Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Musket Man, the law states 5%, where they come from is not necessarily spread evenly across the board. One thing that is most often confused is the fact that landowner tags are in the mix as well. For example, if I remember right, the paunsagunt has 14 or so landowner tags that can be auctioned. There are more landowner tags than conservation tags, but many people think these are all from the draw tags. I believe the landowners association for the Pahvant gets 4 or 5 landowner elk tags that are auctioned as well. Not all auction tags are conservation tags that come from the draw. If you have the exact numbers of which unit you say over half are auction tags I would be interested to see them, I have not seen that large of a number on any unit, but I could be wrong. As it stands, the argument that draw odds will get so much better if the tags were back in the draw, does not hold much water when the math is done. In the past when I have run the numbers most units would see an increase of .5-1% in draw odds if the tags were put back into the draw.

    Landowner tags are separate discussion in my book. I agree with some landowner tags to help in showing the landowners the value of having wildlife on their property as this can often benefit the area around the private land as well, at least in my experience. If landowners see no value in wildlife and consider them a nuisance, I'm afraid we will continue down the path of ranchettes and subdivisions.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    colfax, wa
    Posts
    4,916
    Thanks
    1,117
    Thanked 573 Times in 502 Posts
    Congratulations
    26
    Congratulated 5 Times in 5 Posts
    It might be 5% of total tags. All Im saying is all the auction tags are for premium units and the % of tags auctioned from those units is alot more then 5%. I dont keep up on Utah all that much and dont even apply there because drawing odds in the top units are so low. I have hunted a ML deer unit there that can be drawn every year or 2 and hope to go hunt there again some year. From what I do know it seems UT has sold out alot of tags to SFW and big money and I dont like seeing hunting turn into a rich mans sport although I think it already has in alot of ways.
    Keystone 1, Over!

    " I am lost in the dust of the chase that my life brings"

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shedhead View Post
    I chose to join SFW and be an active member because they get many things done, period. So does MDF and RMEF. The thing I find quite amusing is the complete biased opinions that many people on the internet have against SFW because of what they have read on the internet and not from what they have personally experienced. Is SFW perfect, nope. Do I agree with all they do, nope. Don't agree with all MDF and RMEF do either, doesn't stop me from supporting them. I choose to be part of SFW to have my voice heard. SFW's stance on issues is run through the committee of each chapter and then through the chapter chair's in the fulfillment committee, not just the top 3 or 4 guys calling the shots, I know this because I have been part of it. Like I said before, all these groups do great things for wildlife, I may not agree with all of it, but I sure as hell agree with making something happen and not just sitting on a keyboard whining about it all.

    Do I agree with the conservation tag program in Utah, yep, I think it is great program. I don't think auction tags are bad, because of the money generated for the F&G departments. That being said, I believe the number of auction tags in Utah should be cut back from where it is now. I believe it is slated to have 5% of tags be in the conservation tag program, so as the tag numbers have increased, so have the number of auction tags. I feel the 5% should be reduced, not because of the dream that some people have that draw odds will magically get better, wont happen, but because it would put more tags in the normal hunters hands. Simple supply and demand can show that if the number of tags is cut back, the price would go up, therefore the DWR could still receive the same amount of money for projects.
    Can you tell us a few of the things SFW has done for us regular hunters?

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I will recap a few things off the top of my head. There are numerous habitat projects that have been completed, the list can be seen on the SFW website so I wont try to list them. Recently, SFW has chosen to make a large effort in bringing back an increased pheasant population. In the past two years, thousands of birds have been released each fall prior to the hunts. In reviewing old data from the DWR, it was found that the DWR had a regular practice of releasing thousands of birds each year in the state of Utah. SFW chose to bring this effort back and release these birds on WMA's and public land around the state the past two hunting seasons that are open to anyone and everyone.

    Also, SFW has funded a Mule Deer Translocation study with BYU professors to study the effectiveness of relocating mule deer. This has never been very successful in the past and some great information has been gleaned so far. As of the latest update, 70% of the translocated deer are still alive, a great improvement from the past, but certainly not prefect. Why does this matter? because some areas in the state are actually over carrying capacity and the deer either need to be killed or moved. The urban deer problems are one example. A number of deer were removed from Bountiful last year and relocated to other areas in the state in continuation of the relocation study. Deer were also relocated off of Antelope Island as well. The biologists for the island estimate that the herd there is a couple hundred over objective, take that for what it is worth. And yes, these deer were released on public lands in general units.

    In addition, SFW has funded a recent moose study for the declining moose population, replantings on the Parowan front and also in Smithfield, and funding for predator control in continuation of the mule deer initiative (this one I don't completely agree with myself). Again, this is what I pull off the top of my head and not all that has happened this year, just what I remember at the moment.

    Musket Man, the 5% is of the overall LE tag numbers and not 5% from each hunt if I remember correctly. You reference SFW and no one else when referring to selling out and selling auction tags, SFW is one of 6 or 7 organizations that sell these tags, so it is not something that only happens with SFW. MDF, RMEF, FNAWS, NWTF, BOU, UBA all sell tags and all are bound to give back 90% of the sales. I don't really care if anyone chooses to support anyone of these organizations or all of them, that is a personal choice you get to make. I believe all of them are doing far more good than harm, if you disagree that is certainly your right.

    Okielite, have you had a chance to hunt in Utah? if so what has been your experience?

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    2
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Shedhead, I don't personally know anything about SFW... But I applaud you and anyone else who actively participates in pro-wildlife activities. I tend to think most organizations has some self-serving purpose... But agree they are likely doing far more greater good.

    I have more issue with the number of landowner tags given out than the number of auction tags. At least with auction tags most of the money goes back to general interest. I have limited, albeit first hand, experience with landowner tags. Absolutely no interest from those who get the tags to do anything for wildlife on their lands... But all too happy to pocket the money from selling the tags each year. I know this isn't the case across the board - but I would be interested in seeing the number of auction tags given out compared to transferable landowner tags.
    Brave Rifles & Toujours Pret!

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Pointshunter, you actually bring up a good point. You are right that the money from landowner tags goes to the landowner and not to the F&G. I will say that I have bought one landowner tag in my life for Colorado deer to be able to hunt a unit with my dad a couple years ago. I don't agree with the move that Colorado made to increase the % of landowner tags that I believe goes into effect next year. I do believe landowner tags, when handled correctly can help to get landowners to see the value of wildlife on their lands. This is not always the case, and the programs could use some changes in most states, but I would rather see a landowner sell a few tags make some money than see them sell out to a developer. On one hand it sucks to see the money go to the landowner and not to the F&G for use for wildlife, but on the other, it is nice to not see property sold off for houses. One thing I have noticed recently, is that it seems some landowners are more than willing to call in depredation problems and want the F&G to come kill animals. I feel this is a waste when hunters can step in and get that opportunity. Some states do use hunters in these situations, but not all

    Unfortunately money talks these days and it takes a lot of money to get things done. When you look at the costs of many habitat projects, it requires a lot of cash to make large scale projects happen. It sucks that this is reality, but we can all sit around and complain that everything is broken, or put our heads together and find better ways of getting things done. I'm always interested in having these discussions with the hope that as ideas are shared, better ways of helping wildlife might be found. As it stands, projects cost money, period.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dolores, Colorado
    Posts
    2,479
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 376 Times in 288 Posts
    Congratulations
    4
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    I know a lot of landowners here in the SW part of the state. I really don't think that the argument about the money making the difference between breaking up/selling the land for development holds a lot of water for me. The thing that I really have a problem with is that it just reinforces the adage that" the land is mine and everything on is too...including the game animals". I hear it all the time, maybe not in these exact words, but the same message is there. The outfitters get lots of these tags too. IMHO it is just patently unfair to the states hunters (who pay the bills of Colorado State Parks & Wildlife), both residents and nonresidents that the State Game Commission is increasing the tags that are set aside for landowners.
    Colorado Cowboy
    Cowboy Action Shooter; Endowment Life Member-NRA
    The Original Rocket Scientist-Retired
    "My Father always considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church going."
    Aldous Huxley

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Colorado Cowboy For This Useful Post:


  9. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shedhead View Post
    I will recap a few things off the top of my head. There are numerous habitat projects that have been completed, the list can be seen on the SFW website so I wont try to list them. Recently, SFW has chosen to make a large effort in bringing back an increased pheasant population. In the past two years, thousands of birds have been released each fall prior to the hunts. In reviewing old data from the DWR, it was found that the DWR had a regular practice of releasing thousands of birds each year in the state of Utah. SFW chose to bring this effort back and release these birds on WMA's and public land around the state the past two hunting seasons that are open to anyone and everyone.

    Also, SFW has funded a Mule Deer Translocation study with BYU professors to study the effectiveness of relocating mule deer. This has never been very successful in the past and some great information has been gleaned so far. As of the latest update, 70% of the translocated deer are still alive, a great improvement from the past, but certainly not prefect. Why does this matter? because some areas in the state are actually over carrying capacity and the deer either need to be killed or moved. The urban deer problems are one example. A number of deer were removed from Bountiful last year and relocated to other areas in the state in continuation of the relocation study. Deer were also relocated off of Antelope Island as well. The biologists for the island estimate that the herd there is a couple hundred over objective, take that for what it is worth. And yes, these deer were released on public lands in general units.

    In addition, SFW has funded a recent moose study for the declining moose population, replantings on the Parowan front and also in Smithfield, and funding for predator control in continuation of the mule deer initiative (this one I don't completely agree with myself). Again, this is what I pull off the top of my head and not all that has happened this year, just what I remember at the moment.

    Musket Man, the 5% is of the overall LE tag numbers and not 5% from each hunt if I remember correctly. You reference SFW and no one else when referring to selling out and selling auction tags, SFW is one of 6 or 7 organizations that sell these tags, so it is not something that only happens with SFW. MDF, RMEF, FNAWS, NWTF, BOU, UBA all sell tags and all are bound to give back 90% of the sales. I don't really care if anyone chooses to support anyone of these organizations or all of them, that is a personal choice you get to make. I believe all of them are doing far more good than harm, if you disagree that is certainly your right.

    Okielite, have you had a chance to hunt in Utah? if so what has been your experience?
    No hunting in Utah for me. I prefer to hunt in Wyoming and occasionally get to MT but do most of my hunting closer to home.

    It is difficult to keep all the different organizations straight as it seems so many have political or other agendas that in some cases don't favor the average hunter who draws NR tags. SFW seems to have a lot of negative information written about them and be somewhat controversial but I have no first hand knowledge either way. That is why I asked you.

  10. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    colfax, wa
    Posts
    4,916
    Thanks
    1,117
    Thanked 573 Times in 502 Posts
    Congratulations
    26
    Congratulated 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado Cowboy View Post
    I know a lot of landowners here in the SW part of the state. I really don't think that the argument about the money making the difference between breaking up/selling the land for development holds a lot of water for me. The thing that I really have a problem with is that it just reinforces the adage that" the land is mine and everything on is too...including the game animals". I hear it all the time, maybe not in these exact words, but the same message is there. The outfitters get lots of these tags too. IMHO it is just patently unfair to the states hunters (who pay the bills of Colorado State Parks & Wildlife), both residents and nonresidents that the State Game Commission is increasing the tags that are set aside for landowners.
    I have no problem with LO tags but IMHO LO tags should be good only on the land that LO ownes. LO tags are a good incentive for LO's to support game on their land but with the price of alot of them and the tag being good for the whole unit just makes it so if you have money you can hunt anywhere any time you want to.
    Keystone 1, Over!

    " I am lost in the dust of the chase that my life brings"

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Musket Man For This Useful Post:


  12. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Posts
    444
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 98 Times in 74 Posts
    Congratulations
    2
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Musket Man View Post
    I have no problem with LO tags but IMHO LO tags should be good only on the land that LO ownes. LO tags are a good incentive for LO's to support game on their land but with the price of alot of them and the tag being good for the whole unit just makes it so if you have money you can hunt anywhere any time you want to.
    Exactly! Public land tags should be publicly drawn and Landowner tags on Landowner property only.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Alabama For This Useful Post:


 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •