoped Muzzy. BUT enough guys will and if they shoot him somewhere that doesn't kill him right off you have a dead buck still that might not be found.
#4 that makes alot of sense I wish they had more HAM hunts.

I get what you are saying. However with the technology those same shots are wounding at 600-1000 yards by the same poor sportsman that would be wounding at 400-500. And the same with muzzy and archery. The wounding rate I don’t believe would change much, if anything it would lower and miss rate would increase. And your ethical hunters (and many long ranger killers are) would pass on shot our past 400. The point is to lower success rate. You will always have wounding. That’s on the heads of the individual.

 

[yoteduster]

What it all boils down to is mismanagement of our deer herds by the dwr I've been wondering what would happen if they would start all over from scratch in managing our herds one thing I think would help is there buck to doe ratio it should be 15 to 18 mature bucks per 100 does heck I'd settle for 3 point or better for a hundred does and let them manage the herds from there..at least you'd be seeing a lot more deer on the landscape..