Counting elk on private lands ?

[nebo12000]

I think its important to understand that the management objectives on each elk unit came as a result of collaboration between a number of entities-- eg-- Cattlemen, woolgrowers, BLM, FS, other state agencies as well as the DWR. The DWR must, by law, do whatever is necessary to keep the elk numbers on each unit at the objective numbers on a post season basis. Much of the problem lies in the DWR having to count elk that reside on private lands that are unhuntable by public hunters. The Wasatch units are a good example of that problem. When the DWR issues antlerless tags that seem way too high, sometimes its is because the only way that they can obey the law and keep herds numbers at objective is too kill most of the animals on the public areas. Animals on the private areas sometimes account for an inordinate percentage of the allowed number of elk on any one unit. In my opinion the state needs to give the DWR some latitude in their elk counts. If there are 200 elk on private lands that are not available for public hunting on any one particular unit-- those animals should not be counted in the objective numbers population. If the private landowners want animals removed then they should allow tagholders to access their properties. For the most part though, it seems that most private land owners like the elk being on their property and are able to derive some income(trespass fee etc) and/or if a family member or friend draws an LE tag they essentially enjoy a private hunt. I personally don't have any problem with private landowners doing what they want to do on their own land but I don't think that the animals that reside there should be included in the population /objective management numbers. The best way to help some of theses units out is to get your legislator to get the laws changed in regards to this.
For example, on some units, when you put into draw out for a tag, instead of drawing out to hunt a population of 2000 elk, you are really only able to hunt 1700. I think the law should change...and only count public land animals that are accessible to hunters during the hunting seasons.

 

[pymulies]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-13 AT 11:23AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-13 AT 11:22?AM (MST)

Nebo,

I don't disagree with you.

I do however see an issue with the theory when it involves migrating populations of wildlife. Those animals may be on private land during the hunting season then on public or other private land during winter.

The issue then has to deal with habitat over utilization.

If these population issues do occur in migrating herds, one posibilty is for the later hunts to be increased in tag numbers. This could account for the animals that have traveled off of private lands more effectively.

But that may just be in a perfect world. In a non-migrating population, it could be very unproductive.

py

 

[nebo12000]

This would have to be done mainly on private lands that have resident elk for the majority of the year-- say late spring through early winter. There are private areas on the Nebo that elk are on it through out the entire year. The region Biologist told me last week that there are approximately 75 -100 animals on average that stay on it year round. Its nothing against the private landowner-- I would just like to see that the public hunters have as much opportunity to hunt the maximum number of elk that the population objective allows.

 

[bucklover]

Years ago, when I lived in Richfield and was the President of the Sevier Wildlife Association, I dealt with a similar issue. A ranch up Salina canyon, who's owner happened to be on the Utah Wildlife Board, would always request a larger number of elk harvest than most people thought was necessary. As the public would move in to hunt the area, the elk would just jump the fence and be on the private ranch. The ranch could then charge a trespass fee, if anyone was wanting to harvest an elk. When I confronted the owner of the ranch in a public board meeting, he became red in the face and slammed his fist on the table. He didn't have much to say in defense of his tactics. All he could come up with is that the elk were causing damage to his property, but he sure wouldn't allow hunters to solve the problem without paying him, to do so.

 

[Packout]

Nebo- You have heard my take on this for a long time at the RACs and in meetings. It is time for us to think outside the box on how we control antlerless harvest. In fact it is past time.

My personal opinion is that we should have private land only hunts where necessary. Some will claim it only benefits landowners. The truth is it would benefit public lands herds as well.

Lets say an area has 1,000 elk on private lands and 1,000 elk on public lands. The unit should only have 1,500 elk. So they issue enough permits to kill 500 cows. Most of the cows killed will come from the public lands herd. So maybe 400 are killed from public and only 100 off the private. Now the public herd only has 600 elk, but the private has 900. We can all see what that does for public lands herds.

So how do we give incentive to landowners to reduce herds? Private lands tags with long or specific seasons.
Maybe on problem areas we give a private lands only bull tag for every 10 or so antlerless harvests. Give the tag directly or through the draw.
Don't count unhuntable herds.
Don't reimburse private lands for wildlife damage if they are not reducing the antlerless herds.
Penalize CWMUs who are unwilling to harvest necessary numbers.
I don't know, but I watch public areas decline in quality/numbers of animals while private lands herds grow.

Some will say that private lands should open to public hunters. With the liability issues, the disrespect issues, not following rules, and having strangers enter their ranches-- many private landowners are closing their lands to the general public.

If we give incentive to private lands harvest, our public lands herds will benefit from reduced pressure. Private lands harvest will most likely not take anything away from the public lands hunters as the animals are already unavailable to them.

 

[nebo12000]

Thanks Packout-- this issue came up at a meeting we had with the DWR folks in regards to the tag proposal numbers that are going to the RACs. Its a problem that they seem to feel that is more of a legislation issue and what they are and aren't allowed to do. I think your solution to the problem is sensible and straight forward. If we are going to get anything changed we need to get the sportsman groups to push the agenda. thanks again for your ideas

 

[BrowningRage]

Great post Nebo... I whole-heartedly agree. This is an issue that I have brought up regarding deer numbers as well... Animals on private lands should not be counted towards harvest objective numbers.

A good point was made regarding migration, however, there are many areas that are non-migratory. For example, the deer and elk in Summit County are counted throughout the county, but there's about 2 square feet of public land to be hunted... Most of the animals in this area are resident deer and elk, and do not migrate like animals in the Book Cliffs, or Cache County or what have you.

Still, I agree with the concept, animals on private lands should not be counted into general tags, but possibly have their own numbers or something. Probably too much work. And I accept that tag numbers may go down a but, but for the good of the herd, we will sacrifice (I think).

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24