Utah Wildlife Forum banner
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
Hey goofy,

Do you offer private big game application consulting? It might be a good way to make some money on the side.

I took some time to try to figure out the best states to apply for, and... let's just say I'm more confused than when I started. I should have it with a little more time, but I can see why there is a market for services like Cabela's TAGS or Huntin' Fool. The fact that I don't have much money to spend on apps does make it easier to define my options, though.

(Oh, and feel free to send me a pm with any hints you can spare on where I should be applying. :mrgreen: )
For building points in other states you need a hunting fund or enough cash to cover the permits while some states hold onto your money until they send it back.

Colorado is one of these states that wants the money up front and then if you want a point (which you would need if you ever intend to draw in some units) there is a small fee of $50.00 I believe.

Then there is Arizona but the problem there is that you need to purchase a hunting license for around $156 I think then for a point the fee is $7.50. I have been doing this for quite a few years but then I also go down there for the dove and javelina hunts. This year I should have enough points for a great coues deer unit which I am going to apply for. Arizona also does bonus points instead of preference points. But they do give you a point after applying for 3 or 4 years and you can get another point if you take their hunter safety course.

Wyoming isn't too bad for just collecting points while you decide on where you want to hunt.
 
Discussion starter · #63 ·
Hey, I figured I might as well brag a little.;-)
My buck I killed this year was featured on Monster Muleys and their facebook page.
I hope one of my pictures can make the finals in their photo contest and possibly I could get a few forum friends to throw a vote my way.
Then I can see how much love/hate I receive.:mrgreen:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID30/2885.html#.Vo88IcJIhQk
 
Discussion starter · #65 ·
The "Ego" is the most destructive thing on this planet ........
I agree that an "Ego" used in the wrong way can be a problem.
Jealously can be very destructive too.
I think that many people confuse a persons strong drive and passion for something, as having an "Ego" problem, when they're actually two different things.
 
Good short vid Ridgetop.

I haven't read all this thread, or the other "art of" threads. These types of things are not why I visit a hunting forum (actually, I only checked in to see if Lone Tree was posting anything about the freak cougar from ID). Honestly, it's the misbehavior of so many posts, like the recent spat of them, that has kept me from visiting this particular forum for over three months now.

I wish we, as a society, taught basic emotional intelligence in school or homes. We teach math. We teach cooking. We teach sex ed. We teach a variety of things that humans can function in life without being taught, and can pick up from experience. But we wholly ignore teaching about emotions and interpersonal relations - something everyone needs to get along in life - at least if they want to have a successful marriage, friendship, employment, etc. Its a lot harder to pick up experientially than other basic life functions.

What I see, when I read someone's post attacking another, is an insecure and emotionally constipated "child" (emotionally, just a child, even if legally and physically an adult) lashing out simply to quell their own insecurity. Nothing but a mild outburst of an inferiority complex. Its sad. And when I'm not caught up in my own knee-jerk reactions to jerk behaviors, I pity them.

When anyone attacks another person (be it on a forum or a sarcastic or curt response to a spouse), that action says far more about the attacker than it does about the other person, or the particulars of any situation. It speaks to their internal fears, their internal instability, their selfishness.

All you haters on here, try this at home to better understand the point . . . next time your wife is being a B and snotty, demanding, cajoling, or critical, stop and recognize her behavior is about how she is feeling at that moment. It is not about anything you did, even if you were an A immediately prior. See her in the light as someone struggling and insecure, and lashing out in childish ways because of it. And treat her according to that perspective, like a scared and hurt child desperately lashing out in an inappropriate attempt to get what they need - love and acceptance. You will be amazed at the outcome. And you will begin to see the tip of the iceberg of the principal of why we humans act in such childish ways as to put down others. You will being to see a far larger world of why you act like a prick to your wife, and others.

And if you haters aren't sensitive or emotionally intelligent enough to try the above experiment, at least have enough common sense to quit showing the world your inner insecurity by the way you tear down others.
 
We need to have a new thread called the art of white knighting for those heroic warriors who come to the aid of anyone on the receiving end of some "hater's" (I hate that word. It sounds like something a 13 year old who wears their pants too low and also uses words like "swag" and "yolo" would say) wrath.
 
Discussion starter · #68 ·
We need to have a new thread called the art of white knighting for those heroic warriors who come to the aid of anyone on the receiving end of some "hater's" (I hate that word. It sounds like something a 13 year old who wears their pants too low and also uses words like "swag" and "yolo" would say) wrath.
I agree that the word "hate" seems a little too harsh but the message seemed to have a lot of truth behind it.
Also, you'll never catch me in one of those flat brimmed hats!:grin:
 
Geez Charina, at least we finally quit knife fighting. As Americans, fierce debate, sharp tongues, and hurt feelings seem to be in our heritage. While there should be moderation, a little feisty exchange now and then can invigorate the spirit.

Check out what I did here.....

Original history:
The proposal did not stop the bitter opposition and fierce debate. Some delegates began to leave in protest, and a sense of gloom settled over the statehouse. “It seems,” Sherman said, “that we have got to a point that we cannot move one way or another.” Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton (who was away) that the crisis was so bad that he almost despaired of seeing a favorable outcome.

Modern history:
The passage of option 2 did not stop the bitter opposition and fierce debate. Some forum members asked to have their profiles removed in protest, and a state of gloom settled over the forum. "It seems," Goob said, "that we have got to a point that we cannot move one way or another." Huge29 wrote to Bax (who was hanging out over on The Gutpile) that the crisis was so bad that he almost despaired of seeing a favorable outcome.


Its in our heritage, it's in our genes.-------SS
 
Discussion starter · #71 ·
I read about ridges big deer this year several times all I could think was how hardcore he was. I thought "that guy must be 7 feet tall". That was until I met him in person. :D j/k for ya ridge I'm funny.

.
You have to admit, after seeing that I'm almost 7' wide.
I get around pretty well.
 
Haha ya you do. After watching you and mike, I forget the other guys name (the spotter) climb that mountain sheep hunting. I thought me and my bro were **** wise to hang back at the truck and glass that day. :D You guys looked like mountain climbers not sheep hunters. I did learn that those two things go hand in hand with a bighorn tag.
 
As the perceived spokesman for UWC (even when I'm not), I've often been labeled or called a "hater" (along with "greedy", a "threat", an "attacker", "stupid", an "idiot", and a few names I can't print on this public forum) simply because I wouldn't agree to or go along with or endorse an idea or proposal. And it usually happens when the idea or proposal isn't sound enough to stand on its own merits and the proponent feels he/she has to resort to other measures to make their case.

Does this tactic work? Not on me, but unfortunately, far too often with the public because there are too many bystanders unwilling to speak up for fear of the labels. I certainly have my faults, but I don't fear those labels because I know I'm none of those things. I wish for you the same outlook.

Edited: FWIW, the passage of Option 2 was only a favorable outcome for the few at the expense of the many. IMHO, of course. (There I go, hating again!)
 
Discussion starter · #75 ·
As the perceived spokesman for UWC (even when I'm not), I've often been labeled or called a "hater" (along with "greedy", a "threat", an "attacker", "stupid", an "idiot", and a few names I can't print on this public forum) simply because I wouldn't agree to or go along with or endorse an idea or proposal. And it usually happens when the idea or proposal isn't sound enough to stand on its own merits and the proponent feels he/she has to resort to other measures to make their case.

Does this tactic work? Not on me, but unfortunately, far too often with the public because there are too many bystanders unwilling to speak up for fear of the labels. I certainly have my faults, but I don't fear those labels because I know I'm none of those things. I wish for you the same outlook.

Edited: FWIW, the passage of Option 2 was only a favorable outcome for the few at the expense of the many. IMHO, of course. (There I go, hating again!)
It was the all the "hate" from many of the UWC supporters on this site that pushed me out the door.
In the early years, I had and still have a good relationship with Ty, Perry, Kelly, Kris, Wes and Jeremy, to name a few.
The new board members, not so much.
When all the SFW and Option 2 haters started coming out of the woodwork and had no compromise in mind.
Well, that's when I had to back away.
I guess your idea of "a few", as in 10's of thousands people supporting option 2, that's enough to make it a worth while cause to me.
Ask all those people who hunted those struggling units with very low buck/doe ratios and are now seeing twice as many or more buck. Now that option 2 was able to cut back on hunters afield and the buck harvest within those units.
Those units were very close to becoming LE units, if the buck/doe ratios were to fall any lower.
Which would have been a far more terrible thing to happen than the passing of option 2. JMHO
 
Discussion starter · #77 ·
Reduced hunters afield? Sounds limited to me.
We were already limited before within each region.
All option 2 does, is make sure the hunting pressure in each region was spread out more evenly within its sub units.
When I say LE, I mean Vernon, Oak Creek or Book Cliffs type of LE. Going from a sub unit with a couple thousand general season tags, to a unit with a few hundred LE tags.
That, I was fully against.
 
When all the SFW and Option 2 haters started coming out of the woodwork and had no compromise in mind.
Well, that's when I had to back away.
I guess your idea of "a few", as in 10's of thousands people supporting option 2, that's enough to make it a worth while cause to me.
Ask all those people who hunted those struggling units with very low buck/doe ratios and are now seeing twice as many or more buck. . JMHO
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
It was the all the "hate" from many of the UWC supporters on this site that pushed me out the door.
In the early years, I had and still have a good relationship with Ty, Perry, Kelly, Kris, Wes and Jeremy, to name a few.
The new board members, not so much.
When all the SFW and Option 2 haters started coming out of the woodwork and had no compromise in mind.
Well, that's when I had to back away.
I guess your idea of "a few", as in 10's of thousands people supporting option 2, that's enough to make it a worth while cause to me.
Ask all those people who hunted those struggling units with very low buck/doe ratios and are now seeing twice as many or more buck. Now that option 2 was able to cut back on hunters afield and the buck harvest within those units.
Those units were very close to becoming LE units, if the buck/doe ratios were to fall any lower.
Which would have been a far more terrible thing to happen than the passing of option 2. JMHO
I don't know what you define as "hate", but if some of our members offended you with inappropriate language or insults, I'm sorry, but you know that's not what UWC is about as you indicated when you mentioned your ongoing relationships with some of our past board members. And FWIW, Kris, Tye and Kelly (and Jason Lowe) are still board members, while Jeremy recently resigned only because he felt he could no longer devote the time to UWC that he would like to. He has a young family to raise. Perry resigned earlier because of personal and family reasons. And I'm sorry that I don't know Wes. As for the new members, it's true that two of them are not so soft spoken (Shawn and Gordy), but they both are men who love hunting, fishing and viewing wildlife and don't like what's happening to the lose of opportunities available to the majority of Utah sportsmen and they aren't afraid to say so. But neither of them post much anymore. As for the third new board member (Dale), you have never met him nor have you ever heard from him. He's a family man that has hunting and fishing further down his list of priorities, but sees what we see and prefers to advise us on a personal more business-like level. He doesn't even read social media, let alone post on it.

As far as "haters" coming out of the woodwork, have you ever wondered why they were in the woodwork in the first place and why they stayed there so long and why they finally came out when UWC appeared? We're often accused of dividing hunters, but the truth is they were divided long before we came on the scene. Some just never spoke up because they could see no avenue to do that. We gave many of them that avenue.

Who had no compromise in mind? Where's the compromise between having a 5 Region hunting system and a 30 unit hunting system? And who was insisting on the change until they finally got it? And who demanded that the archers go to the 30 unit system instead of remaining statewide because it wasn't "fair". And who finally got that one too with ONE vote? And then there were the increased buck to doe (BtoD) ratios which would reduce the number of tags. On that one UWC was the group that made a proposal with numbers for specific units. And we did compromise on those numbers. We even proposed to cut tags in units that were below their newly designated BtoD ratios as long as DWR was willing to increase tags in units that were above their BtoD ratios. Of course, we see how that's working out. Simply raising the BtoD ratio objective on a unit and keeping the buck tag numbers low is much more preferred by some than increasing buck tags to bring it back down to its objective.

Yes, 10's of thousands is a lot of people, except maybe when you compare that number to the 150,000+ deer applicants. Then it becomes about 15%-20%.

The only units with "very low" buck to doe ratios were Tintic (9), West Desert West (9), Yellowstone(14), Vernal/Bonanza(12), Manti/San Rafael(13) and Monroe(12). And we proposed tag cuts on those as I stated above. If the DWR (or SFW or MDF or ?) had proposed to make them LE, we would have fought that as much as you would have. In fact, just so you know, DeLoss Christensen, the one who came up with Option 2, proposed on the Mule Deer Committee, that we have an LE area in EVERY general unit just like Oak Creek, Vernon and Elk Ridge. Wouldn't that be fun? It didn't pass of course. So then he tried to get us to go back to 72 deer management units like we had in the 50's/60's/70's in order to increase the number of LE units percentagewise. That didn't pass either.

Well, I think I'm done with this thread. Bottom line, UWC will oppose any efforts to reduce hunting opportunities for purely social reasons. If you choose to call that hating then so be it. It'll eat at you more than it will us. We know better.
 
Discussion starter · #80 ·
The only units with "very low" buck to doe ratios were Tintic (9), West Desert West (9), Yellowstone(14), Vernal/Bonanza(12), Manti/San Rafael(13) and Monroe(12). And we proposed tag cuts on those as I stated above. If the DWR (or SFW or MDF or ?) had proposed to make them LE, we would have fought that as much as you would have. In fact, just so you know, DeLoss Christensen, the one who came up with Option 2, proposed on the Mule Deer Committee, that we have an LE area in EVERY general unit just like Oak Creek, Vernon and Elk Ridge. Wouldn't that be fun? It didn't pass of course. So then he tried to get us to go back to 72 deer management units like we had in the 50's/60's/70's in order to increase the number of LE units percentagewise. That didn't pass either.

Well, I think I'm done with this thread. Bottom line, UWC will oppose any efforts to reduce hunting opportunities for purely social reasons. If you choose to call that hating then so be it. It'll eat at you more than it will us. We know better.
You missed a couple other low buck/doe ratio units like Nebo and Oquirrh/Stansburys.
Anyway, not sure how Option2 or UWC got brought up again. It wasn't my intent.
About the OP, I was just talking about people perceptions concerning different hunters and there trophies taken and what people say about them on social media.
 
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top