you have got to be kidding me

swbuckmaster

Long Time Member
Messages
5,004
looks like SFW and the wildlife board did it again

we get to kill more spikes and less big bulls. Dont big bulls come from little bulls or am I missing something?

this proposal should also fix the bonus point butt plug. NOT!


http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/newsflash/42-utah-wildlife-news/227-proposed-elk-hunting-changes.html


4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Nets are for fish!!
 
YEA HOWDY........I HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE RATIONAL BEHIND HAVING A SPIKE ONLY ELK HUNT ???? SOME ONE IN THE KNOW PLEASE EXPLAIN IT TO ME/US. SEEMS IT WILL CUT DOWN ON THE BIG BULLS/ MOST STATES DONT HAVE A SPIKE ELK HUNT .......4 PT. OR BETTER...OK..... (I COULD LEARN SOMETHING).....THX....YD.
 
The best part is where they say it will be discussed at the RAC meetings.

I'm not sure why they even have RAC meetings other than to tic people off. Seems like most of the time people give their input and the RAC votes, then the Wildlife Board goes against everyone and does their own thing anyway. Not all that useful.



respect my authorita
 
If you tards are happy with this then great Ill get in line but I would bet 90% of you that are educated on this topic will disagree with the divisions/wildlife/SFW proposal.

only a tard would love to see big bulls in Utah where you can never hunt them unless you purchase the tag.
 
Once again the UDWR proposes changes that go against the average hunter's wishes. I am an avid elk hunter, Utah resident, and I know dozens of Utah elk hunters. Not one of them would like to have more spike elk hunting in this state. I don't know the details of how they conducted their survey, but the results definitely do not represent the average hunter. Killing more spikes is going to be disastrous to the LE herds. I hope you all will take the time to at least email RAC members, if not go to the RAC meetings. It's probably a lost cause, but if we do nothing they will probably continue to think they are saving Utah's elk hunting, when in fact they are tearing it down.

Nocked N Loaded
 
I agree with increasing the age objective on some of the units but increasing spike tags doesn't make sense to me... Why not reduce the spike tags and give more Limited Entry tags because the spikes that would have been shot would grow up to be big bulls? Not rocket science...

Workman Predator Calls Field Staff
 
I dont see under our current management direction we have any options but to hunt spikes. We have way to high of bull to cow ratios on almost all of our units, but if you give more tags, you have to give more rifle tags because of the whole percent thing. Giving more rifle tags in the rut will wipe out all the mature bulls lowering the age objectives and reducing the quality. So the only option is to get them while they are young, thus not effecting the quality just the quantity of bulls.

It would make way to much since to give more archery tags reducing the number of people with points, while only yeilding a 30% success rate of much younger age class bulls thus keeping quality high, reducing bull to cow ratios and providing more oportunity.

It does look like the elk committee is starting to push in that direction though so there is hope, but until then we need to kill spikes!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-10 AT 01:41PM (MST)[p]I'm not a big fan of spike hunting either. However, the "more opportunity" folks are just as loud and passionate about being able to hunt elk every year-- big or small. The elk committee has tried really hard to increase quality and opportunity by dividing up the tags so that more tags went to archery and muzzy and less to rifle. Much more opportunity for archery a little less for rifle and hopefully bigger bulls on some units. The hunting public is very divided on how this should go. Hopefully everyone gets a little of what they want-- but no one is going to get everything they want. The DWR doesn't like alot of what the elk committee came up with, but they put most of it in the proposal that will be going to the RACs.
 
A question for you nebo, why doesn't the DWR offer their own proposal and let the elk committee make a separate one?
 
I do not agree with it at all- but I undersatnd the thinking behind it all.
Utah needs to kill more bulls- but if they issue more big bull tags the quality will fall. They do not want that. So they shoot spikes.
The committee believes that the average hunter wants to shoot big bulls. By big I mean 340+ bulls. You can not have monster bulls running around year after year, if you shoot the cream of the crop every year.
The logic is there, I think?
 
Well sw,
I hate to say 'I told you so' but I did & many times during the last few years.
But all any of you wanted was the 'oppotunity'
Well you've got opportunity now,just call these 'Dinks' that'll be harvested 'coulda been big Bulls'
Funny how it has to slap some of you right up side the head before you can see the light!
 
I would rather see them kill spikes then double the amount of big bull tags and ruin what we have. But then again I am speaking, sitting on double digit points so when I draw I want a chance at a big boy without 5000 tags on the unit. after I draw my archery tag this year they can do what they want :)
 
YukonDall, it totaly depends on genitics and above normal moisture(snowfall, rain) that can be had in any given unit earlier in the year, I know here in NM there are some hunting seasons that its a miricle to see spikes for any of the hunts, usually we see these normal season spikes turn into glorified spikes 2x2,3x3,4x4 and most years because of genitics we end up with these glorified spikes mainly 4x4's, so I think it depends on the area and genitics, what ever the case don't let Utah turn into what Oregon has done with their quality by hunting spikes! nmbighorn
 
I'd like to see the management hunt come back, but done so in a way that makes it more effective in managing the herd the way it is intended (weeding out bad genetics). It needs to be early, well before the rut so you know if you are looking at a true management bull or a trophy that has been busted up from rutting. I also think it should be a primative weapon hunt. You could really create some opportunity to harvest "bigger" bulls, water down the point system,
save some of the young bulls with great potential, keep the bull/cow ratios in check, and maintain a high age objective. With the lower success rates of using primative weapons, they could give out a good number of tags, raise revenue, and take out some of the less desirable bulls. This, like the deer management hunt, could be a great youth, elderly, and special needs opportunity.
 
I've never seen the thrill in shoooting a baby elk just because it has a couple o' spikes stickin out of it's head... Like shooting a spike deer, it's LAME...

Why does anybody hunt "Spike-Only" Units anyway? I can't think of a dumber animal to hunt (Okay, maybe a doe tag is dumber)
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-08-10
>AT 01:41?PM (MST)

>
>I'm not a big fan of
>spike hunting either. However, the
>"more opportunity" folks are just
>as loud and passionate about
>being able to hunt elk
>every year-- big or small.


If these opportunity folks want opportunity make them use their points for spikes. Or make it so they cant get a bonus point.


4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Nets are for fish!!
 
BrowningRage thanks for the constructive comments!! People hunt spikes and does because some people dont only care about a big racks, its about spending time in the outdoors with friends and family and having an opourtunity to fill the freezer while helping with wildlife\herd management.

Your comment about spikes and does being dumb and your only concern being antler size, shows your complete lack of respect for wildlife.
 
"Utah needs to kill more bulls- but if they issue more big bull tags the quality will fall."

Killing mature Bulls kills the herd genetics?..... Terry
 
BrowningRage, It's called being passionate about hunting. Being able to hunt in your back yard and having fun with family and friends. Some people actually enjoy the meat also. Sounds like your out of touch with what hunting should be about.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-10 AT 10:42AM (MST)[p]id rather the quality drop a bit and get to hunt mature bulls every few years than hunt spikes every year!
 
I agree, from my experience, the quality is already starting to fall for some trophy units. Looks like SW Desert is going to be reduced to a lower quality hunt now as well from the amount of tags being issued.

I don't mind spike hunts if the unit elk numbers can handle them. Just have the trophy hunts and the spike hunts on different dates. Nothing is worse than finally drawing that coveted trophy elk tag and having all the spike hunters/deer hunters ruin where you scouted all summer to hunt.

Put the spike hunts in October when the trophy hunts are all pretty much over. Try something that Colorado does, four point or better general hunting units, four or five different seasons to spread out the hunters in field, etc. It is not that hard to manage hunts and animal numbers.
 
I feed my family every year with spike meat and I enjoy seeing big bulls and knowing they are safe for another year. I had a big bull tag last year and got a really nice bull. I would like to see other hunters have the same chance. Having said all that I think a healthy herd of elk has to have plenty of cows and calves every year so I would rather them have a spike hunt and kill less cows. For example if you have a herd of 100 elk with 25 bulls and 75 cows you you should get a lot more calves than if the herd was 50 bulls and 50 cows right. If half of those calves are bull calves aren't you still going to end up with plenty of bulls to replace the bigger bulls killed that year? And there are a number of yearling bulls that aren't legal because they are 2 or 3 points. So why is killing more big bulls going to help our elk herds? I live in an area that has had a spike hunt for a long time and before they started giving out way to many big bull tags we had plenty of 350+ bulls running around now we mostly have raghorns. Even if they increase primitive weapon tags that have a lower success rate that doesn't account for all the bulls that get hit and never found. And how many bow hunters say I am going to just shoot a 300 bull because I have a bow tag, I know of just as many bow hunters that have killed big bulls as other hunters, and I hear of multiple every year that say I hit one but just couldn't find him. I guess it does get people out of the bonus point pool but I still don't see how it helps our elk herds. Just my opinion so don't be mad at me if you don't agree, but I don't mind hunting spikes at all and it has been a great source of meat for my family.
 
As long as the majority of the tags are issued to rifle hunters in September/November we will keep having these same issues. Harvest age objectives being raised/lowered will have a much smaller impact on keeping the quality than season dates and permit allotments.

Killing spikes is like harvesting a crop two months early, sure you get a crop, but not what you would get if you let it grow/mature. When it's all said and done, harvesting yearling males takes opportunity away in the long run. I would much rather see management tags to cull out some of the 'inferior' bulls and be more liberal with primitive weapon permits to prune the crop for maximum harvest.
 
Hoytme,

You are right on most of it however harvesting spikes does not take away oportunity to hunt and kill an elk, it takes away the opourtunity to harvest the bull as a branch antlered bull.

As far as the management hunts go, its a great concept but unfortunatly it is not and rarley if ever is it successfull in public land hunting. Guys end up shooting a genetically perfect young bull because its a 5-point, or they beat the system by shooting a broken bull.

The only way to effectivly do it is to give more archery tags, but its a hard concept to sell when the majority of hunters in this state are rifle hunters.

So appluad the steps that are being taken this year to increase archery tags in a few units, continue to prove that archery can be a tool to take younger age class bulls and elliminate some of the point pool delima, leaving the majority of the top end bulls for the rifle guys that are willing to wait 15 to 20 years for a tag.

Until they can proove to the average hunter this works and increase archery tags significantly statewide we have to continue to hunt spikes.
 
There has been alot of talk about raising the average age on some units, and that got me thinking. Killing spikes means there are less younger bulls, which means higher average age. Wow, now that makes sense. (Sarcasim intented)
 
MORE archery tags and less rifle tags on the LE units would increase quality and age class and it would help draw odds on rifle units! THE SOONER everyone buys in and figures this out the better!!!!


Jason Yates
Basin Archery Shop
http://www.basinarcheryshop.com
5% OFF to all MonsterMuleys.com Members!!!
Discount code = monstermuleys
 
>MORE archery tags and less rifle
>tags on the LE units
>would increase quality and age
>class and it would help
>draw odds on rifle units!
>THE SOONER everyone buys in
>and figures this out the
>better!!!!

Finally a post of yours I agree with. :D
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-10 AT 10:29PM (MST)[p]Here we go again full circle from last year. WAFJ!! not going to stop this circus from coming to town ..
 
>As far as the management hunts
>go, its a great concept
>but unfortunatly it is not
>and rarley if ever is
>it successfull in public land
>hunting. Guys end up
>shooting a genetically perfect young
>bull because its a 5-point,
>or they beat the system
>by shooting a broken bull.
>

Who cares if they shoot a young 5 point bull. They used their points and they didn't kill a gay spike. If they would have killed the spike it would have never grown into a 5 point bull.

the management hunt could have been earlier so there wouldn't be any broken bulls to shoot at.
 
I agree with some of the post about archery, I would much rather see the DWR double the archery tags on all units instead of giving more spike tags. They can even give a few more late season rifle tags in some units to give more opportunity. Giving these tags instead of more spike tags seems more reasonable to me, then again like others have stated more people will got through the system giving those that want to hunt early rifle better odds and over all better odds for everyone without killing all the bigger bulls.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-10 AT 09:50AM (MST)[p]Killing spikes now could mean smaller bulls later. Let me explain. Most bulls given time will never be a 380 or 400 inch bull. With that being said killing them as spikes doesn't allow them to pass on their genes to their offspring. Maybe a potential 400 inch bull survives the spike hunt, not gonna happen very often. Just some food for thought
 
In the area I hunt I would say that nearly half of the yearling bulls I see are 2X2 or better there first year, It would make sense to me that these are the stonger genitic bulls then the spikes anyways. Could a spike become a 380 or 400 bull ya definatly, but does one that starts off as a 2 or 3 or 4 point stand a better chance I think so.
 
AZ stickman-

"Utah needs to kill more bulls- but if they issue more big bull tags the quality will fall."
Killing mature Bulls kills the herd genetics?..... Terry

Not at all, I think you missed my point- how much cream can you take off the top, and still expect the quality to stay high? The way its set up now, with the majority of the tags issued are rifle tags in the rut. We are targeting the top end bulls.
If the people want good quality- the division had no choice, but to cut tags.
 
As long as Utah issues the majority of the LE elk tags to rifle hunters during the rut.. AND wants to maintain great Quality, Opportunity will be extremely limited for the average guy to hunt any kind of mature bull! It is too bad we dont look at AZ or NM for some kind of a model to go by.
 
Unfortunately one of the best things Utah could do will most likely never happen. Less rifle tags and different dates with more primitive tags. But sadly the "public" doesnt see it that way and so we may never see this happen.
 
I think closing down a unit a year and rotating it would be a good thing as far as spike hunt goes so now those bulls that was spikes are bigger and less spike are killed every other year so now you have some bulls that will be repleacing those top bulls that are targeted each year.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
Cream of the crop? Seems like a selective harvest for the bottom of the barrel. The bulls who sport 2 or more points that are not legal are the ones that become giant bulls. Go hunt Colorado's massive bulls since they protect all the spikes. Wait there really aren't anything but poor genetic short point bulls..

Please tell me there are no whiners about spike tags on here that buy spike tags? Yes you probably do because you want the oppourtunity. Maybe it is a chance to take your kids and introduce them to elk hunting. While a lucky few can take everyone they know on a hunt of a lifetime.

Now, take 2 minutes or longer if you need to start to look big picture. Then post something besides a complaint that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
>
>
>Unfortunately one of the best things
>Utah could do will most
>likely never happen. Less rifle
>tags and different dates with
>more primitive tags. But sadly
>the "public" doesnt see it
>that way and so we
>may never see this happen.
>


I agree 100%
 
Some of you guys look way to far into things. It's pretty simple to me, here's how the equation works:

More spike tags = more money.

TADA!!! Make's you wonder how I got a C in algebra huh?
 
>Dont big bulls come from little
>bulls or am I missing something?

I haven't seen any actual field data from elk, but I have seen it for whitetails, and based on that, you are definitely missing something - data!

In Texas, extensive research on genetics has proven that culling spike deer from a herd will dramatically increase the trophy potential of that herd. Can a spike grow up to be a B&C monster? Absolutely, but the odds are overwhelmingly against that. By culling the spikes, you're playing the odds. A vast majority of them will never amount to anything impressive.

This theory has been proven time and time again in the high fence ranches of Texas, where it is very easy to track genetics. The reason you see all the South Texas monsters on TV is that the herd managers are very diligent in their practices, and culling spikes is one of those practices.

If you want to improve the genetics of your herd, culling spikes is an excellent way to do so...
 
From Scott's link:
"Studies repeatedly have shown that whitetail bucks do not reach maturity until four years of age, and by the time the bucks in our study had reached 41⁄2, there was no significant difference in any of the antler measurements, no matter what the buck started out with his first year. The antlers were just as wide, just as heavy and had just as many points. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in gross B&C score."

This is also the SAME case for elk. Except elk take another 2-3 years to reach maturity.
 
every time I read one of these types of posts I thank my lucky stars I don't hunt Utah or anywhere near it....I actually started trying to build my points a few years ago but luckily I came to my senses. What a circus.
 
>we're glad you don't hunt here
>either...

don't kid yourself, the people who don't hunt there because of the circus still don't increase your odds enough to make a difference :7
 
Elk antler formation is different that that of whitetail deer. Virtually all bull elk will have spike antlers their first year, regardless of genetics, nutrition, etc.
 
Just a few points I'd like to touch on here.

If spike hunting is so bad for the herd, why are the Boulder mtns, and the Beaver mtns ranked in the top 3-4 units in the state for quality of big bulls? They have had spike hunts for 15 years or more I believe. What gives?



It is true that bulls with superior antler genetics will sport more than a single spike the first year of antler growth. The only exception would be on years with poor feed conditions. High fence elk operations will always take a branch antlered "spiker" over a single antlered "spiker". Bulls that sport multiple points the first year will typically grow larger antlers, at a younger age too. Many of them reaching 400" gross at 4 years old.

Just some food for thought. I don't want to hear the high fence B.S. right here either. I just put that in for reference because it is documented.


DeerBeDead
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-10 AT 12:05PM (MST)[p]Deerbedead
since you brought it up. why dont you look at how many big bull permits the dutton gives out compared to the boulder. I already know the answer so I wont be looking it up but it is three times as many big bull tags. This is opportunity! this loosens the bonus point butt plugg. this moves people through the system. I guarantee you if the division made it so you had to use your points for spikes or you don't gain any points if you purchase a spike tag there would be very few spike tags issued.

Also if you issue the spike tags and the bulls are killed you will have less chance of a big bull making it past the first year to become a big bull. this is why 4A schools kick the dog crap out of 1A schools in football basket ball. They have a larger pool to select from.

also read this article it goes against what you are saying.
http://www.petersenshunting.com/node/2366

you don't know the big bulls potential in a wild herd because you don't know his pedigree. So you wont know how big a bull will get until he is mature. FACTS or food for thought

4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Nets are for fish!!
 
SW,
You do have a point with the tag numbers on the Dutton versus the Boulder.

On the whitetail article, I'm not sure if whitetail studies are accurate for elk. I guess that could be debated. I was going along with this article pretty well until I read the part that says this: "genetics is the least important of all the factors leading to the production of quality bucks." I guess the term "quality" may not mean "trophy" or high scoring to a biologist. It may mean "better than average, or better than 131" in that case.

That statement shakes my faith in the article a little bit. I think maybe genetics is the "least controllable factor" but not the least important factor. Again, a very debatable subject.



Back to the argument about spike hunting. I don't necessarily condone spike hunting. It's hunting, and I like to hunt. I'd rather hunt big bucks and bulls, so just be assured I'm not trying to advocate spike hunting as a cure to anything. I merely posed a question, and for the most part you answered it with the numbers of bull tags on the Dutton and the Boulder.


Obviously I don't know the answer to what ails the DWR, and the deer and elk hunting in this state. I guess I'll leave that up to the more knowledgeable and biologically in tune "powers that be"

Over and out,
DeerBeDead
 
>SAB do yourself a favor and
>educate yourself on the subject.
>
>
>Reading this short article on a
>ten year study in the
>state of Texas on spike
>deer should give you a
>start.
>
>http://www.petersenshunting.com/node/2366

swbuckmaster - Never assume someone's not educated on a subject just because their opinion differs from yours. Would you like some evidence to back up my statement? In the link below, you can see racks from 4.5 year old deer:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwil...esearch/antler_characteristics_and_body_mass/

The ones on the left were 6 pointers or more as yearlings, the ones in the middle were 3-5 pointers as yearlings, and the ones on the right were spikes as yearlings. Pretty dramatic difference, huh? That study took nutrition out of the equation, which is something that the Kroll/Koerth study did not do.

The Kroll/Koerth study makes the claim that because previous studies were performed on penned deer, the results are tainted. Quite the contrary. Those studies were performed on penned deer in order to control variables. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that controlling variables is key to getting good data. By feeding all the deer the same diet, and by isolating them, the previous studies were able to completely isolate how much genetics affect antler growth. In the wild, there are so many variables at play, it's not possible to isolate the influence of genetics! For this reason, Kroll/Koerth make a very weak argument regarding genetics in their study.

Here's another landmark study you may want to read (an oldy-but-goody):

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0155.pdf

Basically, studies on penned deer have concluded that spike yearlings contribute to a poor genetic base, but they don't conclude that all spikes will stay spikes. When we cull spikes from our herds, we are culling the bucks MOST LIKELY to contribute to a poorer quality gene pool. This is not to say that some nice future bucks don't get culled accidentally. All it says is that by culling spikes, the statistics show that your herd genetics WILL improve. If you do not cull them, then you are randomly taking deer, and your herd genetics will NOT improve at the same rate, if at all. Finally, the big difference between managing a captive population and a non-captive population of deer is that genetics improve faster in a captive population, but they do improve in both cases.

All those high-fenced hunts you see on TV were made possible by herd management involving spike culling. It's a recipe that has been pretty darn successful in Texas.

So, have we learned our lesson about making assumptions, swbuckmaster? I don't claim to know it all, or be an expert on whitetail deer management, but I've been around the block a time or two...

;)
 
> I was going along
>with this article pretty well
>until I read the part
>that says this: "genetics is
>the least important of all
>the factors leading to the
>production of quality bucks."
>
>That statement shakes my faith in
>the article a little bit.
> I think maybe genetics
>is the "least controllable factor"
>but not the least important
>factor. Again, a very
>debatable subject.

DeerBeDead: See my other post. Basically, culling spikes has been shown in captive populations to have a definite effect on antler size. In the wild, the effect takes longer (maybe even MUCH longer) to see, but it still happens. If you don't cull spikes, you have no way to change the genetics of the herd, and it's up to nature to direct the genetic changes. Unfortunately, nature's goals and trophy hunters' goals are very different!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-10 AT 04:47PM (MST)[p]"Basically, culling spikes has been shown in captive populations to have a definite effect on antler size. In the wild, the effect takes longer (maybe even MUCH longer) to see, but it still happens. If you don't cull spikes, you have no way to change the genetics of the herd, and it's up to nature to direct the genetic changes. Unfortunately, nature's goals and trophy hunters' goals are very different!"

It not only would take longer to change the genetics of a free roaming elk herd by culling the spikes, it would NEVER happen. The spike permits have been issued on units like the Manti/Wasatch since the early 90's. I have yet to see any evidence of fewer spikes, percentage wise, each year in the yearling elk population. So, if after 20 years there is no measurable change, how many more DECADES do you expect it to take for the 'improved' genetics to kick in?

One MAJOR flaw in your comparison of high fence elk FARMS and free-ranging elk herds is the ability of the FARM to not only cull the 'inferior' yearling bulls, but also to cull the 'inferior' cows that calve 'inferior' bulls. They can then directly control what bull breeds what cow, thus increasing the ability to control the genetic make up of BOTH heifer/bull calves. Exactly how do you suggest we weed out the genetically 'inferior' cow elk out of a free ranging herd?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-10 AT 07:19PM (MST)[p]>The spike
>permits have been issued on
>units like the Manti/Wasatch since
>the early 90's. I have
>yet to see any evidence
>of fewer spikes, percentage wise,
>each year in the yearling
>elk population. So, if after
>20 years there is no
>measurable change, how many more
>DECADES do you expect it
>to take for the 'improved'
>genetics to kick in?

First off, I said in my first post that I have not seen any field data correlating elk genetics and antler size. It's entirely possible that it is different for elk than for whitetail deer. Secondly, your experience, while personally valid to you, is not a scientific study. Of course, I'm assuming that you're not a biologist who's collected enough data to validate your findings. Finally, even if it does take decades to improve the genetics, what's wrong with culling spikes, assuming that we still allow some trophy hunting? Not everyone is a trophy hunter. Some people just want to put meat in the freezer. A spike culling program satisfies that need while improving the herd (again, I'm making an assumption that the deer studies apply to elk, which may not be true).

>One MAJOR flaw in your comparison
>of high fence elk FARMS
>and free-ranging elk herds is
>the ability of the FARM
>to not only cull the
>'inferior' yearling bulls, but also
>to cull the 'inferior' cows
>that calve 'inferior' bulls. They
>can then directly control what
>bull breeds what cow, thus
>increasing the ability to control
>the genetic make up of
>BOTH heifer/bull calves. Exactly how
>do you suggest we weed
>out the genetically 'inferior' cow
>elk out of a free
>ranging herd?

Again, I have no experience or knowledge of managing elk herds. As far as deer herd management goes, culling of inferior does is seldom done on high-fence ranches. It is done on game farms, which are very different from high-fence ranches. Game farms raise deer for sale as stock. High-fence ranches simply manage their herds for hunting. In Texas, a game farm can handle live deer, while a high-fence ranch cannot (by law). In other words, the game farms choose which bucks will breed which does. The high-fence ranches are prohibited from doing anything like that. They take population surveys, determine how many and what kind of deer to take, and the rest is left to nature. Therefore, it's very difficult to cull any does, since there's really no way to determine which offspring come from which does.

As someone with personal experience managing and hunting a high-fence ranch, I can tell you that there is no doubt that antler traits are passed down from generation to generation. We have a few very distinct traits that we see in each new generation of deer. One trait in particular is freakishly long brow tines. We have one genetic strain in one of our populations that grow brow tines as long as 10" consistently. Every year, we see new yearlings with these distinct traits. We have also seen the percentage of yearling spikes decrease dramatically over the years. It used to be that as much as half the observed bucks were spikes, but after years of culling them, we're now seeing very few spikes. There's no doubt in MY mind that culling spike DEER is very effective for improving trophy quality. And again, I will say that it will take longer to see the effects with non-captive deer, but IT WILL HAPPEN!
 
There is over 80 thousand people with 0to 6points. any Ideas on how to clear this up.this is jmo but 8 points and higher in the draw.just an idea I know in some places in arizona they let in the chance to draw after 7 years.so from 8 to 16.I know 3years ago a guy drew pahvnt with 3 and his son had 1 thats not fair for people that have been waited 14 to 15 years
 
I looked at the numbers if you go with 9pts or higher 5470 tags bbtags there is 12,419 people with that many points.and I know for example people that put in for sw desert is going to put in for those tags .say out of the 5470 tags 4000 of them draw and the other 1470 are undersubscibed ,let anybody put in for the remaining tags with elk points its a rough draft but if you can knock out people on the high end of the points system, it elimnates people with3 points drawing tags you can still give 1/2 the tags to the max points and the other from 17 to 9 just a thought .
 
"First off, I said in my first post that I have not seen any field data correlating elk genetics and antler size. It's entirely possible that it is different for elk than for whitetail deer. Secondly, your experience, while personally valid to you, is not a scientific study. Of course, I'm assuming that you're not a biologist who's collected enough data to validate your findings. Finally, even if it does take decades to improve the genetics, what's wrong with culling spikes, assuming that we still allow some trophy hunting? Not everyone is a trophy hunter. Some people just want to put meat in the freezer. A spike culling program satisfies that need while improving the herd (again, I'm making an assumption that the deer studies apply to elk, which may not be true)."

First off, I clearly said I have seen no data/study that shows any measurable decrease in the % of spikes in the yearling population. If any exist, I would LOVE to see it/them.

Second, whether killing spikes creates opportunity is not what you have been asserting. YOU made the assertion that killing spikes WILL improve the genetic make-up of a free-ranging elk herd. Let's stay focused on that for a bit.


"Again, I have no experience or knowledge of managing elk herds."

Yet you make claims on how culling spikes WILL improve the genetics.

"As far as deer herd management goes, culling of inferior does is seldom done on high-fence ranches. It is done on game farms, which are very different from high-fence ranches. Game farms raise deer for sale as stock. High-fence ranches simply manage their herds for hunting. In Texas, a game farm can handle live deer, while a high-fence ranch cannot (by law). In other words, the game farms choose which bucks will breed which does. The high-fence ranches are prohibited from doing anything like that. They take population surveys, determine how many and what kind of deer to take, and the rest is left to nature. Therefore, it's very difficult to cull any does, since there's really no way to determine which offspring come from which does."

When I say high-fence, I am talking about ELK high fence FARMS in Utah. I do not care what they do or why/how they do it in Texas. In Utah, an elk farm and a high-fenced hunt are the SAME thing.

"As someone with personal experience managing and hunting a high-fence ranch, I can tell you that there is no doubt that antler traits are passed down from generation to generation.

There's no doubt in MY mind that culling spike DEER is very effective for improving trophy quality. And again, I will say that it will take longer to see the effects with non-captive deer, but IT WILL HAPPEN!"

Again, it is flawed logic to intertwine high-fence results with free-range potential results. If this worked at all, after 20+ years we should see some results of it working, yet we do NOT. In your/my lifetime there will still be no measurable decrease in the number of spike bull elk in a free-range elk herd.

I have yet to see a study that shows a spike elk is 'inferior' genetically to any other yearling bull elk. Nutrition and the yearling bull's health existing the winter have bigger impacts on what type of antler growth it will have it's first year than it's genetics.

A case in point that you never know how a bull elk will turn out when it hits it's full potential: The Jimmy Ryan bull taken with a bow in 2007 went in the 443". The year before that bull was a 5X6 that qualified it as a 'management' bull under the guidelines for the management hunt that was in play that year. The bull put on 45+ inches in ONE year, going from a 'management' bull to the biggest bull ever taken with a bow in Utah. It goes to show, even animals can be "late bloomers', which means ANY spike could be the next Jimmy Ryan bull.
 
>YOU made the
>assertion that killing spikes WILL
>improve the genetic make-up of
>a free-ranging elk herd.

No, I made the assertion that killing spikes WILL improve the genetic make-up of a free-ranging WHITETAIL DEER herd. This has been proven to be true. I said NUMEROUS TIMES that I don't know if it applies to elk. Like you, I have not seen any data for elk. I suspect that it is true for elk, but I am not willing to make that leap of faith to say that it is. I'm merely pointing out what we've learned about whitetail deer in Texas.

>"Again, I have no experience or
>knowledge of managing elk herds."
>
>Yet you make claims on how
>culling spikes WILL improve the
>genetics.

FOR WHITETAIL DEER! Again, this has been proven. For elk, I have not seen it proven, and I make no claims that it is true. I merely postulate that it may be true. And hopefully your elk herds are managed by BIOLOGISTS, using research results. I know from reading posts on this site that many don't believe this to be true, but I like to believe it is. Call me an optimist.

>I do
>not care what they do
>or why/how they do it
>in Texas.

It's too bad that you don't care about expanding your horizons and gathering data outside your immediate proximity. Sometimes you can learn things by looking in other places...

>Again, it is flawed logic to
>intertwine high-fence results with free-range
>potential results.

It is not flawed logic. It is being done successfully with FREE RANGE herds in Texas with whitetail deer. It is also the principal that QDMA preaches, and it works in many other states with FREE RANGE herds. Again, this is data for WHITETAIL DEER.

>If this worked
>at all, after 20+ years
>we should see some results
>of it working, yet we
>do NOT. In your/my lifetime
>there will still be no
>measurable decrease in the number
>of spike bull elk in
>a free-range elk herd.

Please point me to studies that back up your claim that it has not worked and will not work in our lifetimes. You state that you have not seen studies demonstrating that it works, but have you any study results that show that it has NOT worked? Undocumented/untabulated observations do not constitute data that can be used to form a conclusion. You can form a belief, but there's a big difference between a belief and a conclusion. There has been a lot of great research on whitetail deer management over the last several decades. Surely there must be some data out there on elk management. Let's find some data before jumping to conclusions...

>I have yet to see a
>study that shows a spike
>elk is 'inferior' genetically to
>any other yearling bull elk.

OK, but where is the study refuting that theory? In the absence of all data, you cannot claim that it isn't true, just like I can't claim that it is!

>Nutrition and the yearling bull's
>health existing the winter have
>bigger impacts on what type
>of antler growth it will
>have it's first year than
>it's genetics.

You're right - we see that to be true with our whitetail herds. In dry years, without supplemental protein feeding, the overall quality of the bucks drops dramatically. However, don't confuse environmental variables with genetic variables. You CAN'T control environmental variables, but you CAN control (or at least affect) genetic variables by culling genetically inferior bucks. In other words, if you can improve your genetics, your trophy quality WILL improve over time. But in a year with harsh conditions, your trophy quality will still go down. Genetically culling your herd cannot produce miraculous results - you'll still have bad years. But, over time, you'll see an improvement in the average quality.

>A case in point that you
>never know how a bull
>elk will turn out when
>it hits it's full potential:
>The Jimmy Ryan bull taken
>with a bow in 2007
>went in the 443". The
>year before that bull was
>a 5X6 that qualified it
>as a 'management' bull under
>the guidelines for the management
>hunt that was in play
>that year. The bull put
>on 45+ inches in ONE
>year, going from a 'management'
>bull to the biggest bull
>ever taken with a bow
>in Utah. It goes to
>show, even animals can be
>"late bloomers', which means ANY
>spike could be the next
>Jimmy Ryan bull.

There are two problems with your example. First, you're picking one single example and throwing it out to draw conclusions on entire populations of elk. That's a statistical no-no. Secondly, we've had bucks in our herds cycle between trophy and average several times (trophy in year 2, average in years 3 and 4, trophy in year 5, etc.), all depending on the availability of adequate browse. If we feed supplemental protein when browse is dried up, those trophies stay trophies year after year. Yes, environmental conditions are extremely important, but genetics are, too. For example, if you have a very harsh year, you may not have any trophies that year. But, if you have absolutely horrible genetics (not usually the case in nature, but I use it as an example to prove a point), you will NEVER have trophies. All the high-protein browse in the world can't overcome bad genes!
 
FOUNDER, can we make one of the rules on here that you have to state your age and the number of kids you have. It would be great to increase the archery tags, and limit vehicle access, but you just cut out most of our older people and the majority of kids, unless your 4 year old sits a lot quieter and more still then mine. Second, and I know this may be foreign to the trophy hunting "real sportsmen" but some folks actually eat what they kill and no one in there right mind eats a 7+ year old bull if they can eat a younger one. Shaq is 7' 350+ pounds, are you? Meaning just because its a bull elk doesn't mean it will be a 400+ 7 point any more than your gonna be 7' if we just let you grow. FINALLY, I, and a lot of us wouldn't have a problem with spike hunting and more LE units, and by LE I mean 6+ year old bulls if the DWR would set it up so that it can only be changed by a 2/3 majority vote in the state legislature and the governors signature. My point being, the Manti, it went spike only and the herds benefited. As a LE unit it was starting to come into its own then..... it became the money maker of the DWR. It is way over tagged in the general draw, it has tags given out like candy to every tom ##### and harry "conservation group", and finally when the bulls herd together on the winter range like they do out by Spring City, the DWR decides they can sell some depredation tags and kill some more bulls! So what you get is spike only hunting and an LE where raghorn 5 points are now herd bulls because every six point was killed by LE tag holders. Spike hunting does work, but the DWR isn't capable of leaving it alone, so I am not in favor. Again, isn't it amazing that everything wildlife related in this state is controled not by biologists and what is good for the herds, but by money? CWMU's, governors tags, "conservation tags", LE units, antelope island.
 
>No, I made the assertion that
>killing spikes WILL improve the
>genetic make-up of a free-ranging
>WHITETAIL DEER herd. This
>has been proven to be
>true. I said NUMEROUS
>TIMES that I don't know
>if it applies to elk.
> Like you, I have
>not seen any data for
>elk. I suspect that
>it is true for elk,
>but I am not willing
>to make that leap of
>faith to say that it
>is. I'm merely pointing
>out what we've learned about
>whitetail deer in Texas.

I researched for hours last night, even elk game farm sites, and I couldn't find a single study that says culling spike elk makes so much as a ripple in the genetic makeup of an elk herd. I would contend, that if it were as cut and dry and you assert, elk ranches would have this as part of their management policies. Since they do NOT, I believe common sense says culling spike elk out of a free-range elk herd will make ZERO difference in genetic makeup and future quality.

>For elk, I have not seen
>it proven, and I make
>no claims that it is
>true. I merely postulate
>that it may be true.
> And hopefully your elk
>herds are managed by BIOLOGISTS,
>using research results. I
>know from reading posts on
>this site that many don't
>believe this to be true,
>but I like to believe
>it is. Call me
>an optimist.

Spike management is a hunter management tool, NOT an elk management tool, at least how it is used here in Utah.

>It's too bad that you don't
>care about expanding your horizons
>and gathering data outside your
>immediate proximity. Sometimes you
>can learn things by looking
>in other places...

I do gather info that is RELEVANT, and whitetail results in extremely controlled environments in Texas are NOT relevant to wild elk in Utah.

>It is not flawed logic.
>It is being done successfully
>with FREE RANGE herds in
>Texas with whitetail deer.
>It is also the principal
>that QDMA preaches, and it
>works in many other states
>with FREE RANGE herds.
>Again, this is data for
>WHITETAIL DEER.

Not so fast my friend. Doing a little research last night I say conflicting conclusions within the QDMA itself on the effectiveness of removing spikes from whitetail herds. If the results don't bring consensus in a CONTROLLED environment, I highly doubt there would be conclusive evidence in wild elk.

>Please point me to studies that
>back up your claim that
>it has not worked and
>will not work in our
>lifetimes. You state that
>you have not seen studies
>demonstrating that it works, but
>have you any study results
>that show that it has
>NOT worked? Undocumented/untabulated observations
>do not constitute data that
>can be used to form
>a conclusion. You can
>form a belief, but there's
>a big difference between a
>belief and a conclusion.
>There has been a lot
>of great research on whitetail
>deer management over the last
>several decades. Surely there
>must be some data out
>there on elk management.
>Let's find some data before
>jumping to conclusions...

I have looked, and as of yet NO data located on the matter.

>OK, but where is the study
>refuting that theory? In
>the absence of all data,
>you cannot claim that it
>isn't true, just like I
>can't claim that it is!

I can, because success rates for spike hunts in Utah have stayed steady for 15+ years. If there was a decline in the percentage of spikes in the herds, logic would lead one to believe there hasn't been much, if any, change in the ratio of spike yearling bulls to branch-antlered yearling bulls.

>There are two problems with your
>example. First, you're picking
>one single example and throwing
>it out to draw conclusions
>on entire populations of elk.
> That's a statistical no-no.
> Secondly, we've had bucks
>in our herds cycle between
>trophy and average several times
>(trophy in year 2, average
>in years 3 and 4,
>trophy in year 5, etc.),
>all depending on the availability
>of adequate browse. If
>we feed supplemental protein when
>browse is dried up, those
>trophies stay trophies year after
>year. Yes, environmental conditions
>are extremely important, but genetics
>are, too. For example,
>if you have a very
>harsh year, you may not
>have any trophies that year.
> But, if you have
>absolutely horrible genetics (not usually
>the case in nature, but
>I use it as an
>example to prove a point),
>you will NEVER have trophies.
> All the high-protein browse
>in the world can't overcome
>bad genes!

I didn't single out just one example, I just used a very obvious one. Being as most elk in the wild are not easily identified year to year, it is hard to get accurate data on what size spike bull elk become at their peak antler growth. But, since we have the same number of spikes in a herd today as when spike hunting was implemented, evidence is leaning to it having no measurable impact on elk genetics.

Even with controlled breeding, and with highly specialized diets to maximize antler growth, and with ideal conditions, farm elk are not assured of reaching the 400" mark. So, to expect such an outcome in WILD elk defies logic, science, and reality.
 
hoytme:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm open to changing my mind when actual data is presented, but you still haven't presented a single study to support your claims. Herd management is a science, and science demands hard data, not claims. Surely someone out there has studied the culling of spikes in an elk herd. If Utah is doing it, I would hope that their biologists have studied it. Until I see such a study, I'm sticking to what I've personally witnessed with deer herd data. It may not be correct, but at least it's based on science.
 
hoytme:

Finally, you presented some data! Reading that, it seems that your claims can be backed up with study data. I was not aware of the Hellickson study, and I guess I'll have to seek it out to learn more.

See, we both learned something from good debate here on MM! Thanks for "schoolin' me"!

Scott
 
They definately need to switch it back so every limited entry unit isn't spike unit. They are screwing the herd up for plenty of big mature bulls. I agree 100% with you i think they really are looking over the fact that big bulls come from spikes. It needs to change back. It is sad for LE hunt drawers that after all the money they put into the draw they may be settling for a much lesser of a bull than they could have and wanted.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom