RAC meeting report

Just wondering if anyone went to the Northern RAC meeting tonight. If so what was the response / report from the meeting. I wanted to go to tomorrow central meeting but unfortunatly will not be able to attend. I hope someone will be able to give a good report here of how things go.
13,370
MuleyMadness
http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-dwr-deer-hunt-proposal,0,5784796.story

Heard it was 12-0 vote for OPTION #1.

I want change also, but I also feel this is the better option out of the 3 given. Believe more can/should be done but...
0
Default Avatar
ya they did vote for #1. I like #2 but too much work for the dwr lol
0
shmobag
Is this for utah? and what does option 1 entail?
0
MuleyMadness
10-1 vote for Option #1 in the Central is the word on the street. I'll be honest I'm divided on this, none look/sound the best but it's looking like Option #1 is running away with it by a land slide so far. How do the rest of you feel?
0
shmobag
where can i find the info on what their voting in?
0
shmobag
i just found the info in a previous post and also on Utah DWR website. i think theres some good pros to each option. none are the abolute best though. with that i think option 1 is the best we can do with what weve been given. what do the rest of you feel?
0
Default Avatar
"MuleyMadness" wrote:10-1 vote for Option #1 in the Central is the word on the street. I'll be honest I'm divided on this, none look/sound the best but it's looking like Option #1 is running away with it by a land slide so far. How do the rest of you feel?
 I feel like less people will be hunting this coming season and the price of a tag will likley go up this year or next. And I don't see the hunting experience improving noticeably over the next 5 years. IMHO

My boy has been DYING to turn 12 and go hunting. Hardly talks about anything else for the last three years. Will he get a tag now that he's going to be 12? Are there special rules for youth?

I'm going to make a prediction, and I hope I'm not right. I think they will take a region out of play for the 2012 hunt. And if we have a hard winter and the deer herds get hit hard........... argh.
0
one hunting fool
i think that if the DWR where really trying to help deer herds they would hav pushed option 2 a little more. it would give them more controle on over pressure. I think that just like mentioned they are afraid it would be to much work and they would have to do something other than prop their feet up on the dest 6 hours a day and walk back and forth from the bathroom the other 2.
0
stillhunterman
"one hunting fool" wrote:i think that if the DWR where really trying to help deer herds they would hav pushed option 2 a little more. it would give them more controle on over pressure. I think that just like mentioned they are afraid it would be to much work and they would have to do something other than prop their feet up on the dest 6 hours a day and walk back and forth from the bathroom the other 2.
 The DWR has already stated that Option 2 does NOTHING to help the deer herds. And placing blame on the DWR for the current management practices is pretty misplaced. They are completely hamstrung by the Wildlife Board and the special interest groups that pull the WB chains! Every viable BIOLOGICALLY SOUND strataties the DWR put forth to implement have been shot down by the Board and SFW, specifically.
0
swbuckmaster
"stillhunterman" wrote:
one hunting fool wrote:i think that if the DWR where really trying to help deer herds they would hav pushed option 2 a little more. it would give them more controle on over pressure. I think that just like mentioned they are afraid it would be to much work and they would have to do something other than prop their feet up on the dest 6 hours a day and walk back and forth from the bathroom the other 2.
 The DWR has already stated that Option 2 does NOTHING to help the deer herds. And placing blame on the DWR for the current management practices is pretty misplaced. They are completely hamstrung by the Wildlife Board and the special interest groups that pull the WB chains! Every viable BIOLOGICALLY SOUND strataties the DWR put forth to implement have been shot down by the Board and SFW, specifically.
 +100000

Utahs current plan is already micro management.. if there are areas that go under the buck to doe ratios they make them 3 day hunts. if it still goes down they cut tags.. It is only 1 year into a 5 year plan and the SFW/Wildlife stooges are already throwing it overboard and trying to push an agenda that didnt go through the muledeer comities.

NO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP SHOULD HAVE THIS MUCH POWER!!
0
shmobag
so how do we take the power away?
0
swbuckmaster
"shmobag" wrote:so how do we take the power away?
 that is not going to be easy with them stealing our tags and pimping them out.

When people finally see how many years it is going to actually take to draw a LE rifle elk hunt maybe people will start throwing them overboard.

when people see their hunting opportunity going out the window maybe people will start throwing them overboard.

when people actually start going to the muledeer comities and wracs and see what a sham the political circus has turned into maybe they will start throwing them overboard..

you wait and see when all the racs end up with a land slide vote for proposal 1 and the wildlifeboard votes for proposal 2 maybe people will throw them over board..

Until then they will keep getting what they want.

see people still think SFW is a good organization. I used to think they were a good organization. I almost joined!! Im not going to go into a SFW bash fest cause im tired of typing.

I don't have any answers on how to get rid of them if I did I set them out on the curb on trash day.
0
Default Avatar
All this talk about special intrest groups and nobody mentions two to the most powerful in the state. That would be the Utah Bowhunters Assoc and The Utah Bowmens Assoc. Now those groups have some power. They have sided with the DWR for years and got some pretty good results I must say. Extended Seasons, there own little unit to hunt for months, statewide access. Yes sir those boys get it done. It is fun to watch them work a RAC meeting, pleading to justice all the while knowing that lunches and meetings with Anis will pay off in the end. Special intrest groups do get it done in Utah I have to agree! =D> 10sign:
0
Default Avatar
SW,
Who gives the SFW and other special intrest groups the conservation tags? Steal them really? I am almost positive that it is the DWR that gives them the tags? I promise I do not agree with how many they give! I think a few is a good idea and the money they generate is good, but it has gotten out of hand. But to say steal is untrue. The DWR is a state agency, we control them or at least should control them. They are not forced to give them at all!
0
IDHunter
The wildlife board controls everything. Special interest (ie. SFW) controls the wildlife board. I personally am not holding my breath on anything that comes out of the RAC's. The board does not have to vote the way the RAC's do. My prediction...you will see something implemented that's different than the three proposals.
0
stillhunterman
"IDHunter" wrote:The wildlife board controls everything. Special interest (ie. SFW) controls the wildlife board. I personally am not holding my breath on anything that comes out of the RAC's. The board does not have to vote the way the RAC's do. My prediction...you will see something implemented that's different than the three proposals.
I have a hunch you will be right IDHunter. SFW is pushing #2 big time, but they also see the great majority of Utah hunters don't want that. I think they will hybridize it into something that will still push their agenda. This is why we hunters MUST show up in large numbers at the WB meeting! We DO have a voice, and for the first time in a long time it is starting to be heard.
0
dahlmer
I fear regardless of what the RAC's recommend the WB will push through micromanagement...or at least pave the way with something that will make it easier the next time. Unfortunately, the WB is not required to follow the direction of the RAC's and seems to have no accountability to anyone besides SFW. SFW members represent a significant portion of the board.

I'd love to see the DWR force the special interest groups to use the conservation funding on public ground within Utah's general units. Much of the funding seems to directed at the Henry Mtns and private land. I know in some instances that has resulted in greater access to hunters, but if the herds are to improve the focus needs to be turned to general hunt areas that will benefit a larger group of deer.
0
derekp1999
It seems the Wildlife Board is pretty high on option #2 judging from the WB Meeting minutes. If all the RAC Boards are leaning towards option #1 it will be interesting to see what type of "hybrid" they actually put into place. I don't have a problem with either plan, just do something that will help the herd & give us the quality hunting we all want. It's a start, but unfortunately will take a while... a long while. It took 20-30+ years to get to this point, it will most likely take at least that long to get it back.
I am relieved that the WB has put the proposal to change the season dates on the back burner for now. I think changing all the dates so that general deer and elk hunts coincide would result in an insane amount of pressure on the animals. That's a lot of hunters running around the hills all at once. Also, cramming all the limited entry elk hunts into the rut would put an incredible amount of pressure on 'em during the breeding season. Granted I would be the first guy out there to jump at the chance to chase a screaming bull, but if they're looking to improve quality and reduce pressure then putting all the hunts in the rut is definitely not the solution. I'm also a muzzleloader hunter, so to think of sharing the last 4 days of the muzzleloader season with rifle guys would really chap my... especially if I've invested 15+ years to build up points to draw the big time tag.
0
MuleyMadness
From what I understand the vote was in FAVOR of Option #2 last night in the Southern RAC meeting in Beaver. Didn't make it myself, wanted to though.
0
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? :-k
Not much the way I understand it.
0
Default Avatar
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.
0
MuleyMadness
Heard same news on SouthEastern RAC. Not sure if this means much or matters, should be interesting what happens. One more tonight.
0
dahlmer
"Muley_73" wrote: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.
0
Default Avatar
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.
0
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.
0
9er
"dahlmer" wrote: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.
:not-worthy =D> :thumb
0
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?
0