SFW does it again

Discussion in 'Utah Flyway Forum' started by BBFlinger, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. feelinducky

    feelinducky New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Extreme Northen Utah
    I've been comming to Utah for the past few years, deer hunting, mostly in CWMU's. I did make the mistake of trying a general tag hunt. Without the CWMU program I think there would be very few deer left. The border of the area I hunt is allways crawling with guys, mostly running around on ATV's, we allways choose the opening of general season for our second trip out, if necessary, cause the deer allways get pushed over the fence by the hunters. Seems to me that some regs. reguarding ATV travel would go further than tag manipulation. But then I live where we seldom get to hunt deer every year. When I am lucky enough to draw a tag, it's allways a good hunt.
     
  2. el gordo

    el gordo Refuge Member

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Location:
    Utah-Zion Curtin
    CWMU is a great deal for the operator. For every tag he puts out for Joe Public he gets 10 he can sell. He lets us (public hunters) have a chance to harvest one of our animals and he gets to sell 10 for $$$$$$$'s.
    Check with some CWMU's. Deer are going for about $5K and elk $15K. That kind of money is where SFW gets their influence.
     
  3. BBFlinger

    BBFlinger Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,691
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Location:
    Odessa, TX
    If Im not mistaken the CWMU goes like this.....10% of the tags go to the public hunter. 10% of the season is set for public hunters (100 day season=10 days for the public hunter) and 100% of the land is suppose to be accessible. In a survey that I did four years ago, I found that about 80% (78.7% to be exact) of the public land hunter feel that they have been cheated out of a fair chase opportunity (one example...3 elk hunter, 1 moose hunter and 10 deer hunters were combined on the same weekend and allowed to hunt only one canyon). Needless to say, I got alot of negative reponses on the subject from CWMU operators. I have yet to be successful on a draw since (just saying).

    I too think it needs some serious work. And yes, THE WILDLIFE BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE. I simply posted the link from DWR's website. But my suggestions about the big game program in charge of the mosquitoes is also true. They have done a lousy job of maintaining the herds unless they are working on the almight elk (for financial reasons only or swapping moose for turkeys and sheep).
     
  4. Pintail Hunter

    Pintail Hunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Location:
    Utah
    Good points Vanilla.

    I would also ask if anyone complaining about the current elk, wild sheep, wild goats and antelope numbers in Utah as opposed to what they were say 20-30 years ago? If not, why not? Should the DWR be credited with success there?

    Yes, the turkey regs are pretty crazy if you ask me but we didn't even have wild turkey's in Utah 20 years ago. Thanks to some motivated hunters and support from the DWR, we have them today. The current regs were highly influenced by the hunting community who strongly supported them.

    The DWR can't control the weather, habitat encroachment, land ownership, habitat quantity or habitat quality. The only thing it can really control is people and it can only do so much there. I would agree that limiting the number of hunters is better in the long run than limiting the number of days but like at the WMA's it seems the motivation is to generate a maximum of hunting opportunities even if it means minimizing hunting quality.

    I don't fault the DWR for the deer herd mess as much as I do mother nature and man's greed to build, build, build and destroy so much of Utah's winter range. You can do all the managing you want but in the end if there is too little food or too much snow for deer to survive, it doesn't matter. Without a serious winter feeding program there is little hope for the Utah deer herd on public land in Northern Utah. IMHO anyway.
     
  5. feelinducky

    feelinducky New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Extreme Northen Utah

    The DWR can't control the weather, habitat encroachment, land ownership, habitat quantity or habitat quality. The only thing it can really control is people and it can only do so much there. I would agree that limiting the number of hunters is better in the long run than limiting the number of days but like at the WMA's it seems the motivation is to generate a maximum of hunting opportunities even if it means minimizing hunting quality.


    I disagree with the habitat quality comment. The division could and should do all it can to improve quality on public lands. Controlled burns, grazing manipulation, protection of riparian areas to name a few. This would involve taking on some powerfull lobby groups, in the end the money side of things usually wins out. Thus leaving the managers the tough choice between access restrictions or hunter number reduction. Hunter number reduction involves a loss of revenue or an increase in fee's, both unpopular. Again, favoring the leave it like it is, and quality tumbles till the inevidable loss of the entire resource looms. There seems to be a loose loose scenario developing across the nation when it comes to public land management. The only way to make it work is close the road to the top of the mountain and enable the hunters willing and or able to climb to the top have it to themselves. Seems cruel for the physically handycapped, and those people should have some consideration, but lazyness seems to be our biggest handycap. IMO
     
  6. BBFlinger

    BBFlinger Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,691
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Location:
    Odessa, TX
    Steve, I agree with the fact that they cannot control weather or encroachment or land ownership. BUT, who can control habitat quantity or quality? DWR stands up against no one. They cave to browse projects on private lands (Randolph area for one). They even have included alittle over 500 acres of public land in a private CWMU in S.Utah. DWR's own biologists assist in getting more grazing rights for private cattlemen in our National Forests primarily in the Northern region especially in the Cache region. And in addition to their lack of enthusiasm for the health of the deer herds, isnt it the DWR that came out and discouraged people from feeding deer only to start feeding them 4 weeks too late. DWR has done some great things (phrag control, Access programs and Urban fisheries), but for the average Joe, we will NEVER have the chance to hunt sheep in the Newfoundland Mountains nor will we ever hunt buffalo in the Henry's or Book Cliffs. We will never get to enjoy the bounties that our monies have supported because the big dollar guys will always have priority when it comes to big game. I dont see anyone paying $15K to hunt a swan.
     
  7. feelinducky

    feelinducky New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Extreme Northen Utah
    The Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) group are the same jacks that opposed fishermen on public stream access last year. Nice, real nice...
    R


    I would suggest that rjfree take a hard look at the amount of money generated by this fine group and what this money has done for all sportsman. I do agree that "conservation" groups should stay out of access issues as does DU and Delta for the most part, it can do nothing but make people upset on one side or the other.
     
  8. Pintail Hunter

    Pintail Hunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Location:
    Utah
    Marty,

    I don't doubt your comments. It's just that since I moved to Utah in 1971 I've been hearing the same complaints about the deer herd.

    When I got here about the only big game that anyone could hunt, be they rich or poor, was deer. Since then the average joe has been given the opportunity to hunt elk, sheep, goats, moose, buffalo and antelope. It may be a "once in a lifetime" hunt but he still has the chance. Additionally, the average joe now has the chance to hunt a place like Deseret Land and Livestock which he didn't before. I drew out there last year for deer and had the best deer hunt of my life. Without the CWMU program I would never have had that chance.

    Would I like better chances? Heck yeah, but have having some chance is better than none.

    The deer herd in Utah has been in tank since the heavy winter in the early 90's followed by a long drought. I don't think it will ever recover on state managed land and the DWR knows it. I don't think the biological dynamics are there. If the political forces aren't either, why kid ourselves?

    As I said before, the choke point IMHO is winter feeding. If a serious winter feeding program were in place every year it might make a difference. Smart CWMU operators (there are a few) know that's the only why to insure a decent deer herd and decent bucks for tag purchasers. I don't expect this to happen anytime soon on state managed lands.

    People pay $15 for a crane tag. They'll pay $15 for Swan tag. Maybe a few less but there will still be enough to buy up all the tags.
     
  9. rjefre

    rjefre Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,018
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    So. Weber
    I would suggest that SFW take the F out of their name and quit pretending that they are representing any interests of the angling public.
    R
     
  10. BBFlinger

    BBFlinger Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,691
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Location:
    Odessa, TX
    Maybe SFW should change their name to SAPH (Sportsmen Against Public Hunting). Don Peay has always believed that public hunters should have to pay thousands of dollars because they do nothing to insure the general health of the wildlife "they" strive to protect and insure. I'll see if I can find the letter he wrote back in 2004 that was convienently removed from their website.
     

Share This Page