Get Better Mule Deer Hunting

[Jake Larsen]

The only reason it was even entertained was pandering to a minor, vocal crowd.

I would place a good chunk of change that the division didnt want to do it but was caught in a "how do you just flat out right say no" problem.

Glad it was shutdown. If they would have moved forward with allowing the youth exemption, the next time it got brought up, the proponents would have pointed to that and said "it wasnt a real study." There is and was no way to just put it to bed. It will be proposed again in my lifetime.

Agree. Lots of good comments. Not sure why APR just won’t die.

Lots of good discussion in general, much of it echos what we’ve discussed on here. I hope this inspires other states to do some thinking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

@CorbLand How are you feeling about the new changes now that it’s been a few days since the meeting? Do you think the weapons restricted units will be in high demand? Will you be pursuing those units?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

@CorbLand How are you feeling about the new changes now that it’s been a few days since the meeting? Do you think the weapons restricted units will be in high demand? Will you be pursuing those units?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feelings are about the same as before. Don’t love it. Don’t hate it.

Really wish they would have left muzzleloaders alone or not made it so you had a have a fully exposed ignition source. Lots of people have CVAs and could have converted them to NW models for 50 bucks if they wouldn’t have made it fully exposed. Taking scopes off last year was a major step to bringing them back to 200 yard guns. I don’t think any of the restrictions are going to limit them more.

I think they will be in higher demand in a few years. Let them start producing more and bigger bucks. People will flock to them. It’s also Utah, we will figure out how to make open sights work to 400 yards.

Archery tags are going to be hard to draw for some of these units in the next couple years.

One of the units is my backyard so yea, I will apply for it. Have dedicated in one for the next two years. I am not a big traveler. My family lives 2 hours away and I don’t even like driving that.

Like I said in the beginning.
First concern is that this will work and people won’t want to “give up what we have built” so more tags won’t be issued. Basically, we will give up our weapons and get no more opportunity.
Second concern is that this will work but people can’t kill deer. They complain and we roll back the restrictions to allow people to kill all the big deer. Basically we get in a cycle of add restrictions to grow bigger deer and then roll the back so people can kill them.
Third concern is that people are going to go spend money to get everything set up for these units and then in three years they will go back to how they were. Gets kind of tiring to meet new requirements every year.

Time will tell. Glad to see Utah try something new. Just think there could have been some tweaks that could have made it financially easier on people.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Really wish they would have left muzzleloaders alone or not made it so you had a have a fully exposed ignition source. Lots of people have CVAs and could have converted them to NW models for 50 bucks if they wouldn’t have made it fully exposed. Taking scopes off last year was a major step to bringing them back to 200 yard guns. I don’t think any of the restrictions are going to limit them more.

I’m actually very curious about this as well, when they were discussing this weapon type, the sentiment was as I remember to allow North West Model muzzleloaders as they have an exposed ignition source.

Reading “fully exposed” was not how I remember it, I’m going to try and get some clarification on that wording.

 

[CorbLand]

I’m actually very curious about this as well, when they were discussing this weapon type, the sentiment was as I remember to allow North West Model muzzleloaders as they have an exposed ignition source.

Reading “fully exposed” was not how I remember it, I’m going to try and get some clarification on that wording.

I was going to reach out to the division in a month or so if they didn’t clarify.

Based on the documents from the board meeting, it reads fully visible not fully exposed, that was my mistake. I thought I saw somewhere that it was fully exposed.

I hope that NW conversions qualify.

 

[HighUintas]

Here's my take on this issue (albeit possibly insane)

- keep tag numbers the same. Only allow primitive weapons across all hunts for 5 years as experiment. For firearms, let's make it exposed cap or flint ignition. Solid lead or lead alloy only. Open rifle sights only, no long range peep. (Basically reducing ethical effective range to 150-200)
- no hunts during prime rut time. No late season hunts in areas with heavy snow or severe temps where hunts would stress animals
- winter habitat is being consumed at an alarming rate. Build/dig snake pits for any winter range landowner that attempts to sell to a developer, as well as the developers themselves. BIG snake pits. LOTS of snakes.
- use that rejuva stuff in a massive scale to get rid of cheatgrass. The evidence looks like it works well.
- kill and eat all feral horses

 

[Travis Hobbs]

I was going to reach out to the division in a month or so if they didn’t clarify.

Based on the documents from the board meeting, it reads fully visible not fully exposed, that was my mistake. I thought I saw somewhere that it was fully exposed.

I hope that NW conversions qualify.

I think they are going to have to clean up the language of “entirely visible” as I think one could argue CVA’s NW breech plug would in fact make cap entirely visible. Idaho I think uses the word “exposed”

Kind of subjective I think.

 

[CorbLand]

I think they are going to have to clean up the language of “entirely visible” as I think one could argue CVA’s NW breech plug would in fact make cap entirely visible. Idaho I think uses the word “exposed”

Kind of subjective I think.

View attachment 807375

View attachment 807376

Idaho states the following


You only have to have the primer partially exposed.

With the NW conversion, you can only see a portion of the primer through the hole. Once you close the breach, that is the only way to see it. I dont know that what the hole provides would meet the "entirely visible" definition (without further explanation/directive from the division).

Who makes the bottom picture? I havent ever seen one like that but that would solve the problem and I would agree that it would make the primer fully visible.

I agree that they are going to have to clarify. I dont want to leave it up to how the fish cop feels that day.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

That’s where my head is^^^ I agree with you

CVA is the breech plug with holes….

Traditions is the one etched out….

I believe knight is somewhat similar

 

[CorbLand]

That’s where my head is^^^ I agree with you

CVA is the breech plug with holes….

Traditions is the one etched out….

I believe knight is somewhat similar

I wonder if someone could machine a CVA NW plug to match the cut out from the Traditions one.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

I wonder if someone could machine a CVA NW plug to match the cut out from the Traditions one.

Great question. I’m pretty handy with a dremel, drill and sawsall

 

[CorbLand]

Great question. I’m pretty handy with a dremel, drill and sawsall

If it requires more than baling twine, its above my abilities.

I have a buddy that works for a machine shop. Already told him to go talk to his boss.

Hopefully the verdict comes back with NW would meet the requirements though. Truly seems like the most logical solution and should meet the spirit/intent of the rule but who knows.

 

[HighUintas]

Someone in that podcast mentioned that they were surprised to see how few comments there are from hunters on the proposed changes.

What do you think the cause could be? After discovering the process, I found it to be extremely easy.

In my opinion, I think it's a combination of this happening during the big game hunting season and most people not being aware of the process of making changes and how easy it is to get involved. It's not even very time consuming.

I've only been hunting in Utah since 2019 and the hardest part for me was actually knowing that there is a process that happens every year, knowing where to go to find that information, and knowing that I can participate easily. They really need to move their wildlife board and RAC agenda/notes/etc to a page other than the "contact" page. It took me FOREVER to find it the first time.

 

[CorbLand]

Someone in that podcast mentioned that they were surprised to see how few comments there are from hunters on the proposed changes.

What do you think the cause could be? After discovering the process, I found it to be extremely easy.

In my opinion, I think it's a combination of this happening during the big game hunting season and most people not being aware of the process of making changes and how easy it is to get involved. It's not even very time consuming.

I've only been hunting in Utah since 2019 and the hardest part for me was actually knowing that there is a process that happens every year, knowing where to go to find that information, and knowing that I can participate easily. They really need to move their wildlife board and RAC agenda/notes/etc to a page other than the "contact" page. It took me FOREVER to find it the first time.

There are definitely things that could be done to make it so more people could be involved and one would be making it easier to find.

With that said, I dont really think more people would get involved. People are people and its far easier to complain at the bar, church, podcast or on a forum than it is to actually stand up for something.

I have been to half a dozen board meetings by myself. My vehicle seats five. Offered those seats to many people I know. Not a single one has come but many of them have all the answers to what will save hunting. The most common complaint is that they hold them during the week...yet most of those that I have offered to take can manage to get a day off a year to go to the Expo on a Thursday.

I am probably a little cynical when it comes to this but I really dont see people getting more involved no matter what you do or do for them. Go back to the trail camera meeting. People had two chances to show up to that one, and there was ~150 people the second time.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Someone in that podcast mentioned that they were surprised to see how few comments there are from hunters on the proposed changes.

What do you think the cause could be? After discovering the process, I found it to be extremely easy.

In my opinion, I think it's a combination of this happening during the big game hunting season and most people not being aware of the process of making changes and how easy it is to get involved. It's not even very time consuming.

I've only been hunting in Utah since 2019 and the hardest part for me was actually knowing that there is a process that happens every year, knowing where to go to find that information, and knowing that I can participate easily. They really need to move their wildlife board and RAC agenda/notes/etc to a page other than the "contact" page. It took me FOREVER to find it the first time.

I think most states are doing a pretty good job reaching out via social media, their web pages, etc.

It’s super easy to get involved, yet most hunters will spend their time complaining on social media or just complain to their buddies getting no where.

I’ve been to community meetings and literally been the ONLY sportman in the room

I think some hunters just want to change things instantly as well, like show up at one meeting, suggest something and they don’t do it so they leave upset.

A lot of these processes take years, or multiple meetings.

I do think showing up in person is a lot more important than sending an online, anonymous comment, yet guys won’t even do that.

I have to admit, as a young guy in my early 20’s I did a lot of complaining, bitching and finally told myself, I have to get involved. My eyes were opened. Lots of moving pieces, but it’s been something I have made a point to get involved in.

 

[LONE HUNTER]

I think there are more than people realize and that many of the people themselves don’t realize that they don’t actually like it.

You even see it with once in a lifetime or hard to draw tags. I know guys that have spent 18-27 years applying for tags and their whole goal in the hunt is to get it over as soon as possible.

Yep. See it a lot. Hunting in general is NOT comfortable. It isn't easy even on limited hunts. So many dudes say they like hunting but they really don't. They like killing.

I've been going up to Idaho now since 2017. Hunting the general rifle deer hunt. I remember hearing Robbie say how hard Idaho general can be a while back. And he is 100% right if you're hunting for a nice buck. Even after that terrible winter of 2022-2023 I went back and hunted the unit I like which is one of the harder hit units......... I saw exactly 4 deer in 5 days of hunting and one was a 2 point which got a pass. I tried to get a tag to go again this year but alas I got like 4 millionth in line so I ended up with a tag in an unknown unit.

My point is, dudes that like to hunt will hunt even when it's hard. I have killed mature 5.5 year old bucks in straight up piss stomped over hunted units...... because I LIKE to hunt. I don't need it to be easy. Nor want it to be.

The constant tag cut people want the easy button. They want to hike for a day and a half and shoot a 4 year old buck....... It's ridiculous in the age we live in.

My only gripe about the weapon restrictions is it's going to make people have to yet again buy another widget to hunt with. That shit does get old.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

I was going to reach out to the division in a month or so if they didn’t clarify.

Based on the documents from the board meeting, it reads fully visible not fully exposed, that was my mistake. I thought I saw somewhere that it was fully exposed.

I hope that NW conversions qualify.

A little update- it seems something got changed between when this weapons definition first went through the RAC process and current rendition. I have reached out and it sounds like the UDWR is working on clarification.

This was out it was worded in RAC process two years ago in regards to muzzleloader-



Currently it is worded as follows-




A big difference from “portion of” to “entirely visible”

 

[CorbLand]

A little update- it seems something got changed between when this weapons definition first went through the RAC process and current rendition. I have reached out and it sounds like the UDWR is working on clarification.

This was out it was worded in RAC process two years ago in regards to muzzleloader-
View attachment 808015
View attachment 808016

Currently it is worded as follows-


View attachment 808017

A big difference from “portion of” to “entirely visible”

You the man, Hobbs. Thank you for this.

A very very very big difference between the two. I actually thought about this when I first saw and should have reached out to someone that was going to a RAC meeting to bring it up.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

You the man, Hobbs. Thank you for this.

A very very very big difference between the two. I actually thought about this when I first saw and should have reached out to someone that was going to a RAC meeting to bring it up.

I feel bad as I told a few people, even mentioned it on a podcast that Utah rules would be very similar to Idaho regs, when I read the current rendition I was like woah what happened here.

I think allowing the NW style muzzleloader is a good move as many hunters would be able to convert their current muzzy to be legal. And the fact that they are readily available for a couple hundred bucks.

 

[CorbLand]

I feel bad as I told a few people, even mentioned it on a podcast that Utah rules would be very similar to Idaho regs, when I read the current rendition I was like woah what happened here.

I think allowing the NW style muzzleloader is a good move as many hunters would be able to convert their current muzzy to be legal. And the fact that they are readily available for a couple hundred bucks.

Fingers crossed that the clarification brings it back to the first one.

This is where the spirit of the law and the letter of the law are going to have to come into play.