Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2024 Proposals with Dustin Wittwer

[HighUintas]

They said the difference in success in removing scopes is 3 or 4% across the state? So we are talking a few less bucks harvested in each unit but increase the margin of error by going back to open sights.

Why does tech need to be restricted? Honest question here as the historical data of success rates hasn't increased that greatly. So what is the basis for recommending the change?

What are we willing to give up to have success plummet and tag numbers to drastically increase? If we make said changes is the way we ethically harvest animals impacted? For an example we could use spears and have tons of more tags. When the average hunter took to the field and just hit animals wherever they could: the image of hunting for the public at-large would not agree that is ethical choice.

I agree those that want to hunt will adapt. No matter the restrictions technology will push the boundaries into the gray areas to give people an advantage over others. Simply because that is where the money is.

I don't really trust the numbers they give (,3-4%) difference. It's not that I think they're deliberately falsifying numbers or skewing data... I just don't think it's accurate. I also do not care that much what the board states their reasons for these proposals are.

My position is simply that tech should be limited in hunting because it does impact success rate. We can't endlessly add more animals to the land to satisfy the public's desire for opportunity.

It would not be any more unethical to require hunters to use a trade bow or open sight rifle. The same idiots would be taking shots they shouldn't be and the same well practiced people would still be making clean kills... But the distance would be shorter. It's not any harder to make a kill shot on an animal with open sights when you adjust the distance appropriately.

 

[CorbLand]

Here is my opinions on the two major things that the DWR is trying.

APR. We know these dont really work. Yes, there are cases that we have noted that they have had a positive effect but overall, it doesnt do what people want. I do not see how going to 4PT or better is going to make any significant changes to the data that we currently have available. We also have an on going study of this in our LE units. I dont know anyone that is shooting two points and I would doubt many three points are getting shot, minus the management hunts. Those units are not over running with deer, nor are they doing that much if any better than the general season units.

Shorten seasons. We also know that these dont have a major effect. Plenty of states have gone to them and there is plenty of data available to be studied. We also have an on going study of this in the early rifles seasons. The success rates are pretty close to the same as the general season rifle tag for the same unit.

I do like the restricted weapon proposals but I am not sure about the no scopes on rifles. I think that rifle season can be a "free for all" as far as technology goes.

Overall, I applaud the division for trying new things and not just cutting tags but this is not what needs to be done.

I hope they take scopes off the muzzleloaders completely. I do think that did not go as intended and really opened a door that was not good. Here is why.

Yes it only increased the success rate 3-4% but I think the thing that people are missing is that we had roughly a 30% success rate before hand. So 3% is a 10% increase in success. We are killing 10% more deer than we previously were and 10% more deer dying is significant.

If the division came out and said that they were going to cut 400 deer tags, everyone would jump for joy that the division is finally saving some deer. The division comes out and says if you limit yourselves we can save 400 deer and well, that 400 deer isnt significant enough. People need to make up their minds.

Everyone talks about how scopes allow us to make more ethical shots, yet the division found no difference in wounding loss so that is a mute point. Ethics is a combination of many different things, not just how effectively and quickly we kill the animal. If it was solely based on that, we would only have rifle seasons and 50BMGs would be issued along with the tag.

We hear a lot about kids and how allowing scopes makes them want to hunt. Plenty of kids got into hunting without half the technology that we have today. We heard this same thing with trail cameras...did we actually see a decrease in youth apps? Did we see an increase in youth apps for the muzzleloader season after scopes were allowed? I reached out to the division but havent heard back but I already know the answer. I am going to call it the way I see it. Stop standing on your kids back and using them as an excuse for what you want.

Edit to add. The concept of "if you dont like it, dont do it" does not work with public resources. The tragedy of the commons is a really thing.

 

[Elkangle]

I would like to know how many animals "get away" after the weapons restrictions take affect.. should be required to report "misses" and wounded animals so we can have some data

Maybe it's not more but I very much suspect it would be more substantial statistic then the 3% saved from removing scopes

I believe this is people thinking a little too much