Initiative 400 PROposal

Trying to get away from the petty my dad is tougher than your dad BS let me provide some food for thought. I said I would address the N Cache, it is my backyard if you will in fact it is my front yard, play ground, bedding area etc. For those who are not familiar with this area the most important facts are it is 3-4 yr old mngmnt area, spike unit,borders Idaho, extremely rugged with only 2 major roads which go into Idaho and 2 Dead end roads, there is a small portion which is landlocked by private land. There are two major wilderness areas within the unit. At one time it was a prime mule deer trophy area and still produces a few big bucks each year.
Keep in mind these elk do not know or care where the border is, however as flee animals they have figured out it provides escapement. This escapement becomes a double edged sword. Many elk feed in Utah each night to return to Idaho and bed , makes for some difficult situations for a hunter, limited pursuit area.
Utah begins hunting these elk with firearms mid September to mid October, because of the pressure most elk eventually take up residence in Idaho. This is where they get cut. Idaho has an over the counter open bull hunt which opens Oct. 15. Usually this is a slaughter, I know of one opening weekend where 52 branch antlered bulls were killed, most of which were raised in Utah but sent to Idaho for market. So in this case you can see that It makes little if any sense for Utah to limit harvest like we now have only to provide Idaho with a gret hunt. In fact here is an FYI you can hunt one of Utah's LE hunts every year, you just buy an Idaho OTC tag and go north.
To compound the problem Idaho sells an archery option tag for the area which allows the harvest of cows (with rifles) until December. You see Idaho would like to remove the elk from this area and return it to their world class deer herd it once was. When I was growing up you occasionally heard of an elk in the area but never saw one. However, big bucks were common. So I hope you can see there are reasons why this unit would fit great into a management scheme such as I400. Utah is losing a ton of opprtunity which Idaho is reaping.
Each unit picked for I400 was selected because of research and criteria that made sesnse to the group working on the proposal, the meetings I attended I had to bring my knowledge to the table, and trust the knowledge of others . Many areas were discussed but these 5 seemed to fit the bill best for trying something I400. Again I don't believe anyone PRO included beleives I400 is perfect. However, Utah is waisting opportunity and a resource by the extreme LE management strategy we are using. If you have a better idea get with it and come to the table, but don't criticize a group for already being there. Also keep in mind although I400 would not be without PRO, there are many that have formulated the plan. PRO does not need to know of every unit, because of the others involved with the process.
Last food for thought. How many bulls die of old age. This a question I have often asked, most time the answer has been, they don't or we would find carcasses all over. Think of the number of cows that must die of old age, how many of those carcasses have you found lately? We are leaving a lot of money and opportunity on the table when it comes to elk in this state.
Again let me make it clear I do not want to eliminate 400" bulls, but do we really need to expect everyone to kill a 400" bull or should there be a little effort involved.
Even with the perils of the N Cache, Bear River Zone (Idaho) a 400" bull and 350+ bulls seem to be found each year. How can that happen everything points to the fact we should be decimating this herd with the combined hunt strategies?
 
Thanks to some knowledgable MM members, I have been 'clued' in on a few things about the Anthro unit. Like the fact it borders the Res., has high conflicts with landowners, has had drought issues, POACHING problems, among others. Now, I want Bessy or one of his defenders(DallanC,Packout) to explain how all these issues point to "greed" on the part of the DWR and/or "mismanagement" by the DWR. Please enlighten.

I stated earlier that we have to manage to benefit the majority not the few. What I mean by that is EVERY plan out there, either current ones or new ones being considered, affect SOME in a negative way. It is impossible to come up with a plan that EVERYONE will be happy with. The goal of all involved in this I400 plan is to have a sound biological plan that benefits BOTH the animals and the MAXIMUM number of hunters with as little inconvience as possible. If someone has ANY ideas that will minimize 'displacement' of hunters, bring it forward. I have been told that I am not willing to hear other sides. This is NOT true, if you have valid concerns and/or valid suggestions, they will be looked at. That does NOT mean just because someone says something it will be part of the plan. Sell your plan and if it is "bought" by the core group pushing this forward, it will be added in. When I first came up with this plan it looked nothing like it does now, that is due to input from MANY different people and resources that led us to change and adjust MUCH of the original plan. We are still open for modifcations, but they have to be based on sound reasoning.

PRO
 
Thanks to Pro,mulepacker, and everyone else who is willing to try an approach that has worked well in NM, AZ, and NV. ( Great Elk states,that utilizes their resources). Some may think this proposal is re-inventing the wheel. To try I400 makes sense to me. Provide more opportunity, but still have a great hunt on 5 of the 28 units. Leave the other 23 units the same. Get more people through the system. Have accountability, with manditory harvest reporting. Have a healthier herd with good bull to cow ratios, reproduction rates, etc, according to the professionals. I hope this proposal goes through. We have little to loose with manditory harvest checks, and a lot to gain in my opinion. Greg
 
I've tried to read and digest most of the posts. I serve on the Central Region RAC and I'm trying to weigh out the I400 proposal. I am having a vry hard time with the decrease in quality that will probably occur. I know for a fact that on the Nebo unit the herd size is actually only about 75% or so of the population objective. I have read every DWR report on the Nebo that I can find. Something that really bothers me is that it appears that the unit has not been counted since 2002. The spike harvest has declined sharply from 273 in 2000 to 100 in 2005. The antlerless permits have been very generous for the past 7 years. The antlerless harvest has gone from a high of 602 animals to a low of 83 in 2005. Those harvest numbers, I believe, tell the true story of the decline in herd numbers and the associated decrease in calf production. At this point I believe that an adjustment in management plans under the current system will do more to help bring this unit back nearer to objective than I400. Increasing base herd numbers will actually increase more oppoprtunity for more tags and also allow spike hunting to continue. There will be a wider range of age classes under the current system and will still allow for the chance of finding a 350+ bull. By the way, this unit has produced at least 2- 400 class bulls in the last 7 years and high number of 350+ class bulls. The unit recives huge amounts of hunting pressure August through December because of its location near the metro areas of the Wasatch front.

I would like to hear any of your view points on elk management and deer proposals.
 
Good to hear from you Nebo, I haven't seen hide nor hair of you since the DWR forum shut down.

I believe I400 is perfect for the Nebo for the very reasons you stated, cow numbers are down, spike harvest is down, the unit hasn't been counted(in your words) since 2002. I400 will have mandatory reporting, giving much more accurate feedback to what is going on the I400 units. Right now it is a guess, the DWR in reality has NO way of knowing how many spikes are harvested on any unit. They rely on a phone survey where they survey at most 25% of the spike hunters, then guesstimate the number of spikes harvested based on the results of a phone survey done by non-specialists and completely random and un-scientific. This is not a bashof the DWR, they have limited funds and resources to conduct better data gathering actions. Landowner issues are a primary reason for antlerless tag allotments on the Nebo, how to 'fix' the conflicts while keeping herd numbers up is the trick and the key.

PRO
 
The spike hunters on these 5 units are the maximum number of hunters with all three weapons. This is why I don't see how eliminating spike hunting is a benefit to the animals AND the MAXIMUM number of hunters. How many hunters are hunting Wasatch for spikes? I have a hard time believing that you will get close to that number of tags through your proposal. Your proposal WILL affect the maximum number of hunters in a negative way by forcing them to move to a non-traditional and different unit, or by having them stop spike hunting altogether.

Imagine a hunter lives in American Fork. Currently he/she can pick up the kids after football/soccer practice and be elk hunting with in 30 to 40 minutes. With your proposal the closest unit would be Manti, this would add at least an hour to their travel time, making the trip basically worthless. To me, Wasatch doesn't make sense to include in your proposal. People from all over the Wasatch Front hunt the Wasatch unit because of it's proximity to the population. By including Wasatch, you are negatively affecting the MAXIMUM number of hunters. I feel that you are only looking at the opportunity to hunt mature bulls, not just the opportunity to hunt elk period. Apparently 11,000 people like to hunt spikes every year, how does your proposal help them?
 
>Thanks to some knowledgable MM members,
>I have been 'clued' in
>on a few things about
>the Anthro unit. Like the
>fact it borders the Res.,
>has high conflicts with landowners,
>has had drought issues, POACHING
>problems, among others. Now, I
>want Bessy or one of
>his defenders(DallanC,Packout) to explain how
>all these issues point to
>"greed" on the part of
>the DWR and/or "mismanagement" by
>the DWR. Please enlighten.


Do you seriously have a problem with reading comprehension? Or do you just continually in your own mind, fill in the blanks with delusionary topics? Is your plan to win a argument is to put words into other peoples mouths trying to make it seem they said things they didnt???

I've posted once in this thread before now, NOTHING I said had anything to do with the DWR, Mismanagement or "greed" So why in hell are you singling me out to explain those points like I was the originator?? Thats poor form on your behalf.

And me defend Bess? ROFL... that's comical. No he can defend himself, as he said in this thread, me and him outright disagree on a lot of things but he think he did have a point that someone trying to make a massive shift in the Elk policy in this state, should understand the problems with the different areas of the state. That it took you so long to realize which unit he was referring to, a unit who's problems I might add has been discussed frequently on this board, shows poorly in your research.

That's all I brought up... how you construe that with "mismanagement, greed and the dwr" is beyond me.

Good lord I feel stupider every time I open a I400 thread anymore... and I'll bet I'm not the only one. What a colossal waste of time.


-DallanC
 
rutnelk asked: "Apparently 11,000 people like to hunt spikes every year, how does your proposal help them? "

We are not getting rid of a single one of the 11,000 spike tags. I grew up in a town where we would hunt one canyon on the opener, then hit the hayfields after school. When they went to picking regions for deer, THREE of the regions meet in my home town, making it no longer possible to hunt our own property on atleast one of the regions. That was painful, but it has helped the deer, so I have gotten over it. Sometimes we have to make changes for the betterment of the many and for the betterment of the animals we desire to hunt.

You also said: "I feel that you are only looking at the opportunity to hunt mature bulls, not just the opportunity to hunt elk period."

I400 is/was motivated by the desire to create more opportunity to hunt mature bulls, no one has EVER disputed that. But, NO opportunity to "hunt elk period" will be lost. As bull/cow ratios get better, and more cows are in the mix, the number of calves born each year will INCREASE. Increases in elk numbers means MORE OPPORTUNITY TO HUNT ELK PEROID, more mature bull tags and more cow tags. That is what I400 desires to have happen.

PRO
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-07 AT 01:23PM (MST)[p]Pro, the elk count comment is based on " Elk classification and trend count data by sub unit, Utah 1998-2006. The last count shown in the table is 2000-2001 which shows- Preseason- 1411 animals, 45 calves/100 cows, 18 bulls/100 cows, 3 mature bulls/100 cows, Trend count is 51 calves/100 cows, 20 bulls/100 cows, 15 mature bulls/100 cows. There are NO numbers since that time, yet other units have numbers for 04 -05 etc. I am assuming thta they are going simply off of modeling counts, not actual on the ground counts. On the Elk Population estimate tables it shows an estimate of 1580 animals in 2005. That is an absolutely inaccurate estimate. I am sure they will adjust the management numbers for the coming year.

Quality remains a real issue for me under I400 and its not because I have alot of bonus points- I had a great hunt on Nebo a number of years ago and have no real desire to hunt on a unit again that would not offer 350+ class bulls. But, that being said, if the majority of hunters just want to hunt a branch antlered bull and be able to do it more often, maybe quality and a few units need to be sacrificed--- but it goes against the premise that more and bigger bulls ( within healthy carrying capacity)create more vibrant and stronger herds.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-07 AT 01:51PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-07 AT 01:44?PM (MST)

rutnelk you are correct in the fact that 11,000 people purchased spike tags in 2007. But to assert that is there preference is an assumption, maybe they do it because it is there best option. I400 is designed to provide more options, for me and my family it will provide a better option than the spike hunt and we will be removed from your 11,000 spike hunters.
Keep in mind we are not lowering the cap of 11,000 tags. There will still be the same opportunity or tag numbers available for spikes. However 5 units wil have hunters displaced, if you check history some of these 5 units did not allow spike hunting until recently, not during the full tenure of the switch to LE
bull units. So we will be reversing a change that was made for these units.
Let me give examples of what I400 is designed to do. Keep in mind that 5 bulls per 100 cows is sufficeint to insure maximum reproductivity. Many other factors including age, harrassment, etc. during breeding periods have an effect. The purpose of hunting males is to remove surplus animals, if a unit such, as Nebo is under objective bull hunting will not determine recruitment etc. In fact leaving surplus bulls inhibits recovery.

As an Example: Not researched numbers, but projected.

Currently
N Cache Harvest
50 LE bull permits (all seasons and methods)
38 Bulls Harvested.
Unlimited Spike permits, (all methods and seasons)
25 Bulls Harvested.
You see it does not matter strategy still 63 bulls were harvested.
I400
projected to harvest a similar number of bulls 63, however 25 will not be restricted to spike harvest. By restructuring seasons and methods instead of 50 LE permits there is a possibility of 100 LE permits (conservatively) 63%.
The first year the spike hunters may be disgruntled but with in a year they will adapt. It happens time and time again, if not we would have all given up hunting long ago as our honey holes constantly change.

Do not try and take snap shots and get this or any numbers to balance it won't work. In order to devise, implement and succeed we need to look at hunting as a whole.
Counts, models, hunter numbers, precipitation, access, etc. are all snapshots, you need to make a video before understanding how I400 will work. If you look for the bad you will find the bad, my challenge is that you look for the good and in that we will find progress.

Travis Sparks

edit:
Nebo12000,

I just read your last post. I do not know how long you have been a RAC member, however the division conducted a survey 2 years ago that addressed needs and wants, you may want to get a copy and read. If my memory serves me correct 75% of the respondents would be happy with a 5 point.
That is much of my motivation we are managing our elk herds for a small percentage of hunters that are vocal and want there name in a record book. We should be managing biologically and to give the majority opportunity. I400 brings an attempt to fill this need to the table on a trial area.

edit:
You bring in a problem of Utah mentality when referring to elk. Everything seems to be based on an inch mark. It is unsound to determine maturity by inches. ex. we killed an 8.5 yr old bull last fall that scored 318, would he be considered immature? Biologically speaking any bull that is breeding has been considered exceptable by the female and mature. Qualified by humans as 3.5 yrs of age. At some point we need to stop managing our elk herds on inches of horns.
 
Just a thought for your proposal-- would you consider adding in a stipulation that the number of LE tags given in one of your units would be tied to the "best" estimate count of the number of "mature" bulls per 100 cows ( bulls that would be 325+). I think somehow the quality issue needs to be incorporated.A 300 average class of bulls isn't too appealing, I think that spike hunting fills the slot for family hunting opportunity---witho out having to draw out.
 
But Pro, you were still able to hunt close to home right? You didn't have to drive two hours to hunt deer or elk right? You just had to choose which area was better for you. I400 is a horrible idea for elk hunting opportunities for residents of Salt Lake, Utah and Wasatch Counties. Yes, they may draw a LE elk tag every 20 years instead of every 30. But, now they will have to drive much further distances to hunt elk every year than what they do currently.

I see this initiative hurting the youth more than any other group. I can take a week off of work and go hunting. My son on the other hand can't miss a week of school and football practice and also a game if he wants to continue to play and maintain quality grades. So with your proposal, my family will most likely not go elk hunting unless someone draws a LE tag close to home. I have a dad, brother, 4 nephews, two sons, and myself that would most likely not be able to hunt elk every year like we do now because of the traveling distance and time. I hope you can understand why this doesn't sound like a good idea to me. You are probably thinking that this is just one family and what I am doing is helping many more than I am hurting. But when change hits this close to home and affects my hunting future so negatively, then yes, I must speak out against it. My 15 year old son probably wouldn't be able to hunt elk until he was done with college, does this sound like a wonderful idea and opportunity for our kids.

I think that I400 should include Manti and not Wasatch. There are many more elk hunting units in the central part of the state that could begin having spike hunts to alleviate the loss of spike tags on Manti. To include the only two hunting units in Utah county seems a bit too much to ask of hunters in this area.
 
rutnelk, yes I could still hunt near home, but now I live in Tooele county. How come I don't get a spike area close to home? Is that fair that I have to travel further than you? Although I really have NO desire to hunt spikes here in Tooele County, I hope you get my point. I am willing to bet there are just as many 'elk' hunters out here percentage wise as Utah County, yet we have NO spike hunting anywhere in the county, how can this be? Could it be hunters from here are willing to travel a bit to hunt? If kids from Utah County wish to hunt, even under I400, they will STILL be able to. That arguement doesn't fly with me. One other option being kicked around is rotating spike tags every other year, I myself don't like that as much as issuing spike tags based on herd needs. Like Mulupacker pointed out, spike tags haven't been around that many years, so to say it is "tradition" means it is a fairly 'new' tradtion. One that can be adjusted, just like I had to change my "traditions" on the deer hunting in Sanpete County. Heck, when I was a teenager, I could hunt with my bow, and then if I hadn't punched my tag, hunt the rifle season. That was a "tradition" that I am not allowed to practice today unless I do the dedicated hunter program. Then I am only allowed to kill 2 deer in 3 years. My point being, we as hunters MUST constantly adapt and CHANGE our "traditions" in order to 1)be successful 2)help the herds 3)benefit hunters as a whole not as indivuals.

PRO
 
Yes, I'm the new guy. I've been reading for awhile and this one I had to ask.

Does anyone know what the average size bull harvested on most of our LE elk units?

I would dare guess on units like the Manti and Wasatch the average is under 330".

Even on units that are managed for 5 year and older bulls the average is well under 350".

Just a guess, so if anyone knows?? Please respond.
 
Pro, you need to man up and not put words in people's mouths. I think if you had any knowledge about me you would find that Bessy and I have gone the rounds over opportunity. I have never said the DWR was greedy or mismanaged. Once again you are writing things which are not true. The facts are the bulls are already availible, IF the DWR was allowed to issue the tags. They have not been in the past. How can we know they will be in the future? See WW's post above for the concerns. Where have you been at the RACs or Board meetings, asking for more tags? Nowhere. If you have a problem with me PM me. If not drop it.

Travis- You state your positions very well. We have stood at the same Board meetings and supported the same positions on elk. I would love to see Utahns actually get to hunt their elk, yet the process has not fully allowed them. I would like very much to see I400 work, but past experience has made me leary that these units would be allowed hunted as proposed. I have said that I like the idea of I400, but the possibility of LOOSING current opportunity makes many hunters fear. I had to state it twice.
 
Packout, I was referring to saying I should know everything about every unit, if you were not apart of that, I apologize. Once again though, you have gotten ATLEAST as personal as I EVER have towards you, so be it. I agree the DWR would LOVE to issue MORE tags, that is why I am glad to see people like you on the RAC's, since it is the RAC's and Board that have 'limited' the number of tags much more than the DWR. As for where have I been "at the RAC's or Board meetings asking for more tags?" I have in the past sat on my a$$ like most 'hunters' up until a few years ago when I got tired of waiting for others to do what I felt needed to be done. SInce then I have been to RAC meetings, Board meetings, be put on the Board of Directors for UBA, been on the Elk Committee for RMEF in Tooele, met with DWR officals and biologists, talked with several memebers of SFW(including Board memebers), MDF, and other conservation groups, held meeting with fellow sportsmen, doing what I can to increase opportunity for ALL hunters. If you want to condemn me for doing little/nothing in years past, I have no defense, but I am doing something now, as are you. Thank you for your time and committment to wildlife in Utah. I do NOT have a problem with you on a personal level, NONE, sorry I have given that impression, I do get caught up in the heat of battle on occasion, no offense intended.

I still fail to see where I400 would be "giving up current opportunity". No tag reductions of any kind, but an increase in mature bull tags does NOT compute into a loss to me.

PRO
 
Packout,

Thanks for the kind words. I will state it again I too am afraid of change, that is exactly why I take a proactive role in things I am passionate about. By proactive I do not mean getting on MM and trying to convince folks of my point. Yes I have given many MM tidbits for folks to think about. I fully believe an understanding is the best way to conversion. I try and be objective and look at a big picture not necessarily how it affects ME. I do not want to ba a NIMBY (not in my back yard) type.
So let us truly look at I400:
I believe it is more important that a citizen group goes in front of the RAC's with a message that we want more opportunity than the specifics of the message. Most RAC members will not understand the specifics of each unit. (Many RAC members do not hunt) What they will hear is a plea from the public for more opportunity and that is what is important. If there is significant opposition to I400 then the message they recieve is the public wants less opportunity.
Keep in mind that the trophy hunters already have a loud and powerful voice in Utah. Each year they bring a well organized and strong campaign to the table for more restrictive and costly hunting. They sell there message as representing the hunters of Utah.
Obviously because of proposals like I400 and others this may not be true.
Anyway will I400 be bought as proposed. Absolutley not, but it will start a thought process that will be tweaked and result in more opportunity if the RAC's hear the message we are waisting a resource and want more opportunity.
Maybe if I invite BOBCAT to come and hunt with me on the lowly N CACHE and teach him how to kill big stinky's when there is not one behind every bush, then I can convert him to the congregation of opportunists. Probably not, that is ok we need folks fighting to keep the premium units, there is a segment of the population that wants 400 bulls behind every bush.
So why does a spike hunt not fill my need, I am an elk caller I like to play chess if you will and spikes aren't very good chess players. WE need more units where a guy can hunt not trophies and not spikes but satellite bulls I400 fills this niche.
There you go how do I overcome my fears. I participate, I gain knowledge of the subject, I understand that folks were afraid of spike huning and did't like it in 1985. I understand that we should fear complacency and stagnancy more than change. Change is progress.
 
Pro, I said elk hunting not just spike hunting. My family hunted Wasatch long before it was made to be spike only. The reason you can't hunt elk close to home in Tooele is because there haven't ever been (or at least there haven't been for quite awhile) any general season elk hunting areas near you. If there was a general hunt close to Tooele, I am sure many of your neighbors would take advantage of it. And then can you imagine their dismay when Pro decideds that general season elk hunting will no longer be allowed near Tooele. I have two units near me and now you want to remove those and you don't understand why this may be a problem. My sons time is very limited and for you to remove the only two general season elk units that he can reasonably hunt is something that I can't support. I don't argue the fact that you are creating more opportunity to kill a mature bull, but how often in your proposal would you guess my son will get a tag to hunt mature bulls on Wasatch? Just give me a guesstimate on how often you would think someone hunting with a rifle would get to hunt one of these pilot units? I'm not being argumentative hear, I would just like some more information and your opinion.

Mule, I understand that spike only areas aren't everyones first choice, but it is still a choice if they don't draw a LE tag. I also understand that this proposal won't elminate any spike tags, but it will just move them to other units. Mule, I ask a similar question to you, how often will you and your family get to hunt together on one of the pilot units? Now if we were reversing what changes were made on Wasatch, we would make the unit an any bull open area that anyone could hunt without having to draw a special permit. That is not what I400 is proposing. I would still have to draw a LE permit (or a I400)to hunt Wasatch. Right?

Alright, Pro and Mule, could you please give me your estimate on how long it will take someone to draw a rifle tag on Wasatch? Sell me on this make me a believer in your proposal. Also, could you tell me what elk hunting oportunities a kid in Utah County will have with only 1 1/2 hours of light after football practice? No cows please. Again, not being arumentative here, I just want your opinion and some information.

Make Manti and not Wasatch a pilot unit and I might be sold.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-07 AT 03:52PM (MST)[p]Pro said,
"rutnelk, yes I could still hunt near home, but now I live in Tooele county. How come I don't get a spike area close to home? Is that fair that I have to travel further than you? Although I really have NO desire to hunt spikes here in Tooele County, I hope you get my point. I am willing to bet there are just as many 'elk' hunters out here percentage wise as Utah County, yet we have NO spike hunting anywhere in the county, how can this be? Could it be hunters from here are willing to travel a bit to hunt?"

Maybe it's because there aren't any elk out there.


"Like Mulupacker pointed out, spike tags haven't been around that many years, so to say it is "tradition" means it is a fairly 'new' tradtion."

Since you pointed it out. How good was the elk hunting before the change to spike only units?
How many BC bulls did Utah have?
How many elk guides made a living back then?
 
One more thing, why not make all any bull units branch antlered only. This would give those wishing to chase mature bulls an opportunity but would still leave the spike only units for others. If spikes were allowed to live on any bull units, then we would be able to have a good crop of raghorns every single year. Mule this would be your chance to play chess with the raghorns. Just a thought.
 
rutnelk, there is NO way to guesstimate how often your son can draw a Wasatch tag, to many variables that cannot be factored until it is implemented. You say make it the Manti instead of the Wasatch, that will just change those who oppose it to people from that area, but will not solve the valid concerns you and others have brought up. I hear what you are saying, and there are no easy answers. You say cow tags are not an opotion, WHY?

albubba, there ARE elk in Tooele County, we have TWO LE units out here. I can locate elk in under an hour any day of the week out here.

Are you saying it was spike tags that brought on all the B&C bulls in Utah? Really?

PRO
 
Pro- Your last post was very well done. So lets just discuss the issue and leave the personal BS out of it.

You said that no opportunity would be lost. What units will be added to spike hunting which will compensate for the loss of opportunity on the I400 units?

I can only assume that the units for future spike hunting would be the big 4 which have high bull/cow ratios. Monroe, SW Des, Pahvant, and San Juan. Those 4 units have an elk population of around 5,000-6,000 and are among the least productive units in producing elk. The 5 units you are proposing in I400 have an elk population of approx 13,000-14,000 and are among the most productive in producing total elk. How can those new units handle the pressure of hunters currently on units with 2x the total elk and a much higher ratio of yearling bulls?

Travis- I have been very involved with trying to bring about change in the current system. I was involved with lowering age classes and trying to get bull permit numbers increased to actually bring our elk herds into objective. Change is what I want. I do not want to give up the current opportunity until the DWR is allowed to manage the herds to the current objectives. If I400 goes through and the DWR is not allowed to manage these herds to objective than everyone looses.
 
>One more thing, why not make
>all any bull units branch
>antlered only. This would
>give those wishing to chase
>mature bulls an opportunity but
>would still leave the spike
>only units for others.
>If spikes were allowed to
>live on any bull units,
>then we would be able
>to have a good crop
>of raghorns every single year.
> Mule this would be
>your chance to play chess
>with the raghorns. Just
>a thought.

This was suggested to the Big Game Coordinator last fall, he said the main reason the DWR is against this is enforcement. Many of the any-bull areas are fairly remote and patrolling is limited. So, the possiblity of illegally killed bulls would be high, offsetting what the antler restriction would be trying to accomplish.

PRO
 
I have absolutely no desire to ever hunt for cows. It's just not for me. I know it is a sound management practice, but I won't be the one killing them. I guess I like balls too much.
 
"Are you saying it was spike tags that brought on all the B&C bulls in Utah? Really?"

Thats not what I said. I asked how good the elk hunting was before spike units. Now lets hear an answer and not more of your dodgeball.
 
Albubba,


How good was the elk hunting before the change to spike only units?
Fore me elk hunting was great. Keep in mind that not only did Utah change management schemes but a marketing group RMEF came along. Changed a lot of thought process for hunters in general, put elk in the lime light if you will. However, the general Utah sportsman resisted going away from the general elk season far worse than I400's opposition. I believe elk hunting has taken a change for the worse in the past 20 years. Of course I was one of a handful of folks that hunted elk religously 20 years ago.

How many BC bulls did Utah have? I believe that is hard to summize, record books and marketing were backseat. However, I believe there is a state record bull hanging on a barn shot prior to 1985. I also believe there were just as many record book bulls we just didn't restrict harvest to a point that everyone needed one to fill like they were a successful elk hunter. My question to you is what value does a B&C number add to your elk?

How many elk guides made a living back then? I would guess about the same number as now. Not very many guides make a living, most supplement other jobs with guiding. Unfortunately in Utah it has put undo pressure on a breeding elk population.
 
Packout, fair enough! I apologize and ask for forgiveness.

The initial units would be the four you mentioned, with the possiblity of a few others with extremely high bull/cow ratios. What we want in the long run is spike tags being issued on units that warrant them, meaning units that eithe rhave high bull/cow ratios or units where the age objectives have dropped below objectives where the mature tags would be reduced at the same time on the low harvest age units. Other units like the Manti, S Cache, Beaver, and the other spike units(right now there are 15 of them) would/could absorb the additional 'pressure'. Success rates for spikes will be low regardless of what units are included, so a certain percentage of spikes will escape and become mature bulls regardless. One other option mentioned was to alternate units, for example, a few folks from one of the conservation groups suggested rotating the San Juan and LaSals every other year. This would reduce the bull/cow ratio on the San Juan while allowing more mature bulls to be phased into the herd on the LaSal. Either plan is better, IMHO than the current isssuing of tags on the same 15 units every year, needed or not.

I also believe with the support of the major conservation groups and the DWR, the objectives can/will be met under I400. And, based on feedback from the two biggest conservation groups and from the DWR, I believe this is a realistic outcome. The RAC's and Board do listen to public input, conservation groups, and the DWR, and based on my conservations with all three it is very attainable.

PRO
 
Albubba, read mulepackers post, sums it up pretty good. I would add, at what cost have we attained all these B&C bulls? I am one of those guides who supplements my income putting B&C bulls on the ground, yet I am in favor of I400 because I see it has a more healthy way to manage our elk herds and allows more hunters to enjoy the experience of hunting mature bulls. I400 is not a good plan for me as a guide, that is a given, but I believe it is a good plan for the long term future of elk hunting in Utah.

Under I400, 23 of the 28 LE units would be left as is for LE elk tags, that means there is plenty of options for those(me included) who desire to go after a B&C bull, but I submit there will be MANY B&C bulls found on the five pilot units several years after implementation.

PRO
 
HEY albuba!!!

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WHEN YOU MENTIONED "DODGEBALL"!!!

5 UNITS OF PISSCUTTER HEAVEN!!!

I'M STILL TRYING TO TALK wiley INTO WASETING HIS POINTS ON ONE OF THESE UNITS!!!

START YOUR OWN UNITS FROM SCRATCH Pro!!!





469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
Mulepacker,
I personally don't care about BC score. I shot a 330 bull on Wasatch a few years ago and am happy with it. I was just stating that the size of our elk and numbers of big bulls killed has increased since spike hunts started.

My point is this-
You can add tags to ALL LE units in this state and not cause undue harm to the herds. IE without I400
We can keep the excisting spike only units for those that choose to do so.
No one seems to have an answer on how much more oppurtunity me and my family will have. Such as how often I can expect to draw a tag compared to now.
 
Albubba has a point. Why not cut all the BS and just propose to lower the age objectives for these 5 units. More tags, more opportunity. Keep spike hunting. Seems much simpler than the fuzzy math and number manipulation being done here.

Nebo, glad to hear a RAC member has some serious concerns about this.
 
Your just wasting your time. You should know by now you cant have a discussion with Pro. How do you have an educated debate with someone who refuses to see any point aside from their own? This is a prime example of why he will be a good politician, he knows all. If he wants to represent the public and attempt to make things better he should listen to others, he is unable to do that!

Out of all the self centered know it all posts have you ever seen him wrong, no. Have you ever seen him concede his mindless thoughts to what others have brought to the table, nope. The only thing you will ever see is the tap dance 2 step away from reality.

Good luck.
 
NICE POST 300MIKE!!!

469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
We don't have to reinvent the wheel. If we want more opportunity the way to do it is add permits to the lowest impact weapons. Utah is the only state I know of that gives more LE opportunity to rifle hunters. We manage for minimum opp. and minimum revenue. STUPID!
The system is in place, we just need to rotate the allocation of permits to allow for maximum opportunity and minimum harvest. Why in the hell do we need to add a new point system, or change the way we work the draw. Makes no sense.
If you compared a unit like the Wasatch to a unit of the same area and heard size in Arizona there would be between 500 to 1000 permits for any bull. There would still be an opportunity to harvest a B&C bull, and most would be happy with an average 6 point.
The reason this works is the bulk of the permits go to archers. REVENUE.
If we made this change on only 5 units there could be a considerable drop in draw time for those that are willing to pick up a different weapon. There would still be the chance at a book bull for those that put in the time. Probably the same group of hunters that have the ability to harvest them now.
I would still like someone to post the average scores of LE bulls harvested. Still betting its 30 to 40 inches short of what the expected harvest is.
 
Good point EDGE. I saw quite a few bulls come off the Wasatch unit and out of those bulls I would guess that less than 10% were over 350. Most bulls I saw were right at the 320 mark. Great bull by any means but I'm sure they fall short of what everybodies expectations were.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
If we would just leave everything else alone. Push the division to truly manage to the age class we would get the tags we want and always have big bulls to chase.

We dont need to change the seasons around either. Archery hunters complain that they are not in the peak of the rut, but move them back a week or two and they will seldom kill a big heard bull. The best chance at calling the big boys is early.

There is a flaw in my thinking though. If the bulk of the tags were to go to archers the average age and size would drop a bunch. This would lead the division and sportsmen to think we have killed off all the old bulls..... The age class information would need to only come from the rifle hunt. Just a thought
 
Amen.
I don't believe you will find many folks that disagree that we could be issueing more permits (DWR Included) with the units and structure we now have. There are some that have been very vocal against any change that may decrease trophy potential, SFW has fought for status quo with minimal increases. AR301 which proved the benefit of increasing archery was shot down because it is not fair and equal. Unless you have been in the battle each year at the RAC's and wildlife board you may not understand the politics of Utah hunting especially LE Elk. Again there are thousands of ways we can leave the units the way they are and increase LE tags, however unless the RAC's hear from you guys they will never get the message, check the RAC schedules you need to show up to any RAC that addresses Big Game there are usually three a year.
I400 is a good well thought out attempt at change: Why 5 units and some of the details that are part of it is due to the politics, trying to meet in the middle so it has a chance.
Also to be cautious, contrary to some beliefs noone involved with I400 wants to see a crash either.


Travis Sparks
 
What if you took the Wasatch and divided it in half. One part you kept spike hunting and the other half you stopped spike hunting. If you wanted to draw for an LE tag you would have to choose which one you wanted. After a couple of years which half would have the bigger bulls and which half would have the most hunters applying for it? If size and maturity doesn't matter then there would be more people applying for the half with the most bulls and tags available-- right? Which half would have the biggest number of 325+ bulls. I still believe that a majority of hunters want to feel that the opportunity of finding a 350+ bull in the area the want to draw out in, is a legitimate possibilty, but not a gaurantee. I believe that increase calf production by keeping herd levels as close as possible to objective levels will do more to increase the available bulls than eliminating spike hunting or restricting the number of mature bull tags. I believe that without the appropriate number of cows producing calfs in a given unit that it won't matter if I400 is in place or if it stays under the current system. If you want more bulls you'll have to convince the DWR that the antlerless permits have to be drastically cut so that there is increased calf production and subsequent increase of recruitment of bulls into the population. I believe that any proposal is just semantics unless you include a plan to increase calf production to maximum sustainable levels. At some point there has to be a balance of bulls/cows that is sustainable year in and year out. I400 has to address that issue. How many productive cows are needed in a population to sustain the kind of tag and harvest numbers you are proposing? If a unit objective is 1500 animals, how many need to be productive cows? To me, this is a critical number that needs to be determined before throwing out how many tags and how often we could hunt a particular unit under I400. It seems that I400 is based on the assumptions that these 5 units are already at maximum sustainable levels-- all of them are not. that needs to be fixed first.
 
Good post Nebo. We have looked at the calf/cow ratios and have had MANY talks with the DWR on this very subject. They believe, notice I said THEY, that the calf/cow ratios are 55/100 and will be pretty much that under ANY plan. What I400 will do is get rid of the 'excess' bulls, which will allow for more cows to be in the herd population, this will INCREASE the number of calves born and recruited into the herd each year. This will allow the unit to be at max herd numbers, which means a max number of bulls will be available as well. Then the fact that MORE bulls will be recruited into the herd each year will mean a better balance of age classes amoungst the bull population, which means a more healthier and more 'natural' bull population. Healthier bulls will breed more cows during the first estrus cycle, which will mean a higher survival rate for calves born in the spring. I400 will make the herds HEALTHIER, this will benenfit both the elk and the elk hunter. As long as age objectives are met under I400 the 350 class bulls will STILL be in the herd, they just will be harder to put on the ground. Like mulepacker mentioned, N Cache has a 3-4 harvest age objective, and they are pretty close to objective and they kill 350+ bulls EVERY year, they have even killed atleast 3 400+ bulls in the last few years on that unit, which borders Idaho and OTC tags. If they can get that big there, they will get that big on the Wasatch, Nebo, LaSal, and Fish Lake.

PRO
 
As long as there are less permits than bulls there will always be 350's running around. It will just be a matter of how hard we have to hunt to get them. No different than general season deer. Each region will produce B&C heads each year.

One of the problems we have now is the harvest of cows. I thought we were going to grow our elk heard? Why are we issuing so many cow tags? This is where our calf production takes a big hit.
 
Edge- I am not saying that I have all the answers, but I have sat in my share of meetings with the DWR and have a decent idea why you see more cow tags. Without muddying the example with winter-kill, etc. Lets say that a herd of 1,000 elk produces 400 calves. Roughly 50% of the calves will be bulls. So you have 200 new bull calves and 200 new hefier calves. The elk population, by contract, can only be 1,000 so the DWR must remove 400 head. The vocal Groups will not allow the DWR to kill 200 bulls so they only issue 50 bull tags. But we still must kill 350 additional elk because that will bring the herd in to objective. So the vocal groups don't show up at the RACs or Board when the DWR asks for 350 cow tags. After a while, units start to have more bulls than cows in that 1,000 head and we all know that bulls don't give birth to babies, thus the productivity of the herd goes way down. But INCHES go wayyyy up if you are growing that many extra, unneeded bulls.
 
I agree with what your saying about heard management, but I thought we were looking to grow our elk heards. Didn't we have a plan to get to 70,000 head? Cant get there killing cows, and we don't need the additional revenue if we harvest more bulls at $200 bucks a pop.
 
Here is my proposal for season dates.

Any weapon-1st week in Sept. starting Labor day weekend 9 days

Muzzle- 2nd Monday in Sept. 14 days.

Archery-4th Monday in Sept. thru middle of Oct.

Keep general season deer hunts the same as now except the muzzy hunt would run the same as the elk.

With this you can give a lot more archery tags and less rifle.
 
I would not want to see a change in season dates. If anything move the rifle hunt later. I would like to hear from other archers and see what they think about the current seasons. Do you think its better where it is or would you rather it be more to the peak of the rut. My experience says leave it where it is.
 
I think the season dates talked about in I400 are good dates. This will give more a chance to hunt and also help protect big bulls from an over harvest.
 
How exactly does this protect bulls from over harvest?
There is no guarantee that success will be lowered.
Most guys, rather than eat tag soup, will settle for a raghorn.
 
Thats the idea. Thats the idea with more archery tags. To harvest more of the bulls the rifle hunters won't take. The bulls that need to be harvested.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-07 AT 08:16AM (MST)[p]So archery hunters are not very selective?
What bulls "need" to be harvested?
If archery hunters don't care about the size of the bull they kill, then my proposed hunt dates would work for you.
Rifle hunters, who are more selective, get first crack.
Then the mass of archery hunters can clean up the rest.
 
Honest question, why would moving the rifle hunt BEFORE any other weapons make sense? You have lost me, help me out.

PRO
 
It is simple.
You want to screw the rifle hunter out of tags and the rut hunt.
So let him have first crack before the rut really gets going.
Then you can give a shatload of archery tags for the Oct. hunt because the success will be lower. Same results.
 
Im not saying their less selective. Maybe not so worried about a 400 bull, maybe more archers would hope to harvest a 330 class bull. Hell I don't know. I'm just saying if you take an average of bulls harvested by archers and bulls harvested by rifle hunters the rifle bulls will be bigger.
That is at least with the seasons the way they are now. Don't need to change the seasons. Maybe I'm wrong, so if anyone has info please share.

I just thing there are alot of bulls die of old age that will never be bigger than 330. These are the bulls I think need to be harvested.
 
I'm not saying to change the seasons. The fact that its an archery hunt will make it less % harvested.
If anything (and I don't think there needs to be a change) move the rifle hunt to october so there can be more rifle permits. The idea is to get more opportunity out of the resource. Hunting with rifles in the peak of the rut is minimum opportunity and minimum revenue PERIOD!
 
EDGE,

You are making sense. Archers complain about not hunting the "peak of the rut", but everything I have ever heard from the so called experts is the pre-rut is the best time. I cannot say that I disagree. Are the archers getting the best dates for their weapon? Maybe? During the rut the big bulls have their cows and are not interested in fighting and collecting more cows. Maybe I am wrong, but this is what I have experienced. If anything, switch the muzz and any weapon dates? The good archers usually kill bulls and pretty good bulls at that. The casual ones are the ones who struggle more times than not.

I will disagree with the die of old age thing though. I have never found one dead of old age yet.
 
Edge, I agree with you.
I think that we need to kill more bulls, but not with this proposal.
Let's get all units to their age objectives by increasing bull tags. Give less cow tags.
I don't want to jump the gun so to speak.
I agree that we shoud break down the Wasatch unit into smaller, more managable units.
 
This is NOT a rifle vs archery issue. It is how do we get success rates down to 'reasonable' levels, that is the BEST way to increase tag numbers w/o hurting quality.

True, archers kill smaller bulls on average, so giving MORE tags to archers will NOT affect quality yet get the bull/cow ratios better balanced.

ktc, I find dead bulls EVERY year that show no sign of being 'killed' by predators or humans. To say we have NO bulls dieing of old age is nonsensical. How many cow elk die in Utah each year? Yet how many dead cows do you stumble across? I am guessing very few. I also believe having a SMALL percentage of bulls dying of old age is a sign of a healthy balanced herd.

Bessy summed up the 'problem' that I have with the current plan as it is being implemented right now; we grow 8-10 bulls in order to have ONE that is deemed 'worthy' of being killed. That is NOT sound management, and is NOT healthy for the herd, and is NOT healthy for the future of hunting in this state.

PRO
 
We're not arguing rifle archery. I think we were agreeing that we need to give more opportunity. I just think more opportunity should go to those that have less of an impact.
I don't want to jump the gun either, I want to see the age class brought to objective throughout the state and the way that is going to happen is issue more permits. I would just like to see the permits go to a lesser success rate hunt so there can be more of them. More opportunity, move people through the bonus system quicker. Will it make everyone happy? Not in a million years will we have a plan that fits everyone.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-07 AT 10:20AM (MST)[p]I am not buying into lowering the success rates.
I don't want to wait years to draw a tag, and then only have a 50-50 chance of killing a bull. If you draw a LE tag, you should have a GREAT OPPORTUNITY for success.
Plus you can't dictate success or prove that my opportunity to draw more often will increase dramatically.

So tell me what is wrong with just increasing LE tags an all units to meet age objectives and not creating a mjor change?
 
>We're not arguing rifle archery. I
>think we were agreeing that
>we need to give more
>opportunity. I just think more
>opportunity should go to those
>that have less of an
>impact.
>I don't want to jump the
>gun either, I want to
>see the age class brought
>to objective throughout the state
>and the way that is
>going to happen is issue
>more permits. I would just
>like to see the permits
>go to a lesser success
>rate hunt so there can
>be more of them.
>More opportunity, move people through
>the bonus system quicker. Will
>it make everyone happy? Not
>in a million years will
>we have a plan that
>fits everyone.

You just described I400!

PRO
 
EDGE_1!!!

IT'S AMAZING!!!

YOU MENTION YOU "THINK" THERE ARE ALOT OF BULLS DIEING OF OLD AGE!!!

THEN Pro JUMPS RIGHT IN SAYING HE FINDS MANY EACH YEAR!!!

I'M CALLING BULLL$HIT ON THAT ONE!!!

SURE A FEW DIE EACH YEAR!!!

BUT IT DAMN SURE AIN'T ALOT!!!

Pro!!!

WILL PLEASE GET THE NUMBERS FROM THE UDWR (GAWDS ACCORDING TO YOU!!!) BIOLOGISTS & LETS SEE WHAT KIND OF PERCENTAGES OF BULLS ARE DIEING ON LE UNITS FROM OLD AGE!!!

YOU BOYS NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE ME!!!

NOW WE ARE WORRYING ABOUT BULLS DIEING OF OLD AGE WHICH AIN'T EVEN A BIG ENOUGH FACTOR TO EVEN FRICKEN WORRY ABOUT!!!

albuba BRINGS UP SOME VERY INTERESTING POINTS!!!

AND I'M WITH HIM!!!

IF THE FEATHER FLIPPERS START SCREWING WITH THESE LE UNITS I'LL BE RIGHT THERE WITH albuba SCREAMING FOR AN EARLY RIFLE HUNT LONG BEFORE THE ARCHERY HUNT STARTS!!!

THAT OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH TO PISS THE Pro OFF!!!

BY THE WAY I'M NOT BASHING YOU!!!







469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
Nonsensical? Geezus pro, I am not even sure I know what that means. Something tells me it mean I am full of schit? For your information pro, and take it for what it is worth (which is probably nothing to you) I have NEVER FOUND A DEAD BULL EXCEPT ONE WITH HALF OF AN ARROW IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you can tell me it is "nonsensical" or I am full of bs, but that is what my two eyes saw in 3 years on Dutton. Now, I did see 2-3 dead cows on ridges that were probably bare and winter kill, but NOT ONE BULL EXCEPT THE ONE WITH HALF OF A DAMN ARROW IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Funny how soon as hunting season winds down and shed hunting picks up people start posting pictures of dead bulls all the time. Then people start complaining they stole it out of Utah and you can't touch them in Utah and so on. I haven't seen any cows or bulls yet but with that may cows living on the mountain. There has to be some that die every year just can't find them. I would also bet with bull to cow ratio nearing 100 bulls to 100 cows there are bulls that will be dieing in the near future. Especially with a lot of bulls nearing the later part of life, how old do you think they live?

How come the Wasatch unit can put out 380? to 400? bulls every year and still have most of the spikes shot out of it every year? This unit dosent have 100 bulls to 100 cow?s ratios.

This tells me they can up the limit of bull tags like they say they can. Without hurting anything!
 
PRO, Don't tell me that what I have said on here is the same as your i400 or whatever plan. The last thing I want to do is eliminate spike hunting on ANY unit. This displaces alot of families traditional year in year out hunt. It also over populates the other areas with hunters.
I also don't want to see anything changed or added to the current draw. We don't need anything more complicated. How will any plan help the draw odd pool if you have something special for this hunt???
Yes I want to see more OPPORTUNITY across the board, but the way I see it happening is with less % harvest hunts. ie. archery.

Remember we are looking for opportunity here. The chance to HUNT an elk, not KILL an elk. If you need a guaranteed harvest there are some great elk ranches throughout the state.
More hunters in the field + less % harvested = more revenue = better game management for the future.

I also wasnt the one saying I see dead bulls laying around the mountain. I don't think I have ever found a winter killed bull. What I was going off of were the disaperance of bulls that frequented the same area for years and not show up one year. Areas and bulls that I usually would know if they were taken. I can only assume old age got em'.
I'm no biologist however. No grammar or spelling major either!
 
Bessy wrote: "THEN Pro JUMPS RIGHT IN SAYING HE FINDS MANY EACH YEAR!!!"

Not true Bessy, I wrote: "I find dead bulls EVERY year that show no sign of being 'killed' by predators or humans."

Where is the word MANY?

Then bessy wrote: "NOW WE ARE WORRYING ABOUT BULLS DIEING OF OLD AGE WHICH AIN'T EVEN A BIG ENOUGH FACTOR TO EVEN FRICKEN WORRY ABOUT!!!"

Bessy, do you even read my posts? I said, "I also believe having a SMALL percentage of bulls dying of old age is a sign of a healthy balanced herd."

Does that sound like I am worried about bulls dying of old age?



ktc wrote: "Nonsensical? Geezus pro, I am not even sure I know what that means. Something tells me it mean I am full of schit? For your information pro, and take it for what it is worth (which is probably nothing to you) I have NEVER FOUND A DEAD BULL EXCEPT ONE WITH HALF OF AN ARROW IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you can tell me it is "nonsensical" or I am full of bs, but that is what my two eyes saw in 3 years on Dutton. Now, I did see 2-3 dead cows on ridges that were probably bare and winter kill, but NOT ONE BULL EXCEPT THE ONE WITH HALF OF A DAMN ARROW IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Look the word up! What I said then and what I say now is, to imply that NO bulls die of old age in Utah defies logic. To assume that because YOU have not seen/found any dead bulls that have dyed of old age is a pretty bold statement.

PRO
 
>To assume that you have seen
>them dead pro, is GOSPEL!
>

Good comeback cowboy!

PRO
 
ProPISSY!!!

YOU SAID:YOU FIND DEAD BULLS EVERY YEAR!!!

BULLS WITH AN S IS PLURAL LAST TIME I CHECKED!!!

DON'T TRY AND BULL$HIT EVERYBODY ON THIS SITE THAT THERES A BUNCH OF BULLS DIEING OF OLD AGE HERE IN UTAH CUZZ THERE AIN'T!!!

SURE IT HAPPENS IN SMALL NUMBERS!!!

YOU KNOW???

IF HUMANS WERE HUNTED & SHOT FOR NICE RACKS I WONDER WHAT THE AGE AVERAGE WOULD BE???

MAYBE THATS A QUESTION FOR Beefy???

YOU KNOW Pro???

THERES ALOT OF THINGS YOU COULD BE DOING RIGHT NOW TO HELP UTAH'S WILDLIFE!!!

SCREWING WITH LE ELK UNITS AIN'T ONE OF THEM!!!





469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
PRO, I may not agree with the proposal, but don't stop trying to make a difference. Anyone making change and trying to make things better will always leave themselves to everyones elses critisism. If you continue to keep everyone on their toes they will show up to RACS and be heard where it counts. Because your involved your voice will be heard and thats what scares everyone. Stick with it!
We all have different ideas of how things should be done. We all see different things in the hills.
It feels good to be back in a wildlife argument-discussion. Vintage MM.
 
edge-1, thanks for the post. I like what you are saying, because I400 is not set in stone, YET. We are always looking at ways to make improvements to it. If you have anything we would like to add, feel free to either post or send me a PM.

Bessy, you finally said something correct. Having a s on the end does indeed mean plural, it does NOT however mean MANY! I simply pointed out that bull elk DO die of old age in Utah, this was in response to a post implying they don't, in fact I recall you have postes NUMEROUS times that bulls are not dying of old age, now you have changed your story. I also made it clear that I believe having bulls die of natural causes is a sign of a healthy and BALANCED herd. And having a healthy and balanced herd along woth more opportunity for hunters is the goal and mission of I400.

PRO
 
bobcat,

pro confirmed in his mind you finally said something correct! What an accomplishment! You should be one proud kitty!
 
I agree Ty, he was right about an 's' meaning plural, he should truly be proud!

Tworay, the first post of this thread sums it up pretty good, if you want more answers, shoot me a PM.

PRO
 
Pro,
To you opportunity means that most years I get the opportunity to hunt spikes on the already overcrowded Manti unit.
 
well haveing never signed up or posted before i guess i can keep quiet no longer.

Your PRO posal started good, the dates need to be switched.

the rest of it is total BS.

who or what does it benefit?
the elk?
will i draw next year if it passes?
will there be a 400 bull killed?

the elk are in great shape and managed very well right now
NO i won't draw next year
there are tons of 400 bulls taken

looks like the system is working to me

it is not broke. don't fix it till it is broke


what is YOUR motivation for 1400?
 
>Pro,
>To you opportunity means that most
>years I get the opportunity
>to hunt spikes on the
>already overcrowded Manti unit.

That is flat out NOT true. If it were, why would I be proposing I400? Think about it, the two main parts of I400 is to move the rifle hunt out of September and STOP issuing spike tags! I believe many/most spike hunters hunt spikes because they have few other options, I400 is about giving elk hunters MORE options and MORE opportunities to hunt MATURE bulls, not spikes.

PRO
 
Pro,
You are right about one thing.
If given the choice of hunting spikes or mature bulls, I would take the latter.
But if I don't draw, its hunting spikes with the rest of the displaced Wasatch guys on Manti.

Please, in your best guestimate, tell me how often I wouild draw a Wasatch tag under your I400 proposal.
If its not a significant increase over what it would take if we just increased tags, then I am not for it.

Plus when I do draw, I(along with most others) want a GREAT opportunity for success. Not 50-50 chance.
 
Pro if I400 passes, where are most guys north of say Nephi going to most likely hunt general season bull elk? I can tell you right now that the Uintas and Manti are going to be so over hunted that after 5 years people will just stop going. Is this your idea for improving oportunity? I hunt Wasatch, which I think I already mentioned; but a lot of the people I run into are from Salt Lake County. Why? Proximity to home I'm sure. So if I cant hunt Wasatch any longer what are my options? Manti spike only or the Uintas any bull unit, don't you think? I do. Do you guys want an extra 4000 hunters from Wasatch and Nebo joining you on your already crowded hunts? Like I said earlier, most hunters north of Nephi are going to choose one of the two areas I mentioned, I can guarantee that without having the numbers to back it up. It's called common sense that most people, not all, will hunt somewhere reasonably close to home.

Pro, you talk about maybe trying to open other areas to spike only hunting. What areas are you talking about? I would like to know your exact plan on what areas are going to start hunting spikes, not a we might even try to open new areas to spike only hunting. This should be part of the proposal, I think.

And finally, you keep talking about increasing the number of tags and increasing opportunity but I don't remember reading anywhere where you state how much. By what percentage are you increasing tags? How can you guarantee that a kid with a rofle will get to Hunt LE more often? We know that if my kid picks up a bow he will hunt 3 to 4 times as often as he would with a rifle. But most people in the state hunt with a rifle, so I don't see that it will increase opportunity very much for the rifle hunters, a little yes, but not much. But the archers and muzzy hunters will see an overwhelming increase in opportunity. So why would a rifle hunter be in favor of I400 with only a slightly better opportunity to hunt LE elk outside of the rut with anly a 50% chance of success?

I have asked a lot of questions in my post can you please try to answer the ones that you can. Again, I am not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to get some answers.
 
The max bonus points now are 15. in ten years it will be 25. That means your kids will have a one shot chance at hunting LE elk in their lives. Is this what everyone wants. One opportunity to kill their 400" bull. Or would you rather have a system where you can hunt LE several times in your life. No there will not be as many B&C bulls on the hill, but the hunters that can kill them now will be able to kill them later. As long as we increase tags slowly like we have been doing we can keep it in check.

As far as having 50% success? Think of the future opportunity to HUNT elk if we found a way to keep success rates below 50%. Don't tell me your not able to buck the odds and consistently be 75% or better. Anyone that takes the time to get in this argument on MM is going to be better than that. What we need is opportunity. The more there is, the more we all get to hunt. Don't be afraid of the HUNT!

Find a way to get archers to draw every 3 or 4 years and your wait for a rifle tag just came down that much. As it is now, you know your only going to get one chance in a lifetime and people are NOT going to take the chance at going unsuccessfull. Knowing you can get a redo every few years will get alot of people out of the rifle draw. You rifle boys are missing the point. Not that I don't hunt with a rifle, because I do. I just don't want the wait for a tag to get any longer. Its time to get over the 400" BS. We have them yes, but most would'nt know one from a 320 bull.
 
Draw every 3-4 years. Haha, Now thats funny. You can't be serious.
BTW, I'm not looking for a 400 bull. Thats not even in my realm of thinking. 300-350 bulls should be(and actual is)the goal for most hunters. More oppotunity by increasing tags. Not by a complete overhaul.
Many have said that thais isn't a rifle vs archery thing. I say it is. Not one thing about this proposal helps the rifle hunter. Change season dates to help the archer. Give more tags to the archer. Call me a whiner, but isn't the rifle hunt the most popular. General season rifle hunts sell more tags that the others. Why? Because more people do it.
Some things about I400 could be good, but as a whole, it stinks.
 
This I400 is a load of BS. Edge its clear how you stand with increased opportunity for you and your fellow bowhunters. I'm a bowhunter but the truth is pull the bow hunters out of the rifle pool and your rifle odds go from 1-80 to?.1-65?? Big deal! You still only draw once in a life time?WTH drop the odds to 1-20?still highly probable of once in a lifetime.

Taking away hunting areas and keeping the spike tags available takes away from opportunity, no matter how you spin it! Those hunting spikes would love to kill a rag horn, but if they wanted to bad enough they would hunt the Uintah?s. Truth is they love the tradition and the hunt itself.

I do believe something needs to change. Opportunity needs to increase. The youth demographic needs to increase (this might even include the 18-24 group). Hunting is changing to a high dollar game and everything seems to be about inches (has always been a guy thing). The big bull units like Pahvant are only benefiting a few lucky lottery winners each year and Doyle Moss. Oh I shouldn't forget the High $ it brings to SFW and Doyle looking for 400 inches. NR listen to this advice if you don't draw a tag in Utah, its not worth the NR $. General Elk hunting is NOTHING compared to the LE hunt!

The F&G needs to increase tags to meet the current age objectives. The last time I looked the age harvest was increasing each year and they are still above the ESTABLISHED objective. Honestly a 320 bull should be considered a trophy animal (KMA Bobcat) and at a 5 yr harvest that is probably what you get. Don?t mess with the LE units?if anything make them ALL spike only, hunting pressure will spread out across the state, making a General hunting opportunity improvement.
Focus your attention to improving the elk habitat in the Uintah?s. Go 4 pt or better (Uintah?s). The argument of enforcement is bunk. Every year there are mature bulls killed illegally on spike hunts, its still working. Goal?increase the number of mature bulls breeding cows. The area I hunt in Colorado is ?Rag horn? capital of the world, but it's a heck of a lot better than hunting our current Uintah herd.
The biggest problem with the states elk management plan is the Any Bull Units and apparently the A/A unit. LE management is working but can be improved on by meeting the established age harvest objectives.
 
Thats right ren. Not bad for a dude with two posts. Get the LE units down to their age objective by increasing tags for all weapons. Especially on the so called premium units. If the bull to cow ratio is still a bit out of wack, increase the number of management bull tags and start killing a few spikes every year. I also thought the complaint about law enforcement any branch antlered bulls in the Uintas was hogwash.
 
Just had a good discussion with the big game manager of the Central Region. If you want I400 to work you will have to convince them to increase the herd objective numbers and to have higher bull/cow ratios and MUCH lower "mature" bull/cow ratios you would have to permanently close spike hunting. If you don't there is no way you will be able to provide the tags you are projecting- those herds- especially on the Nebo won't be able to produce enough bulls and you will make the chance to take a 350 bull a thing of the past. But if that is what most hunters want it can be done-maybe. Success percentages will likely go way down as well.
 
Nebo,
Thats what they want.
No spike hunting.
Low success.
Sounds awesome don't it.
But hey, you get to be unsuccessful more often.
Instead of just being unsuccessful on the draw, when you get a tag, you get to be on your hunt as well.
Where do I sign up.
 
BUBBA,
Had you read my earlier posts you would have learned that I'm not in favor of I400 as it is currently proposed. I don't want to take a single spike unit away. Acutally hunting spikes on every unit is a hell of an idea. Keep the cap the same and spread the preassure out over the state. Something we should look at. Even our premium units would benefit. And if we spread them out we would have more mature bulls on our current spike units. WHERE HAS THIS IDEA BEEN HIDDING??
All I was saying is that if you sell more permits at a lower % harvest you allow more people the opportunity to hunt. THE OPPORTUNITY TO HUNT!! Not kill. It's up to you to buck up and get the job done once you have the tag in your hand.
 
Now I haven't read the whole I400 proposal nor do I plan to because from wht I read, I don't want anything to do with it-Load of crap. I want to hunt elk every year not every 3-5 years because I don't care about how many points or how many inches the thing scores, I care about having the experience and the elk meat to enjoy throughout the offseason! If someone really feels they need to change the elk hunt, then keep things the way they are right now and restrict hunters on general season units to shooting any bull but the spikes. This would give more opportunity for people to shoot a branch antlered bull. And if you really want to hunt spikes, go to the spike only units. Hell, what do I know?? I just love to hunt.
 
BlooD,

You make a great point. I am later in my hunting career and I like inches. Utah gives us that. You like to hunt and get meat, which is great, the current system offers you that also. I personally think Utah gives tons of opportunity for everyone and every type of hunter. Sure, I would love to hunt 350's every year, but that is not realistic. If I want meat, I can do that every year.

Good post and lots of things for I400 PROponents to consider.
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
752
nfh
nfh
Bigbucks
Fillmore Pahvant vs Plateau Boulder Muzzleloader Elk
Replies
16
Views
2k
wstrntines
wstrntines
M
JCR, statistics, counts, objectives and harvest reports
Replies
33
Views
2k
mightyhunter
M

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

6.jpg
blade with friends.jpg
IMG_5154.jpeg
Wide Buck 5-18-23.mp4
FB_IMG_1605162814280.jpg
IMG_0556.jpeg
DSCN3122.JPG
Good Looking Trophy Mount
Holy Kicker Buck
IMG_0560.jpeg
20230918_194447.jpg
Screenshot_20221209_104240_Gallery.jpg
Back
Top Bottom