New Utah Elk Plan Approved

[OutdoorWriter]

New Elk Plan Approved

Salt Lake City -- Elk with large antlers and more chances to hunt spike bulls are what you can expect if you hunt elk in Utah in the next five years.

At their March 31 meeting, members of the Utah Wildlife Board revised Utah?s elk management plan.

The plan guides elk management in Utah. It's updated every five years.

Two highlights from the revised plan include:

- changes that will keep plenty of bulls with large antlers on selected units in Utah.

- more spike bull elk hunting permits.

Survey and committee

Utah?s 15-member Elk Advisory Committee helped the Division of Wildlife Resources draft the revised plan. The group suggested the updates after reviewing a recent survey of Utah elk hunters.

DWR biologists surveyed more than 16,600 elk hunters. The hunters were randomly chosen from the more than 76,800 hunters who either applied for or obtained a Utah elk hunting permit in 2009. The hunters included both limited-entry and general-season hunters.

A summary of the survey results is available at www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/next.php.

Older bulls

When they draw a Utah limited-entry elk permit, hunters want to take a bull that has large antlers. ?That's one of the things that jumped out from the survey,? says Anis Aoude, big game coordinator for the DWR. ?Taking a bull with large antlers is important to limited-entry hunters.?

Utah already produces plenty of big bull elk, including the world-record bull taken in 2008. To ensure big bulls are available in the future, the committee recommended that the age objectives change on various elk units in Utah.

Utah?s limited-entry units are managed so the average age of the bulls hunters take fall into one of four age categories. The age objectives the units have been managed under the past two years, and the objectives they'll be managed under starting in 2010, are as follows:

Categories since 2008

3 - 4 years old (3 units)

4 - 5 years old (4 units)

5 - 6 years old (18 units)

6 - 7 years old (6 units)


Categories starting in 2010

4? - 5 years old (8 units)

5? - 6 years old (13 units)

6? - 7 years old (4 units)

7? - 8 years old (6 units)

Even though the age objectives are higher now, Aoude says the number of limited entry bull elk permits will continue to climb for the next few years.

?It's hard to believe, but many of the bulls on Utah?s elk units are older than the objectives that were just approved,? he says.
?To reduce the number of older bulls, we'll have to increase the number of hunting permits for the next few years.?

Once the average age of the bulls falls to the new objective, Aoude says the number of permits will have to be reduced to reduce the number of bulls hunters take. Taking fewer bulls should keep the average age within the new objective.

More spike permits

While the number of limited-entry bull elk permits will likely go down in the future, the number of general spike bull elk permits will go up starting this fall.

The board raised the number of general spike bull permits to 13,750 for both the 2010 and the 2011 seasons. (In 2009, a total of 12,500 permits were offered.)

If fewer than 20 percent of the spike hunters take a bull during the 2010 and 2011 seasons, the permit cap will jump to 15,000 permits for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons.

?Spending time with family and friends is the most important part of the hunt for general-season elk hunters,? Aoude says. ?That's another thing that jumps out from the survey.?

Aoude says raising the number of spike bull permits accomplishes two things. ?It gives more elk hunters a chance to hunt, and it benefits the elk by reducing the number of bulls in the herds,? he says.

?Right now, the number of bulls per 100 cows is higher than it should be on most of the state?s units. We need to reduce the number of bulls to make more room in the herds for cows and calves.?

For more information, call the nearest Division of Wildlife Resources office or the DWR?s Salt Lake City office at (801) 538-4700.



TONY MANDILE

How To Hunt Coues Deer

 

[piper]

sounds good, but how exactly do they know the age of every bull harvested? do they age the teeth, or is it just a good guess?

 

[huntinfanatic]

when you draw a limited entry tag in utah they send you a tooth packet. when you harvest a bull you send them two teeth with your packet.

 

[hoytme]

Only positive thing I come away with from this joke of an EMP, the Wildlife Board doesn't adhere to the management plans much, so there is hope they will ignore MOST of this terrible MP.

 

[nebo12000]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-10 AT 10:02AM (MST)[p]So, hoytme (Bart?), is your opinion the only one that is right ? Management based on biological data is great, but there is a huge area between just what is necessary to keep a herd viable and the upper end of what can be sustained. The argument isn't to over produce and ruin the herds or to just make sure the herds are at minimal viable numbers-- the argument is about where do the animal numbers need to be so that hunters have opportunity for the size of animal they would like to hunt and how often they would like to hunt. The opinions are all over the place. This is really the Elk Committee's best attempt to give something to everyone-- certainly not everything for just one special interest group. Certainly not perfect, just an honest attempt to give something good to all groups. Elk management is also dynamic and not static, changes will be made as other factors come into play that are not always predictable-- weather etc.
Every entity had a seat at the table and there was compromising on all sides. Your opinion is as valuable as mine and 160,000 other "ordinary" hunters.

 

[hoytme]

No, Richard, my opinion isn't the only one that matters. Apparently on the opinions of a select few matter, the rest of us are supposed to shut up and take it.

The survey conducted by the DWR was NOT followed when the EMP was drafted/passed, and for you to say it was is troublesome and confusing. Where exactly in the survey does it say that even the low end units should have the harvest age increased by ONE AND ONE HALF years? In fact, where odes it say that the 4-5 yr units should be increased to 5.5-6.0? It does NOT, that is the point! If an attempt was made to address the wants/wishes of the middle of the road hunters, they FAILED miserably. The committee did a damn fine job accommodating the 'trophy' hunters and the special interest groups however. Hmmm, which begs the question; the committee was made up of who? That's right: SPECIAL INTEREST groups made up the bulk of the committee and made most of the recommendations. Funny how that works isn't it, Richard?

 

[carbonnation]

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS? Doesn't every group fit into that catagory......Only time it is a negative term is when that group does not fall in line with a persons opinion. SFW, RMEF, MDF, NRA...they are all considered these, heck me and my multiple personality sitting here typing this could be considered on as well.
Come on hoytme. You and your responses are becoming boringly predictable. I don't agree with everything that goes on with game management in this state, but you cry more than my 5 year old. It is politics plain and simple. If you want to change that, then you have to play the game. If you don't like the voice that you claim is running the show, then you have to have one that is more powerful than theres, or find a way to influence that voice.
SFW does not represent every sportsman in Utah and it never will and it never should. It is what it is and for now it is the best thing we have. It can not be everything to everyone. They have there agendas and are very good at playing the game and influencing what happens to meet there needs. If we have a problem with the management plans, we need to point our first finger at the DWR. If you want to effect change, then start there.....oh but wait, won't that make you a SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

 

[2lumpy]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-10 AT 09:03PM (MST)[p]Excellent points carbonnation. There are a lot of us that do support the Boards elk plan decision.

A lot of us would rather they didn't harvest spikes on some of these units too. We recognize the issue associated with increasing the number of older bulls and the carrying capacity on a given unt, that being holding more older bulls means either removing some cows or some yearling bulls but ONLY when the unit is at it's agreed to carrying capacity.

The simple truth is we do actually understand there are limits and we can't have it both ways on a single unit, however a different unit can be managed differently with a different objective, and again a three and fourth unit can each be managed for different objectives in an attempt, at least, to provide many kinds of elk herds for many kinds of sportsmen's preferences.

I believe the approved plan is attempting to provide a broad based management plan to, as much as possible, satisfy the diverse desires of us sportsmen. Having said that I like the plan will not prevent me from pressing the Board to make mid-term corrections if I believe the health and viability of the elk herd is at risk before the five year plan is over. Five year plans are understandable for DWR planning and efficiency but we must never allow any plan to circumvent the overriding issue of herd health.

If those that are predicting negative outcomes prove to be correct we should demonstrate enough integrity to admit they were right and make the necessary corrections. I don't believe they are correct, however time will tell.

carbon, another observation you have stated so poignantly is the issue of SFW supporting one elk plan over another. (Actually, at the RAC meeting I attended, it believe SFW's plan was slightly different than the one the Board approved). There was more than one plan on the table. If your an organization that is going to take a position on hunting/game management issues how can you possibly support more than one plan? How could SFW have supported the plan hoyt, Elite, swbuck and others desired and not frustrated those of us that supported the approved plan? SFW can't have it both ways. Either way they choose they were bound to offend, anger, or at least disappoint one side or the other. However, unlike so many other wildlife organizations that I belong to, SFW is willing to take a position and then it fights for that position, as we want them too. What possible good are they if they don't take a position?

Yet when we disagree with SFW we accuse them of any number of vile and untrue intentions, primarily it seems, to undermine and win our wishes over others with a different desire.

Is it honest to call someone a socialist or worse because they have a difference of opinion on how to raise funds for a sportsmen's organization or to misrepresent their intentions because they have taken a position on a five year elk plan that we disagree with?

Some call those of us that supported the approved plan koolaid'ers. I'm not particularly offended by that label but what I'm I when I agree with SFW on one issue and disagree with them on another? As much as I agree with the elk plan, I disagree with SFW on the river/stream access position they have taken. I'm absolutely on the other side of the table on that very important issue. Do you think I aught to be screaming and threatening and name calling SFW and it's leadership over that issue? I don't. Here's way. I understand, with any organization that I belong, there will be differences of opinion. I don't always have to have it my way to continue to support the organization. If you have to have your way every time on every issue or you want to break away and undermine the organization you will never be a productive member of any effective organization. And, yes, if you intend to do any good, to accomplish any thing of any significance for hunting or wildlife you will find you generally must be part of an organized effort. Lone wolves, rugged individuals and loners rarely accomplish anything of lasting value. And that is not a socialist attitude or a socialist mindset. There is hardly a free enterprise business in this great country that has grown to any size or generated any significant profit for it's owner that does not depend on a "group of people" that work together for their business' greater good. You generally can't get it done alone. Every those great old fur trappers, cowboys, miners, and pioneers had support from like minded people and that did not make them socialists......................... did it?

Here is what these rugged individualists did when they could no long get along, they left one group and joined another or started a new "group".

carbonnation is perfectly correct, if you don't like SFW's management, it's business plan, it's positions, as you have so repeatedly stated, why not gather those like minded sportsman, create an organization, establish a mission statement, figure out a positive marketing plan, put together a funding plan and then do what you can to grow and project our great outdoor culture? Become the positive force you want others to be, we would all welcome another proactive sportsmen's organization, if you become effective and your efforts produce positive results a bunch of us might even join your organization too. Being a member of SFW hasn't stopped anyone from also supporting DU, MDF, RMEF, etc.etc. Why wouldn't we support another productive sportsmen's "group".

However you will very quickly find yourself in a position where your leadership and/or your membership disagree on what position they believe your organization should take on an issue and you will find yourself wanting to say, "I don't think this organization should take a position on this issue" at that moment it will become gut check time and you will become just like SFW. You will either become a coward and hide from the conflict or take a side. As soon as you take a side some of your leadership, some your membership and some of those that have been your strongest supporters will call you a socialist, a specialist group and an anti-average hunter or worse.

Please pass the kool-aide.

DC

 

[hossblur]

Don't care about SWF and what they think. But I have to laugh when I read the DWR is going to reduce LE permit numbers. Give me a break, there is a better chance of me getting drafted by the Broncos this month than the DWR giving up the cash from LE hunts!!

 

[Wes]

hossblur
Apparently you didn't attend any RAC meetings or you would have heard Anis state in his presentation that they will reduce permits numbers by 250 to 300 permits in a couple years.
Wes

 

[slamdunk]

Hoss-
I sure hope you can catch those blazing long bomb passes from Brady Quinn this fall! ;-)






http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/xx290/slamdunk_04/E1x1BWINV1-2.jpg[/IMG]

 

[justr_86]

Stupid!.... Near impossible odds to impossible odds.


NO GUTS, NO STORY!!

 

[tstewy]

I wish they couuld cut the wait time down bu ive got alot of pts so yeah for me bad for everyone else. but all reality it takes way to long to draw a tag even the primitve wepons take a long time.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Hey Pro - they did another thing that you have always pushed for and that is giving out more archery tags. A lot more archery tags. I think that fits in with your management plan unless you changed your mind on that.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com

 

[hossblur]

>Hoss-
>I sure hope you can catch
>those blazing long bomb passes
>from Brady Quinn this fall!
>;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/xx290/slamdunk_04/E1x1BWINV1-2.jpg[/IMG]


First, I am not a DB from the other team so I don't have to worry about catching one of Quinn's balls. Second, we are still talking about the state of Utah right. They will never, and I repeat EVER willingly give up the right to sell more tags without replacing that revenue somehow. The next time Mr. DWR sells that line about cutting back LE tags, ask him if he will stake his job on it, in other words will he quit when the state doesn't? The state of Utah can't even go one year without tweaking a hunt(usually before any data is in), and I am to believe they have a five year plan, which in the end will lead to reduced tags? I am now almost two years into waiting for my tooth data. Will the same dudes that tell us every year how healthy the deer pop. is and that there is an expected 30% success rate for deer every year be the one deciding how old elk are? Most of the units have older elk than what they want? WHERE? Manti? Nebo? Cache? REALLY??? I too look older than I am so I guess I can see the confusion in seeing a raghorn 4 point and figuring its at least 7 years old so we better keep selling (and giving SFW) more tags!!!

 

[hoytme]

"Hey Pro - they did another thing that you have always pushed for and that is giving out more archery tags. A lot more archery tags. I think that fits in with your management plan unless you changed your mind on that."

They did on SOME units. The LE units that don't have two rifle seasons had the weapon allotments changed to what UWC was asking for on ALL the LE units in the two lower age classes. It is better than nothing I must admit. These units, such as the Wasatch went from 60% of the permits going to rifle down to 50%, archery went up from 25% to 30%, and muzzy went up from 15% to 20%. If they actually stick with this for more than 1-2 years I think this can be a way for a lot more opportunity. Now, we need to go after season dates at the upcoming Bucks and Bulls RAC's/WB in Nov/Dec.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Yep.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com

 

[nebo12000]

Just so you know, I would be in favor of rotating the opening dates on the LE elk units so that rifle, archery and muzzy get an opening in the rut every third year. Also, by the way, none of the "special interest" groups got everything they wanted in the EMP. Remember that Farm Bureau, BLM, Forest Service, non-consumptive, RAC members, CWM, were all at the table as well as archery groups, SFW, MDF, RMEF and others including professional biologists. One size does not fit all, we all got something. The increase in age class won't have a big effect-- just a small effect. Anis actually was the one that requested a downgrade from what the committee suggested and the committee went along with it in regards to increased age objectives on some units.
At the end of it all there was consensus (and compromise) on the EMP. There were a couple of issues that the votes were not unanimous-- one was on increasing elk herds and the effect it might have on grazing permitees. It is still and always will be a work in progress. Aren't most of us just "ordinary" sportsmen ?

 

[hoytme]

"The increase in age class won't have a big effect-- just a small effect."

Where do you come up with such a claim? Anis admitted that it WILL have a big effect down the road. The fact he requested and got a SMALL change is better than nothing I suppose. But, make no mistake about it, raising age objectives like the new EMP does WILL result in more than a "small effect" on permits issued in years to come.

As for rotating opening dates, after first thought it sounds good, but one of the goals of the EMP is simplicity, and expecting hunters to keep track of the rotation is not keeping things simple. I would rather see some units have rifle rut hunts as part of their management strategy, other have muzzy rut hunts as part of theirs, and the rest have archery rut hunts. That way hunters can keep track of what the management plan for each unit is easier. Idaho had units broken down as A, B, C units. We could make the rifle rut hunt units (A), the muzzy rut hunt units (B), and the archery rut hunt units as (C). What do you think?

Most of us may be "ordinary" sportsmen, but the elk aren't managed for the ordinary sportsman, they are managed to those who can buy conservation permits. That is exactly why I am not happy with how big game is managed in Utah.

 

[nebo12000]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-05-10 AT 02:03PM (MST)[p]Most of the units are already at or above age objectives. The real test will be when the recommendations for antlerless permits are presented. There are units that need major scale backs. Why don't you make a presentation concerning the ABC unit and rut hunting- Try to get the archery organizations on board and make a proposal to the DWR to get it in the recomendations next fall. Like I said-- this is a work in progress. You are not going to get everything you want but you might get some of it. My rotating idea has come from a number of sources and even though it may complicte the process somewhat, the hunters who are really involved will be able to follow it okay. Also, the age objectives are and will be weighed in with other factors such as herd number objectives and cow bull ratios. You are right to assume that there probably will be some of the upper end units that will be more difficult to stay at age objectives with out reducing permits, but there are a bunch of units that will be increasing permits because they are well above age objectives- hopefully- something for everyone.

 

[hoytme]

Good response Richard, thank you!

As for getting with the archery groups on the A,B,C idea, this isn't an archery issue so I don't think it should be proposed by archery groups or it will take on the appearance of being an archery issue. It will be proposed at the Bucks and Bulls RAC's this fall in one form or another however.

I still don't like the rotating idea, because not every hunter is astute enough, or pays attention enough, to decipher this sort of thing. Again, one of the stated responsibilities of the RAC's/WB is simplicity, and the rotating idea is anything but simple. But, like I said before, it's a good place to start the discussion. Just hope its not the end of the discussion.

You say, "the age objectives are and will be weighed in with other factors such as herd number objectives and cow bull ratios." Can you please site your source(s) of when/where/how bull:cow ratios are used to determine limited entry bull elk permits? Or, for that matter when/where/how herd number objectives are used to determine limited entry bull elk permits? Population objectives are used to determine cow elk permits, but I don't see how they could in any real way be used to determine bull elk permits. Bull:cow ratios are not a factor in EITHER bull/cow permit numbers.

Also, when I was on KSL radio with Anis a few weeks back he admitted that permit numbers would HAVE TO be scaled back once harvest age averages near/reach objectives. This is true on the higher AND lower age class units. In economics there is this theory called "capital accumulation", and once the capital starts to dwindle, the drop off is steep and often reverts to major declines in the available capital or the accumulation of capital. In this case, mature bulls is the capital, and once we hit age objectives the usage of the capital MUST be scaled back or be spent. That is, unless the objectives are lowered, via success rates lowered through weapon allotments, and/or season dates are used to lower success rates, the permit numbers MUST be reduced.

 

[nebo12000]

quote-Can you please site your source(s) of when/where/how bull:cow ratios are used to determine limited entry bull elk permits? Or, for that matter when/where/how herd number objectives are used to determine limited entry bull elk permits?

This came from DWR big game managers/biologists and
Anis in discussions I have had with them. That is why spike hunting was pushed so hard- bull/cow ratios needed to be decreased. Yes, the age objectives will certainly be a major factor in permit numbers, but it will affect the higher end bull units more. It may well be that Mangement bull hunting will have to be put into place again but it would have to done before the rut because of the broken tine problems.
Its important to remember that the plan does create a situation that there will be more micro-managing of units than ever before.ButI don't see any other way to get close to what is wanted by a myriad of different groups and yet still stay within biologically sustainable elk numbers-ratios-age objectives. Permit numbers may well fluctuate greatly from year to year-- definitely a work in progress.

 

[hoytme]

You are proving my point on the bull:cow ratio. Yes, ratios are being addressed, but NOT through mature bull tags but rather spike permits. Which clarifies that the number of mature bull permits is NOT based one bit on bull:cow, but 100% on harvest age averages. No concern for population objectives is given when determining the permit numbers for mature bull permits either, the DWR has repeatedly stated, as does the old/new EMP's, that population objectives are managed through antler-less permits.

If mature bull permits were based somewhat on other objectives besides harvest age averages, I believe we would have more opportunity and a healthier elk herd with more reasonable bull:cow ratios that aren't managed by harvesting yearling bulls.

Numbers will fluctuate year in and year out as elk are not static, but the closer we get to the harvest age objectives the FEWER permits that can be issued on a given unit unless objectives are lowered, weapon permit allotments are shifted more to the primitive weapon hunts, and/or season dates are changed. The latter two changes would lower success rates, the first would let more bulls be harvested lowering the bull:cow ratios.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

What about increasing the number of big bull permits on units like the Wasatch and limiting the spike permits on rifle hunts in early October? A slow progression away from hunting yearling elk and issueing more big bull permits should not really limit opportunity. There are still open bull units. Wouldn't this help with the age objective issues that you guys are talking about?


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[hoytme]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting Jim, help me out. I don't see how spike permits affect harvest age objectives. I am sure I am missing the heart of your idea, so help this water head out.

 

[HornyMan]

Where can we find a list of which units will fall into the age categories?

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

I don't really think that it has anything to do with the age objectives as much as it has to do with opportunity at mature bulls. I have always believed that you can't have unlimited spike hunting and continue to raise mature bull tags. It will get to the point where the bull to cow ratios will be under objective. All it will take is an above average harvest during the spike hunt and down the road the bulls will dwindle. I have no scientific evidence of this, just attempting to add it up in my head.


It's always an adventure!!!