Dec. rifle hunts

[Snapshot]

I am putting in for unit 27 mule deer this year.

[mountaingoat08]

you know where ill be putting in at

what are you thinking?

[1stcoues75]

I'm still trying to decide on whether to put 27 or 23 for my first choice. Leaning on 23 right now since its a little closer to home..

[galiuro mountain man]

I have not rifle hunted deer in 16 years, but I am going to put in for one of these hunts. If I get drawn, I will put a deer down with the new rifle I am building, and then probably go back to strictly bowhunting. For me it is not a big deal if I am drawn or not, I have only bowhunted for deer since I was in high school, but it would be nice to get a chance at a monster that I dont have to be 40 yards from.

[1stcoues75]

Well good luck to you in the draw. I hope you get tag to try out that rifle you are building. Pretty cool strictly hunting with a bow for so long.

[Flatlander]

Hopefully if you have been bowhunting you have been stockpiling points for this type of occassion.

[donniedent]

Dropping mule deer tags doesn't effect the deer herds as much as people would hope. With the relatively low success rate, dropping tags by 100 in most units only saves 15-20 bucks. Compair that to nearly $4200.00 the dept would lose and it doesn't seem worth it. They dropped mule deer tags by something like 1500 this year I think. If you average say 20 percent success across the state, they are saving 300 deer and losing $63,000.00 in revenue. Puts a little different perspective on dropping tag numbers huh?

 

I like the dec hunt plan. It will bring much needed attention down off the strip and kiabab. It will also hopefully take some of the bonus point pressure from up there. Guides will do better because of the dec hunts as well.

 

The hunt success on these dec hunts will be interesting to see as well. I think it will be in the 90's in 7, 23, and 27. 17a and b might be lower. Next year I would like to see them add 20a, 10, 6a, 16a and one of the desert unit in the 30's. I also wouldn't mind if they raised tag prices on these hunts.

[Snapshot]

Dropping mule deer tags doesn't effect the deer herds as much as people would hope. With the relatively low success rate, dropping tags by 100 in most units only saves 15-20 bucks. Compair that to nearly $4200.00 the dept would lose and it doesn't seem worth it. They dropped mule deer tags by something like 1500 this year I think. If you average say 20 percent success across the state, they are saving 300 deer and losing $63,000.00 in revenue. Puts a little different perspective on dropping tag numbers huh?

 

I like the dec hunt plan. It will bring much needed attention down off the strip and kiabab. It will also hopefully take some of the bonus point pressure from up there. Guides will do better because of the dec hunts as well.

 

The hunt success on these dec hunts will be interesting to see as well. I think it will be in the 90's in 7, 23, and 27. 17a and b might be lower. Next year I would like to see them add 20a, 10, 6a, 16a and one of the desert unit in the 30's. I also wouldn't mind if they raised tag prices on these hunts.

 

 

The simple solution is to raise the tag prices. Let the hunters squawk about it. It will be benificial in the long run.

[1stcoues75]

There is more to sustaining a healthy deer herd than cuttings tags and raising costs. Predation and poaching hurt more than anything else

[sagebrush]

Agreed, cutting tags doesn't help the health of the herd at all. A buck to doe ratio of 20:100 is more than sufficient to be sure all available does are bred. Things that effect herd health are:

1. Condition of the browse. Too old and it doesn't provide the proper nutrition to promote successful breeding and fawn recruitment. Replacement of good browse by non-browse species such as pinyon pine and juniper.

2. Availability of bedding and escape habitat.

3. Water

4. Predation

5. Non-regulated take (poaching, vehicular)

All five of those issues can be addressed by a properly motivated, directed and funded organization comprised of G&F, critter groups, and sportsmen and women. The critter groups need to identify the local projects, G&F to provide resources, interagency coordination and oversight and the sportsmen to provide labor, material donations and additional money. A revenue change from the increase or decrease in tags is really quite small in the grand scheme of things and shouldn't enter into the equation in my opinion. If G&F needs more money, there are many ways to solve that problem and big game tags should not be part of it.

 

I'm happy to see G&F is willing to try different strategies even if I don't necessarily agree with what they implement.