MuleyMadness Hunting Forums

This is a brief but good summary of what happened yesterday...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/5 ... n.html.csp

It was interesting listening to the discussion surrounding these issues before the board voted. Here are some of my thoughts after having listened to the DWR, board members, and those who attended and voiced their opinions.

First, the impetus to introduce these porposals came from the wildlife board itself. The DWR was simply responding to the demands the board placed on them. The board members claimed that no outside group influenced this. The board also recommended and wanted smaller units when they asked the division to put this together and options 1 and 3 were ideas provided by the division as alternatives the what the board had requested. It appeared to me that the four board members in favor of this measure had already made their decision before the meeting started and had little interest in anything the DWR had to say. The DWR reiterated several times that none of these proposals would improve deer herds.

Second, the division did talk about habitat improvements and funding because of the claims that these efforts were not helping. They indicated that the effects of thesee efforts would not be realized for 5, 10, or even 20 years in some cases. Predators are a factor as are vehicle collisions, but coyotes seem to be the biggest concern. During a discussion of extending trap check limits the biologists indicated that there are some sticky issues there and more important is killing coyotes during critical periods (March - June). That issue was put on the docket for the upcoming RAC.

Third, the president of SFW providing the board with a check during these procedings was at best tactless and self serving and at worst an indication of undue influence. It was wholly inapropriate and offensive and should not have happened.

Finally, the SE RAC amended the proposals to include an antler restriction measure. It was killed by the board, but there was a few interesting comments regarding it. The biologist stated that there was biological reason NOT to have an antler restriction. The reason was two fold. It had the opposite effect that most desired and while more young buck survived, fewer mature bucks survived leading to breeding issues during the rut. Second, it leads to an increase in left animals. He cited walking down Nash Wash (Book Cliffs) during its era of 3 point or better restrictions and finding 20+ deer that had been shot and left.

There were other interesting items, but this post is already too long. Overall it was an interesting meeting with a lot of information. Ultimately I was disappointed with the boards decision, but I am hopeful that the efforts of the DWR will lead to improved deer herds and greater capacity in the future.

MuleyMadness wrote:This is a brief but good summary of what happened yesterday...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/5 ... n.html.csp

Thank you for posting that!

So in short:
1. This will not help and deer hunting will not improve
2. They will charge us more money to shore up THEIR losses
3. Less people will get to hunt and that means less people to patrol. A WIN/WIN for THEM!
4. MORE LE units are inevitable

From the SL Trib summery:
“None of these options will increase deer populations,” state wildlife program coordinator Anis Aoude said.(so did Jim Karpowitz in his open letter)

"The cost of a deer-hunting permit is projected to increase nearly 17 percent to offset the revenue lost by selling fewer of them — to nearly $41 from $35 for state residents and to about $307 from $263 for nonresidents."

"The DWR said the plan would help evenly distribute hunting pressure on deer herds in an effort to increase the ratio of bucks to does in the field to 18-to-100. The number of permits available for a particular unit would fall if its buck-to-doe ratio falls below 18-to-100, while it would rise if the ratio exceeds 25-to-100." (Read: LE Units and tags for them to sell)

"reflecting a belief that none of the measures included in any of the plans would actually help restore the declining deer population — the one concern everybody shared."

"But members of the board said they had to start somewhere."

Somewhere!!?? Taking away our tags and charging us more money when you don't think it's going to help is the first place to start!! Forgive me, but if any of you still have an ounce of faith in these thugs you may need your head checked! And all this to blatantly create LE units in broad daylight! I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt before, but everything I worried about has developed.

I guess I might have been on to something here > http://www.muleymadness.com/forum/viewt ... =2&t=11673

<END RANT>

Sounds to me like a majority of the people were against this option and they didn't really care what we thought when we went to the meetings. One thing that bugs me is with the archery hunt. I loved hunting on the bow hunt but now I'm going to have to choose a region? It sucked bad when they did that 2 years ago. Now the two areas that I hunt are going to be in seperate regions now....so I'll have to decide which one to go with now I guess. That is IF I can draw a tag now! Anybody now if they are planning on doing the same 29 regions for the bow hunt or will it be a little different? Don't know why they think they had to mess with the bow hunt since the success rate is so low to begin with. Guess we'll just have to live with it. Better start putting in for some other states since its going to be just as tough to get a tag here come a few years.

Boo for politics, thats all i have to say!

I may be going out on a limb here......how about slapping them back in the face with a good ole boycott? See how long that $350,000 will last with no tags being sold. It would also give the herds "a year off", the grip might not be as strong after a year of no sales......supply and demand........got to love that law!

I just sen my email, phone and name to stillhunterman. I believe if you want to see this nonsense come to an end, you'll do the same.

I tuned into Roughin' It Outdoors last night to get some more info/reaction since the host is a DWR employee (from what I understand). I could tell he was disappointed in the outcome just by his voice and body language. Disappointment seems to be the running theme with the decision by the WB.

derekp1999 wrote:I tuned into Roughin' It Outdoors last night to get some more info/reaction since the host is a DWR employee (from what I understand). I could tell he was disappointed in the outcome just by his voice and body language. Disappointment seems to be the running theme with the decision by the WB.

Adam is NOT, nor has he ever been, a DWR employee! He should be disappointed, it was a bad/sad day for Utah's deer herd and Utah deer hunters.

firefighterbraun wrote: Anybody now if they are planning on doing the same 29 regions for the bow hunt or will it be a little different? Don't know why they think they had to mess with the bow hunt since the success rate is so low to begin with.

Don't know if you saw this.

"General-season archery hunters will no longer be allowed to hunt across Utah. Instead, they'll have to hunt on the unit they obtained a permit for."

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -2012.html