LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-15 AT 11:20PM (MST)[p]State law because the Legislature required the DWR to establish a fixed number of elk on each unit. Same for deer. Who helps establish the fixed number for the DWR for elk? A committee made up of land owners, sportsmen, Federal agents, and at large representatives. They argue and fight for 2 or 3 months over how many elk the unit can support, after that they recommend a number to the DWR. The DWR, based on the committee's recommendation, set a number. It may or may not be identical to the number that the committee came up with but it will usually be in the ball park, plus or minus, depending on the politics, usually the land owners want less, the sportsmen want more.
The DWR then present the fixed number they think is the closest to what works for everyone in the unit, ie: the land owners, the sportsmen, and other non-consumptive citizens, to the RACs and then the Wildlife Board, allowing the public at large to support or oppose the recommendation. What ever number the Wildlife Board decides on is the State Law number, recorded in the Unit Elk Plans.
For the next five years, unless there is a change made by the Board, the DWR is required to hold elk to that number. If every single elk is on private land, with no elk on public, there is absolutely no provision is the Law that say's the Unit Plan number can be changed by the DWR.
It's a screwed up mess.
The solution, the only solution, in my opinion, is to remove all big game, that stays on private land, during the hunting seasons, from the management equation. Those animals should never be included in the number of animals on the Unit. They benefit public hunters not one bit. If we can't hunt them, we have no need for them and they should not be part of the public hunting infrastructure. They could all disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't effect public hunting in the least. Like wise, if the land owner wants to allow those herd to grow to millions, it is no concern of mine or yours because we have no access, nor will be ever have any access to them. If they live 9 months on the public land but the three months of the year (during the hunts, they live on the private, as far as sportsmen are concerned, they are private elk, and private elk only, and they mean nothing to us. Yet, these animals may be still eat public feed for 9 months and we get zero for our investment. It's wrong.
Let's stop including private land big game in public land hunting regulations. I could care less if private land has any big game or not. They cause us public land sportsmen far more problems than any benefits we will ever receive from them.
DC
