Latest Greatest Muledeer Management Plan

[hal53]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Another thing we need to consider is the WMUs/areas we are talking about. Lots of guys in this thread from the south east corner, several from east central and a sprinkling from the rest of the province. All these areas are different. We already have different rules for different areas, why can't we continue this with more specific areas having different rules. For example 134 has no MD tags and 164 has an antlered draw and no doe tags. More focus on tayloring the hunting pressure to the WMU rather than the zone.

^^^ "like"

[waterfowler1969]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Another thing we need to consider is the WMUs/areas we are talking about. Lots of guys in this thread from the south east corner, several from east central and a sprinkling from the rest of the province. All these areas are different. We already have different rules for different areas, why can't we continue this with more specific areas having different rules. For example 134 has no MD tags and 164 has an antlered draw and no doe tags. More focus on tayloring the hunting pressure to the WMU rather than the zone.

You are right every wmu is different but a proper management plan would work on all of them even though some have been hit harder than others. As it sits right now all zone are affected. Some have way to many tags and other have none when the reality is all zones should be managed the same. the problem is the zones are two big for the bios so nothing truly gets done proper in my eyes. The biggest problem with today is everything is two years behind and SRD has no accountability to any of the decisions. I promise you in the next few weeks they will sure see the light from residents.

[whitetail Junkie]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Another thing we need to consider is the WMUs/areas we are talking about. Lots of guys in this thread from the south east corner, several from east central and a sprinkling from the rest of the province. All these areas are different. We already have different rules for different areas, why can't we continue this with more specific areas having different rules. For example 134 has no MD tags and 164 has an antlered draw and no doe tags. More focus on tayloring the hunting pressure to the WMU rather than the zone.

The Ironic thing is that SOME of the "10" resident tag(2013) Trophy wmu'sI know,...have really good populations of mature muledeer...from wmu 132,134,136,138,140,etc....Aswell the last few years,(except last fall),they only gave out 5 resident mule buck tags in these trophy wmus....which in my opinion,has led to the abundance of deer in these wmu's....

In all reality They could afford to shut down Muledeer& Antelope hunting in alot of wmu's,but it wont happen because of greed...

Dad and I both got out bucks on the 2nd day of the season,took me Priority 7 and dad priority 8....2012/2013

To be honest I have more important things in life right now to be concerned about,besides deer/herbavoures...but In all reality I just really wanted to see the picture of the 460wby fireing in the dark

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

The original Landowner Licence agreement included a 10% cap. It worked just fine. Then the Open Spaces discussions brought about a change in this agreement allowing for an Unlimited Quota as part of the groundwork to get more Landowner licences into the system.



Capping Landowner Licences to 10% is not reducing the number of tags that they have access to. Those licences over the 10% level would be available in the Draw system.


As I understand your last comment, private land should only be hunted by the owner. Non-landowners should only hunt public land and Landowners should not allow anybody to hunt their place except themselves.



BTW, they are not "My" deer or "Your" deer, they are "OUR" deer.

I know you have read all the posts in this thread, go back and look at post 280. You are a pretty smart guy, with good intuition, and you know very well that in the post you quoted me on (289) I neither stated or implied that landowners should not allow anyone to hunt on their land except them selves. All I stated was that were other options beside deeded land to hunt on.

Your posts are usually fairly rational, but not the highlighted one above. I am not really sure why chose to portray me as "that kind of guy" but I can assure you your "understanding" in this case missed the mark by a mile.

With regard to your "our" deer statement, post 280 will cover that as well.

[waterfowler1969]

Anybody have any input on what they would like to see to make things better for all user groups?