Benefit of Spike Elk Tags???

BrowningRage

Long Time Member
Messages
4,423
So I'll admit that I have never harvested an elk, but someday I'd like to take a trophy bull...

My question is in regards to all of the spike elk tags that are good on LE elk units... I hear LE tag holders complaining about the number of hunters holding these tags that blow their LE hunts...

So- why do they offer these tags, or at least, why do they offer them on LE units..?? What is the ultimate benefit, if any..?? Is it just money...??

Thanks for any thoughts...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
Biologists are required to maintain a certain number of elk on any given unit.
Hunters don't want more mature bulls shot...
Hunters don't want more cows shot...

So that leaves the spikes to be shot.

You just opened a can of worms....:) sit back and enjoy.

Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
 
Hey Browning,
There are biologists on this site that could answer this better than I can, but here is my take. If only big bulls are harvested, eventually there are more bulls than is healthy for the herd. If they issue more big bull tags then the quality of the big bulls goes down and everybody complains. In theory it keeps the bull cow ratio in check. That also requires that a certain number of cows be harvested as well. As far as when they have the spike hunt, it is a matter of timing and there is not enough time for everyone to hunt and still get it done, so (Utah) archery spike/cows are hunted the first few weeks of the LE hunt.
It is frustrating to me as well since my son has a big bull tag and has been messed up by other hunters(probably after a spike/cow). But that seems to be the reality of it all.
 
LittleBighorn said it pretty well. The problem of not killing spikes is you must carry all bulls until they reach the "average age" of the Trophy Bull objective. Here are some numbers- in theory- to put it in perspective--

Lets start with 1000 cows which have 600 calves. Half, 300, are bulls. The unit has a 6 year old age objective for trophy bulls. That means you must carry those 300 baby bulls for 6 years before they reach the management objective. Over that 6 year period, those cows are still having calves, so you get 1,800 bulls running around and still have the 1,000 cows (if they have been killing cows to maintain 1,000). If the unit has an objective of 1,500 total elk then you surpass that objective just in bulls.

Killing bulls allows for MORE cows to be carried, thus producing more calves which can then be hunted the next year. Of course, "trophy" antlers suffer if you kill more bulls. Cows (and the overall herd) suffer if you carry more bulls.

All in theory of course.....
 
Personally I think that the spike hunts do wonders for overall management of a herd. Take the wasatch, for example, back around the turn of the century, a 340-350 class bull was akin to todays 380-390 bull. It was unheard of to take a bull like that. it made news and was the talk of the town for quite some time. The state introduced the spike tags to the unit and SLOWLY, but steadily the overall quality of bull increased. within 7 years the wasatch had produced several state records and an ever increasing opportunity to hunt.

Now today, we are seeing a decline in the quality of bull on the unit IMHO, again slowly but its happening. It began with increased numbers of guess??????? MATURE BULL and COW tags. This isn't necessarily a problem, more a product of management direction. The spike tags didn't do it. the state has a balance of opportunity, quality, and population to maintain, and this unit is headed toward opportunity IMHO.

I don't really believe that spike tags have a massive affect on the QUALITY of the unit, what they do is help to maintain a population.

There is another way to look at spike tags, think of it in terms of opportunity. at the current average success rate for spike hunters, i think its somewhere between 20-30%, the division can issue roughly 5 tags for every one elk harvested.

In simple enough math, to maintain the population objective on an LE unit, 300 bulls must be harvested. at current success rates on the any weapon hunt, that is about 320 tags. or, they can get 1500 spike hunters out there, without seriously damaging the immediate quality of the unit........enabling them to still issue and charge $$$ for the LE tags.

So in summary, IMHO spike tags will help an LE unit over time. Simply by allowing the mature bull population to remain in place, while allowing the state to keep the herd in check. they also present more opportunity for the average hunter and the state.

littlebeaver.jpg
 
The problem with the spike hunts is that they are not tailored for the individual unit needs. The bull to cow ratio was way out of wack on some LE units (Too many bulls and not enough cows) and the spike hunt can be used to bring that back into a better ratio.

However, some units like the Book Cliffs, it is the opposite. A lot more cows that bulls. That unit needs the spike hunt to be closed immediately IMHO.

If they tailored the spike hunt to control units cow to bull ratio, it would work. Right now, it is just a free for all. Helps some units and is destroying others...That is what I feel at least.
 
>However, some units like the Book
>Cliffs, it is the opposite.
>A lot more cows that
>bulls. That unit needs the
>spike hunt to be closed
>immediately IMHO.


Didn't they already do that this year? I thought I heard they cancelled all spike hunts on the Books?
 
Managing for more mature bulls also means better breeding success. Mature bulls are more efficient breeders than spikes in general. Putting more pressure on the spikes and less( in comparison) on the mature bulls allows for better breeding.
 
i support the spike hunt. if nothing else it is an opportunity to hunt. i do think its messed up to overlap the spike archery hunt and the le archery hunts.

i think the main objective of the hunt is to offer guys a chance to hunt elk.
 
Spike hunting on the LE unit's sound's ridiculous. For decades elk have had it their way and it always produced big bulls. Just look at top 40 biggest bulls killed, they were moistly killed a long time ago, when spike hunting didn't exist. Then hunting the cows! Now that sound's ridiculous as well. Just throw out more big bull tags and don't touch the spikes and cows. Who wants to kill a 400" potential bull its first year... just my 2 cent's..
 
Spike hunting is a neccesarry evil until the division chnages the way they manage the elk hunt. The Bull to cow ratios are way out of wack on most the units in the state therefore more bulls need to be harvested. The problem with harvesting more bulls is that 60% of the tags that are issued are rifle rut hunt tags with very high sucess rates on the top end bulls.

Spike hunting could be elliminted and way more LE tags could be issued and the quality remain high if they would issue more short range weapon tags and move the rifle hunt out of the middle of the rut. True bowhunters and Muzz hunters will kill some good bulls, but with lower success rates and most of the successful hunters settling on a nice bull rather then the biggest bull on the mtn quality would remain high, and the rifle huntes would have to work harder to find the top end bulls in october.

This however will probobly never happen, because the people making the decisions for our wildlife love the fact that they can get 20+ grand per conservation tag for a rifle rut hunt. So we are left with spike hunting to try and control the number of bulls.
 
Perfectly said Arrowhntr, theres too much $ to lose if you take the hunt out of the rut. The decisions makers will never let it happen. My thoughts is they'll get twice the tags if the hunt is out of the rut, so it will be a wash.
 
>Spike hunting is a neccesarry evil
>until the division chnages the
>way they manage the elk
>hunt. The Bull to
>cow ratios are way out
>of wack on most the
>units in the state therefore
>more bulls need to be
>harvested. The problem with
>harvesting more bulls is that
>60% of the tags that
>are issued are rifle rut
>hunt tags with very high
>sucess rates on the top
>end bulls.
>
>Spike hunting could be elliminted and
>way more LE tags could
>be issued and the quality
>remain high if they would
>issue more short range weapon
>tags and move the rifle
>hunt out of the middle
>of the rut. True
>bowhunters and Muzz hunters will
>kill some good bulls, but
>with lower success rates and
>most of the successful hunters
>settling on a nice bull
>rather then the biggest bull
>on the mtn quality would
>remain high, and the rifle
>huntes would have to work
>harder to find the top
>end bulls in october.
>
>This however will probobly never happen,
>because the people making the
>decisions for our wildlife love
>the fact that they can
>get 20+ grand per conservation
>tag for a rifle rut
>hunt. So we are
>left with spike hunting to
>try and control the number
>of bulls.

Wouldn't a bull be better used if a hunter got to harvest it instead of dieing of old age?


IMO the spike hunts help with the health of the herd as stated above and also give opportunity! Hunting spikes is harder than hunting a big bull, success rates are not very high at all on spike hunts and people get to go hunting!




4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
Unfortunately the spike hunts are needed. I just don't think the LE archery hunters should have to put up with all the spike hunters during their hunt. If they moved back the the muzzle loader and rifle seasons there would be plenty of room.


Take out more than you brought in!
 
Spike hunts are needed on some units and on some years, but not on all LE units or all years. The DWR talked about closing the spike hunt on the books for 2011 because the numbers are out of wack, but they didn't.

If it is managed properly, it can be a very good tool to manage the herds health and bull to cow ratios. It also gives hunters additional ways to fill up the freezer. I just wish the DWR would manage each unit and only use the spike hunts when they are needed...
 
>Spike hunts are needed on some
>units and on some years,
>but not on all LE
>units or all years. The
>DWR talked about closing the
>spike hunt on the books
>for 2011 because the numbers
>are out of wack, but
>they didn't.
>
>If it is managed properly, it
>can be a very good
>tool to manage the herds
>health and bull to cow
>ratios. It also gives hunters
>additional ways to fill up
>the freezer. I just wish
>the DWR would manage each
>unit and only use the
>spike hunts when they are
>needed...
 
If some of the spike were not harvested the unit carrying quota would be exceeded. More cows and more large bull tags would need to be issued and the herd health and the trophy quality would suffer. I think spike hunts are necessary.

The thing I don't like is the spike hunt during the LE hunts. The F&G does give the big bull hunters the last week without the spike hunters. This is good. LE tag holders still have the deer hunters to contend with that last week though.

Quite a tricky balancing act fot the DWR. I think they do a pretty darn good job for quality and opportunity.

Zeke
 
GEEZUS!

never_catch is right!

PISS ON SPIKE HUNTS IN LE UNITS!

PISS ON 4-4.5 year old Age objectives!

You want to hunt a Spike/DINK Bull,Man up & hunt an Open Unit & quit your Bitchin!

As posted above:The DWR knows damn well the Spike Hunt needs to be eliminated in the Book Cliffs,but HELL NO,let's Hunt them Spikes a few more years & see what happens in the Future in that LE Unit,GEEZUS!

I'll STFU now!

Could go on & on & on & on but won't!

For GAWDS Sakes Guys,We Got Kids on this Site,Some of them are 65 years Old!:D

I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!
:p
 
After much self debate I decided I would weigh in on this topic.

The problem as I see it is that there are far too many hunters period. Let just play with some numbers here.

The estimated elk population in Utah is 68,000 head. That's from the DWR page so I'll claim nothing for the accuracy (http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/elk_plan.pdf). Their elk initiative states that they are trying to obtain a population of 80,000, but those numbers are statewide. They also make some blanket statements about maintaining elk populations based on areas or herd and not on wholes.

If you read through the document and if you crunch the numbers you find that just considering the "Any Bull", "Spike", and "Archery" hunts in 2008 the DWR issued 38,000 permits and 5,166 animals were harvested that is a success rate of 13.6% total. Let us just suppose that including the LE hunts there is an overall success rate of 12% for the entire population, that would be 8,160 total elk harvested every year. So we know that the population has to reproduce at a level slightly above that every year. Now there are several other factors such as winter loss, drive hunting (hit by a car), old age, disease, predators, etc. So including hunting and all of these factors lets consider that there is a total population impact of 20% every year, now the number is 13,600 elk retired annually. In order for the population to grow to 80,000 elk in 5 years (which is what the elk initiative calls for), 16,000 elk need to be born and 2,400 of those need to survive every year for 5 years.

These numbers are looking at things as a whole though. As we have seen demonstrated, some habitats are capable of sustaining much larger populations than others. Recently we've seen that they have had to change their philosophy on the mule deer "areas" because of a lack of healthy and sustainable populations, much less trophy bucks. I see the same thing coming for the elk populations as the amount of land for "Open Range" for cattle and the deer population increases, also with the encroachment of man. I like many dream of having the cabin in the mountains away from the city folk (for me people in general).

The reality is that we are decreasing the amount of sustainable habitat in the "General" hunting areas and therefore overpoplating the "Limited Entry" areas in the interest of showing the public that there is gain in the total numbers and achieving success on the "Elk Initiative." The way they make up for the overpopulating is by throwing spike and cow tags at people in the LE areas in order to not diminish the amount of trophy bulls.

In my honest opinion they need to start looking at things through the lens of small area or herd management and not total numbers management. Short of having to take a fish and game officer along with you to the field and him telling you what you can shoot; I would encourage us as hunters to contact the division wildlife biologists and ask where the populations need the most management, and maybe putting in for the cow or spike tag for that area. If you are hunting in an area that quite frankly doesn't need any herd management then perhaps it's more about you than the elk or the hunt (I am not speaking about Trophy hunting here, so don't get your knickers in a knot).

Back to my original statement about there being too many hunters; lets face it this is about money to manage the wildlife and then about wildlife. As I see it if there is only a 12% success rate yearly then we either have a whole bunch of hunters hunting in lowly populated open areas (and mostly from the truck I might add) with a fairly high harvest rate considering, or very few hunters on large populations in LE areas and private lands (Don't even get me started on the CWMU hunts!!) with a fairly low success rate, but I thinks it's both. I agree that there needs to be some difinitive changes on WHEN and WHERE the spike and cow hunts occur along with Archery, Muzzleloader, and Rifle but they still need to occur on the highly populated areas. In my opinion they need to decrease the total amount of tags and concentrate them on more specific areas, which will reduce the amount of pressure from people, which will reduce the stress on the animals and allow them to spread out more thus increasing the amount of sustainable habitat, at the same time increasing the amount of trophy bulls and improving the hunt success across the board. Regardless of the method you choose to hunt with the hunting seasons need to be concentrated around game management and not the two weeks they give you in the field. If they increased the amount of total time in the field and decreased the total tags but had say a 60% success rate I think you would see a total improvement in the trophy elk populations. You would get a decrease in the car hunters and more serious hunters in the field. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
Was it the part with all the words in it that killed it? I can post graphs if that helps. I know "way to kill a topic" right?
 

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