RAC meeting report

[derekp1999]

So it’s 2-1 for option 1 in the RAC’s as of Nov 16… What is the difference between Option 2 and making the entire state limited entry based on subunit?
Not much the way I understand it.

[Muley_73]

Southeast Region voted 7-3 tonight in favor of Option 2. That makes it 2-2! Man seems that the Regions that actually have some deer and habitat left seem to be getting the big picture. I hope the WB will do the right thing. We need to address each herd and focus on what is hurting that herd. This will only happen if we take the first step in breaking it down into smaller areas of focus.

[MuleyMadness]

Heard same news on SouthEastern RAC. Not sure if this means much or matters, should be interesting what happens. One more tonight.

[dahlmer]

Southeast Region voted 7-3 tonight in favor of Option 2. That makes it 2-2! Man seems that the Regions that actually have some deer and habitat left seem to be getting the big picture. I hope the WB will do the right thing. We need to address each herd and focus on what is hurting that herd. This will only happen if we take the first step in breaking it down into smaller areas of focus.

Please explain to me how dividing the state into smaller hunting management units will address the individual needs of each herd any better than what is currently being done. The state is already divided into 30+ management units that the state uses for the purposes of counts and herd management. If the herds primary issue was due to overharvest from hunting then the subunits would make sense, but that is not the issue. Dividing the state up for purposes of hunter management which is what option 2 does will do nothing to address the real issues behind the struggles of Utah's deer herd. It will, however, pave the way for managing our deer herds the same way the elk herds currently are. I don't see that as a positive for the vast majority of hunters.

[Muley_73]

dahlmer,

The DWR does not currently actually manage each unit. I asked Anis personally at the Northern RAC meeting. They manage them up until the hunting season starts. Then they are thrown into the regions and the DWR loses control of what actually happens on each unit. The units are are all averaged with in the region. So you could have one unit with a very high buck/doe ratio and the next unit over with a very low and know way to control where the hunters put pressure. The DWR claims to already manage by unit but they use the same philosophy for each unit currently. This is all right out of Anis's mouth. So if each unit is broke down and actually managed and focus is pin pointed to what each unit needs it will help!

I know they currently shut down the occasional unit to 3 days ie Cache, Monroe. However they do nothing to prevent all of those hunters jumping over to the Fishlake and Pahvant and hammering those deer in the remaining days. Unit management would prevent that from happening! Just remeber if we do nothing the save the deer ALL oppurtunity will be lost in the future.

I guess as unhappy as I am to possibly have to set out a few years I'm more concered about the future of our herds.

[dahlmer]

Again...this is managing hunters not deer. Over hunting is not the problem. Buck to do ratios are not the problem. This proposal will not address any of the problems plaguing the deer herds nor will help them in the long run in any way. If cutting the tags was the solution then our herds should have rebounded when tags went from 200,000+ to 90,000. They didn't!

Option 1 or 3 is every bit as capable of doing what your talking about as option 2. Here's a reality check. One of the two following scenarios will most likely be the result of option 2.

One...it will eventually lead to a vastly reduced hunting opportunity which will improve buck to doe ratios, but will not improve deer herds. The trophy hunters (backed by SFW) in the state will begin pushing to have higher buck to doe ratios in many of the units and suddenly the vast majority of the state is managed as LE units.

Two...unit A has a low buck to doe ratio so tags will be cut in in that unit. To offset revenue losses those tags will be issued in units B and C which just happen to meet buck to doe ratio requirements and those units buck to do ratios eventually fall below the desired levels. In the end the exact same issue that is currently the complaint of many continues.

And the worst of it all....the deer herds are no better off, but we sure had fun playing the shell game didn't we.

[9er]

Again...this is managing hunters not deer. Over hunting is not the problem. Buck to do ratios are not the problem. This proposal will not address any of the problems plaguing the deer herds nor will help them in the long run in any way. If cutting the tags was the solution then our herds should have rebounded when tags went from 200,000+ to 90,000. They didn't!

Option 1 or 3 is every bit as capable of doing what your talking about as option 2. Here's a reality check. One of the two following scenarios will most likely be the result of option 2.

One...it will eventually lead to a vastly reduced hunting opportunity which will improve buck to doe ratios, but will not improve deer herds. The trophy hunters (backed by SFW) in the state will begin pushing to have higher buck to doe ratios in many of the units and suddenly the vast majority of the state is managed as LE units.

Two...unit A has a low buck to doe ratio so tags will be cut in in that unit. To offset revenue losses those tags will be issued in units B and C which just happen to meet buck to doe ratio requirements and those units buck to do ratios eventually fall below the desired levels. In the end the exact same issue that is currently the complaint of many continues.

And the worst of it all....the deer herds are no better off, but we sure had fun playing the shell game didn't we.

[derekp1999]

I read on the DWR website that if they do pass option #2 it wouldn't go into effect until 2012 while options #1 & 3 would go into effect 2011, is that correct?