Get Better Mule Deer Hunting

[robby denning]

Get Better Mule Deer Hunting

Travis and Robby discuss some changes that could be on the horizon in at least three western states, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming for better mule deer hunting

www.rokslide.com

 

[CorbLand]

Wont be able to make the board meeting this time.

As someone that has been pretty out spoken about the continued tag cuts, this proposal from Utah has me torn. I cant say that I support it but cant say that I dont.

Here is what I like about it.
Its different. Its not just cutting tags. Cutting tags has worked so well that we have had to do basically every year for forty years. It is something that I really do think would help increase the quality and quantity of bucks on the landscape.

Its going to force people out of the units that may go this way. Tags should be easier to draw for those that are willing to take the additional handicap of the weapon regulations.

Here is what I dont like.
I am tired of having to change. I spent a bunch of time getting a scoped muzzleloader put together and a load built for it...only for them to take scopes off muzzleloaders (I supported that change.) I then spent all summer getting a peep sight muzzleloader put together. Now I am going to have to change it all again.

I bought a Leica 2800.com, NightForce and components to reload so I could have a gun capable of longer ranges. Thats a 2000 dollar investment down the shitter.

We regulated trail cams 2 years ago ( I supported that) all in the name of more/bigger bucks. We took scopes off muzzleloaders ( I supported that) all in the name of more/bigger bucks. We haven't given that time to see if it worked.

The "restricted weapons" definition was sold to us last year as "a way to provide more opportunity in the way of additional seasons." (I supported that) Now what is happening is the restricted weapons definition is being used to change our current opportunity.


Here are my long term concerns and purely speculation on my part.
1. If this works and we have an increase in older bucks, where does it stop? History has shown with people that once we reach a certain threshold, they only want more. Lets say that we end up with more 160 class bucks. Are people going to be happy or is it going to be a push for more regulations/cuts so we can have 180s? Then 200s?
2. We do this and it works. Then everyone sees all these bigger bucks but cant kill them. Then the push is to bring back the old (current) weapon regulations so they can kill them. We then get in this cycle of increase regulation to grow bigger bucks, and then roll back so people can kill them. ( I have a controversial theory about what is driving this but it may cause a shitshow of a thread)
3. It works and now people dont want to give up what we have built and the push becomes to turn these units into LE units because the quality is suddenly there. (This has happened in the past)
4. This works. Quality and quantity are increased but people dont want to take advantage of it. Tags arent increased because people think that killing one more buck is going to be the final nail in the coffin. (We have seen this in the past)


In the end, like I said, I am torn. I will not say one way or the other on supporting versus not supporting. The only thing I am going to say on this is...If this works, they better give us the increased opportunity that we are being told this is for. History is not on our side of receiving what we are being sold and this may take the division and the board to go against the loudest mouths.

 

[robby denning]

Wont be able to make the board meeting this time.

As someone that has been pretty out spoken about the continued tag cuts, this proposal from Utah has me torn. I cant say that I support it but cant say that I dont.

Here is what I like about it.
Its different. Its not just cutting tags. Cutting tags has worked so well that we have had to do basically every year for forty years. It is something that I really do think would help increase the quality and quantity of bucks on the landscape.

Its going to force people out of the units that may go this way. Tags should be easier to draw for those that are willing to take the additional handicap of the weapon regulations.

Here is what I dont like.
I am tired of having to change. I spent a bunch of time getting a scoped muzzleloader put together and a load built for it...only for them to take scopes off muzzleloaders (I supported that change.) I then spent all summer getting a peep sight muzzleloader put together. Now I am going to have to change it all again.

I bought a Leica 2800.com, NightForce and components to reload so I could have a gun capable of longer ranges. Thats a 2000 dollar investment down the shitter.

We regulated trail cams 2 years ago ( I supported that) all in the name of more/bigger bucks. We took scopes off muzzleloaders ( I supported that) all in the name of more/bigger bucks. We haven't given that time to see if it worked.

The "restricted weapons" definition was sold to us last year as "a way to provide more opportunity in the way of additional seasons." (I supported that) Now what is happening is the restricted weapons definition is being used to change our current opportunity.


Here are my long term concerns and purely speculation on my part.
1. If this works and we have an increase in older bucks, where does it stop? History has shown with people that once we reach a certain threshold, they only want more. Lets say that we end up with more 160 class bucks. Are people going to be happy or is it going to be a push for more regulations/cuts so we can have 180s? Then 200s?
2. We do this and it works. Then everyone sees all these bigger bucks but cant kill them. Then the push is to bring back the old (current) weapon regulations so they can kill them. We then get in this cycle of increase regulation to grow bigger bucks, and then roll back so people can kill them. ( I have a controversial theory about what is driving this but it may cause a shitshow of a thread)
3. It works and now people dont want to give up what we have built and the push becomes to turn these units into LE units because the quality is suddenly there. (This has happened in the past)
4. This works. Quality and quantity are increased but people dont want to take advantage of it. Tags arent increased because people think that killing one more buck is going to be the final nail in the coffin. (We have seen this in the past)


In the end, like I said, I am torn. I will not say one way or the other on supporting versus not supporting. The only thing I am going to say on this is...If this works, they better give us the increased opportunity that we are being told this is for. History is not on our side of receiving what we are being sold and this may take the division and the board to go against the loudest mouths.

Lots to think about there Corb--thanks for listening and chiming in, always appreciate your insight as a UT resident.

on 4., if we see a quality & quantity increase, I think people will take advantage of it, as long as there's more of them than the crowd that think one buck taken by someone else is one too many. I think it's small but can be vocal.

But that's why we're putting up these discussions so everyone has a chance to make known what they want the future of mule deer to be.

and make sure you give the feedback at the links we provided. They really need to hear this.

 

[CorbLand]

Lots to think about there Corb--thanks for listening and chiming in, always appreciate your insight as a UT resident.

on 4., if we see a quality & quantity increase, I think people will take advantage of it, as long as there's more of them than the crowd that think one buck taken by someone else is one too many. I think it's small but can be vocal.

But that's why we're putting up these discussions so everyone has a chance to make known what they want the future of mule deer to be.

and make sure you give the feedback at the links we provided. They really need to hear this.

There are a lot of other people in this state that you should listen to before me.

I agree with you that that crowd is pretty small but very vocal. My concern is that they have a lot of influence, especially with some of the younger hunters. Back when I dealt with the general public more, you could listen to a couple podcasts and know what the conversations with people would be centered around for the next couple weeks. This wildlife board has definitely "stood up" to that crowd more but we wont have that forever.

That is the rough draft of what will be sent to the wildlife board.

 

[realunlucky]

I always view utah game proposals with a healthy dose of skepticism, but doing the same thing every year and expecting different results has been proven that nothing will change.

Be interesting to see what the board does with the proposals.

Good podcast

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

There are a lot of other people in this state that you should listen to before me.

I agree with you that that crowd is pretty small but very vocal. My concern is that they have a lot of influence, especially with some of the younger hunters. Back when I dealt with the general public more, you could listen to a couple podcasts and know what the conversations with people would be centered around for the next couple weeks. This wildlife board has definitely "stood up" to that crowd more but we wont have that forever.

That is the rough draft of what will be sent to the wildlife board.

You can see everything here- https://wildlife.utah.gov/agendas-materials-minutes.html

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk