Utah Tag numbers

Here are the numbers the DWR is proposing. Page 5 has the breakdown.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2012-04_packet.pdf

Should be lots of discussion come June when everyone finds out what they have drawn. I'm curious to see if the Wildlife Board will stick with the recommendations from the DWR.

Don't forget that they cut 7000 tags for the 2011 season. 500 may not be 13,000, but we are already over half way there.

Not a bad start however, I don't agree with dropping both the muzzleloader and rifle tags n giving the majority of those tags back into the archery permits. That means more possibility of injured animals not being retrieved and dying on the mountain, if your going to drop the number of tags drop them in all areas, and in my opinion they should shorten the extended archery season I don't agree with hunting deer in their winter ranges. Not to mention the issues with animals being killed right by people's back yards. The buck to doe ratio they proposed seems about right to me.

"dahlmer" wrote:Here are the numbers the DWR is proposing. Page 5 has the breakdown.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2012-04_packet.pdf

Should be lots of discussion come June when everyone finds out what they have drawn. I'm curious to see if the Wildlife Board will stick with the recommendations from the DWR.

Don't forget that they cut 7000 tags for the 2011 season. 500 may not be 13,000, but we are already over half way there.

Nothing has been cut in the Central region. Even with most of the units within the central region being under the buck/ doe ratios, they have propossed to add tags to the estimated hunter afield numbers from 2011. Doesn't really make sense to me. :>/

I just hope they know what they are doing. I don't see that they are changing a whole lot in my neck of the woods. I don't mind seeing more archery tags, overall they kill a lot less deer than rifle hunters.

Jbird +1

I dont have a problem with the archery tags getting more but I do not understand that they have done almost nothing in the old central region to drop tags the buck numbers are way lower than they should be.

I really like how they have allocated a specific # of tags for muzzleloader instead of going from the same pile as any weapon. As a muzzy hunter it gives me a little bit more of an idea how things could work out for me knowing those numbers.
It does seem to me that most (if not all) those numbers are very arbitrary and very little critical thinking truly went into setting those numbers... case in point with the old central region. It seems like there are a couple units that are going to managed, protected, and coddled as "premuim" type units and the rest could be left to struggle.

This falls under the old "If someone can screw it up, the (insert state) Fish and Game Dept. will". To bad we can't get some people in these positions that actually care about the game.

"Uthunter29" wrote: I don't agree with dropping both the muzzleloader and rifle tags n giving the majority of those tags back into the archery permits. That means more possibility of injured animals not being retrieved and dying on the mountain.

Sorry my friend, but more archery tags, doesn't mean there will be more wounded deer on the mountain. Just because you may shoot at a deer with a rifle, you are not guaranteed a clean kill. If I ventured a guess, I would say there are more 'bad shots' taken by rifle hunters than by archery hunters. Unfortunately lots of deer are wounded with all three weapons and never recovered. However, I wouldnt say one side, archery vs rifle, should be held more accountable than the other. :thumb

Archery hunters bring in just as much money for DOW's and dont take nearly the same number of deer. I like the idea of more archery tags. Especially since I prefer the sharpstick.

I don't have a problem with them cutting some tags, I'm all for it if it improves deer counts and makes the hunt a better overall experience. I think Utah's big game (deer) are over hunted in many areas. Not enough deer, to many hunters.

I know not everyone agrees with that, but I do. I believe we issue to many tags for the amount of deer we have. Just my opinion.

I also don't have a problem, matter of fact prefer to increase the buck to doe ratios to see/hunt more bucks and hopefully a few 'bigger/better' bucks.

Times have changed, this is and will never be the 'good ole days' IMO.

The tag cuts last year were needed and a good thing to me, obviously were not cutting the original amount, but I'm okay with that also for now. Lets ride this new 30 units for a few years out and see what happens. It will certainly take some work and be interesting for sure. I'm okay with proposals as a whole, but they need some tweaking and adjusting with time. I just hope the tweaking is every year as need and not wait for disaster at the end before we reevaluate and change.

This issue (mule deer) #'s, decline, etc. needs constant evaluation.

"MuleyMadness" wrote:Lets ride this new 30 units for a few years out and see what happens. It will certainly take some work and be interesting for sure. I'm okay with proposals as a whole, but they need some tweaking and adjusting with time. I just hope the tweaking is every year as need and not wait for disaster at the end before we reevaluate and change.

I hope that things can get dialed in to improve our deer. I'm willing to ride it out...
I posted a while back, in another thread, about a management plan put into place 8 years ago in Pennsylvania. A co-worker commented on the number of P&Y/B&C whitetails coming out of PA this year and it being the result of that plan along with patience to stick with it. I really hope that we have the intuition, education, and patience to stick with a plan (which may require small and frequent "tweakes" initially) and see it through it's course instead of throwing up our arms in disgust & abandoning it when we don't see immediate results. Lasting results will be seen long tern, not immediately. Unfortunately, we live in a world of immediate results... if I'm not mistaken didn't we only make it thru year 2 or 3 of the last "5 year" management plan before we were screaming for something to happen & now we have this "new plan?"

I guess my primary concern and hope now is that it is a good plan and is worth sticking with. I'll just keep my fingers crossed.