Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Utah Flyway Forum' started by BBFlinger, Dec 7, 2009.
HOLY CRAP! You have finally said something I agree with 100%!
Finally me and Paddler can agree on something!
I also think Paddler has a good point. This is weird...I better check the alignment of the stars. Is it 2012 already?
Re: Trespass fees in Canada. They're only illegal in certain provinces - mainly the Prairie Provinces - they're ok in the east. Even where illegal, exchange of money and other "services" takes place on a broad scale between guides/outfitters and landowners to secure hunting privileges and tie up areas.
Silver I?m going to disagree with that comment.
I benefited from the CWMU. I, as a cheap public hunter was able to hunt property I couldn?t even think of hunting, and the CWMU hunts (public) are only for Utah residents. Most of CWMU hunts would be sold at a price most of us are not willing to pay and give the public hunter a very good chance at trophy animals
I had a neighbor, a trophy hunter, he put in for about a dozen trophy hunts a year all across the US, and he researched CWMU?s extensively. In 5 years he drew 3 times, The one hunt he took the biggest bull on the CWMU, the operated had set it up so he could hunt 5 days straight, my neighbor brought in a hunting buddy from Colorado to hunt with him those days to let them hunt on their own
The other hunts he looked exclusively for big 30 plus mulies ,.. They let him hunt the days he wanted,.. Those three hunts were valued over $16,000 and in 5 years.
I do believe that CWMU have too much long of a season and some changes do need to be made, but the opportunity for thre little guy is fantastic.
An actual arguement about a sensative issue and no personal attacks. Wow, I think my mission on propaganda.net is about to an end. Good arguing!
1. SFW had nothing to do with the creation of the CWMU program. SFW and the CWMUs are completely separate.
2. The big game hunting market/industry has changed alot since outfits like United Sportsman and Western Outdoorsman were around. Eliminating the CWMUs wouldn't increase public access. They would simply have to accomodate their paying hunters in a shorter season framework. If anyone believes that eliminating CWMUs means the ranch owner is going to give up an important source of revenue and put an "Open to Public Use" sign on his ranch, they are smoking their own dope. You and I wouldn't have any greater access, unless you married the landowner's daughter.
3. I represented one of the first ranches to become a CWMU. The sheepman/owner thought the only good elk was a dead elk. The CWMU program changed that and now they manage for wildlife that also uses adjacent public land. Everyone has benefited by the change in attitude that produced a change in management that produced more wildlife.
4. The reality is that well over one million acres of private ground is now managed with wildlife as a big consideration. Some manage better for wildlife than others but the end result is that there is an incentive to have more deer, more elk, more moose and more antelope. Many of these animals move on to public ground.
5. The financial benefit helps some ranches stay open and undeveloped. Subdivision for cabin lots is the worst scenario for those of us who love open spaces, wildlife and hunting.
6. The end result is that the general public has a chance of hunting much more land. Frankly, the draw odds are often better than drawing a tag on a public land limited entry area. If you knew the landowner's son and could hunt the ranch and can't now that it's a CWMU, the program isn't so good. For the rest of us who didn't know the landowner, we have far more opportunity at more wildlife.
J Ray you have some good points. I will also say that before the days of CWMU - United Sportsmen and heaven forbid that mention the word Western Outdoorsmen - alot of landowners could have cared less about big game - and they prefered them to be off of their property.
Thank you JRay, tis about time that the missinformed got an education! Well said, very well said! The CWMU I hunt is virtually surrounded by public land with roads everywhere. No doubt in my mind that there would be little or no elk and or deer in the area without the sanctuary offered by proper management. The guys who know how to hunt the surrounding fencelines get nice animals on occation as well. Win, win in my mind. You want quality, there has to be a limit on quantity of participants or a limit placed on access. There is no other way, considering the limited amount of habitat, especially winter range.
I am in no way defending Sportsmen for Big Game Wildlife (aka SFW). Like I said, some things they've helped with have been awesome. Overall, I disagree completely with their mindset that only is concerned about those who can pay to play.
All the things listed about access to private lands before CWMU still had to do with paying for the access. I'm not defending every aspect of the CWMU program. I'm sure there could be some great tweaks done to make it better for the public. Whether that is right or not probably depends on which side of the fence you are sitting....public wanting tags or private land owner wanting $$. I don't have any problem with idea behind the CWMU program. As JRay said, discontinuing the CWMU program would not open lands. It would take opportunities away.
I'll stay off the United Sportsmen topic. I'll take Thumper's mom's advice on that one.