utah dwr changes!

Wow from what you have said i don't see anything good that will be coming out of it either that sucks for sure.

Well OX, as you know I am not a Utah resident but here are some possibilities:

(Before I start, ya gotta think about the big picture for a minute. Utah brings in TONS of cash through tags, licenses, etc so I doubt it VERY MUCH that they are making changes on a whim without thinking about the future impacts to the deer and elk herds. Trust me on this, there is study done long before they institute changes)

1) The management hunts are actually a good thing. Might they increase pressure in an area that normally is not used to it? Sure. May it impact those folks with LE tags by making the game a little more jumpy? It might. BUT, the overall health of the herds are the biggest issue/concern.

By allowing folks to weed out those bucks that will never get any bigger than a large forkie or three point, they remove those inferior genes from the gene pool. Folks that draw those tags are not normally going to waste thier hard-earned tag on one of these inferior bucks. By removing them from the herd, it allows the big boys more opportunity to pass along THIER genes, vice these mature bucks that will never be harvested due to thier inability to progress to that "trophy" status that hunters are after.

2) There have been a few studies which lead folks to believe that a young buck or bull that grow nothing but spikes thier first year will never grown those "trophy" racks that folks look for. Young males that grow branched antlers, no matter if they are small branches, tend to produce the much bigger racks as they mature. I am not smart enough to know if this is absolutely true or not...just something to think about.

3) In units that severely restrict the amount of tags, the buck-to-doe ratio can easily get out of hand. When this happens the younger bucks, the weaker bucks, and the inferior bucks take away breeding opportunities from the big boys. Too many lesser bucks sneaking around behind the dominate bucks back and breeding does. Again, this can lead to a downturn in the overall quality of bucks in a unit.

I have not had the opportunity to read up on what the UTAH DNR is doing, what studies they have conducted or contracted out, and what those outcomes are. Therefore, my thoughts above are strictly conjecture at this point. Take em for what they're worth...but I can tell you that management hunts are sometimes a necessary instrument in order to insure the overall health of the herds. Maybe that time has come for these units.

I'm sure that you can find out why they have instituted these changes. I suggest ya see if you can do some reading on it and see what you come up with. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS but a lot of folks start "going off" and complaining without first looking at the facts. Maybe there is something missing that you are not yet aware of.

I AM smart enough to know that money does have at least a BIT to do with it. I am sure that more money will come in by allowing folks to conduct these management hunts. But, if they did that without thinking about the impact they would ultimately be screwin' themselves because the big money is in thier reputation of producing big bucks and bulls. They will do everything to preserve that image...not destroy it.

Take care man. Hopefully these changes turn out for the better and you folks continue to pump out the MONSTER bulls that you are famous for...and the Henrys and Pauns continues to do the same with the Mule deer.

Im not completely up to date with all the changes yet - but with this 3 point or less hunt or whatever they've got going on now im just curious, how many of you think this will turn out to be more of a problem than anything else? I would think in these days a hunt like this its really ineffective unless you can manage to have some sort of guide or what not along with each tag holder. I imagine that, especially with all these big bucks running around, people are going to either get antsy and poach a big buck or they will do like used to happen with the 3 point or better rules back in the day they had here in utah where people were just shooting and leaving bucks if they didnt meet the standard. So someone will shoot a small 4 or something and leave it cause they thought it was a 3X3.

I dunno, definately no facts to go along with this and my thoughts probably arent very reliable on the subject as im pretty inexperienced and nieve with this stuff, im just posting. haha

Unethical folks that fail to identify thier targets before pulling the trigger have absolutely no business carrying a firearm in the field anyway. Those are the kinds of folks that end up shooting other HUNTERS because "They thought it was a deer/elk.'

If the DNR made thier decisions based soley on "the possibility than some idiots would shoot first and check later" then they might as well cancel all hunting seasons. After all, ya can't take a chance that someone might break the law.

"Ya can't let a few bad apples spoil the barrel" I guess is what I am trying to say. Not jumpin' on ya hound_hunter....just posting my thoughts too, my friend.

I WOULD be interested to hear about how the decisions that OX posted came about. But, even then, I am pretty certain that it wasn't a "just because" thing any more than it was soley a "money" decision. I am pretty sure it was done in the best interest of the hunter and the hunted. (See my original post above)

good call hawk, your so smart :thumb

Very well stated points Hawk. I would also like to add that in some of the managed areas available feed is becoming a big issue. For example, on the monroe unit, the elk herd is almost 50% larger than what many of the biologists consider the capacity size. By thinning out these herds, not only is the state eliminating the inferior genes, but they are also allowing the herd to return to its optimal size, thus allowing more feed to the elk and deer that are there. The increased feed will then provide more nutrition for the growing bulls/bucks which means bigger racks. I would much rather have this type of intervention to control herd sizes than the reintroduction of wolves. My family in Idaho and Wyoming have seen the dramatic decrease in deer and elk numbers from the wolves in the last several years. My uncle who lives in Coeur d' Alene even swears that the bull elk have quit bugling in the last few years because it makes them vulnerable to wolves. He can't get them to bugle at all any more. He has been hunting there for decades and it never happened until the wolves came. So, in short, I would rather give hunters the opportunity to thin the herds than the wolves.