Time to Shake Things up with Elk Mgmt in Utah!!

elkhunterUT

elkhunterUT

Very Active Member
Messages
2,850
After watching the Utah Wildlife Board working session yesterday, I was even more convinced that Utah's elk management needs a complete overhaul and should be governed by bull to cow ratio rather than age objective. Mike Wardle, the biologist over some of the best units in the state (Beaver, Pahvant, etc.) shared that their latest classification flight with helicopter indicated that the Beaver unit had over 84 bulls per 100 cows. He also said that those flight counts are often low because of the challenge with finding/seeing all bulls in the unit - he felt like the bull to cow ratio could actually be nearer to a 1:1 bull to cow ratio :oops:

I personally hunted the Pahvant unit in 2020 - there were a TOTAL of 54 LE bull tags for ALL hunts on the unit if I am remembering correctly. When I talked to Mike Wardle before applying for my hunt, he told me that several hunters in 2019 had killed 2-3 year old bulls on the Pahvant, which obviously drags down the average age of bulls killed and "artificially" shows that the unit is not meeting age objective. So what happens? The biologist's hands are tied on recommending increased tag #'s for the unit, even when bull to cow ratios are beyond crazy and there are a crapload of 320-330 bulls running all over the unit that MANY hunters would be elated to kill.

Here we are 2 years later and the proposed # of tags on the Pahvant is 53 LE bull tags. I guarantee you based on my own experience and the # of bulls I saw during my scouting and hunting, that this unit could SIGNIFICANTLY increase the number of bulls harvested if we managed for bull to cow ratio rather than age objective.

On these more premium units that manage for a 7-8 year old bull, there is an overabundance of surplus bulls that are not being harvested but biologists HAVE to manage the herd to an age and a specific herd #, so we kill cows (and some spikes) to keep the herd at or under objective and limit mature bull harvest to keep the age objective. This leads to a bull heavy herd and adversely impacts future production.
The herd suffers and ultimately we as hunters do as well. We are pissing away opportunity every year on these units and not addressing point creep issues because idiots and special interest groups full of greed want their 400" bull because they have waited 25 years for it and that is how we have managed things in the past.

It is FAR beyond time to piss off these greedy people and blow things up in Utah for the benefit of the elk and not the greedy hunter!!! I hope the new Elk committee has the juevos to address this issue along with addressing season dates to pull the most successful weapons out of the most vulnerable times for elk.
 
Of course they will, but I was beating this drum long before I drew my tag and would have accepted a positive change had I not drawn yet. I knew the current game and I played it (what other choice did I have??), but that doesn't mean it is the right game for all of us collectively and shouldn't be changed for the betterment of everyone going forward.

We all (myself included) need to take a step back and think about what is best for the resource and others, not just ourselves.
 
elkhunterUT said:
After watching the Utah Wildlife Board working session yesterday, I was even more convinced that Utah's elk management needs a complete overhaul and should be governed by bull to cow ratio rather than age objective. Mike Wardle, the biologist over some of the best units in the state (Beaver, Pahvant, etc.) shared that their latest classification flight with helicopter indicated that the Beaver unit had over 84 bulls per 100 cows. He also said that those flight counts are often low because of the challenge with finding/seeing all bulls in the unit - he felt like the bull to cow ratio could actually be nearer to a 1:1 bull to cow ratio :oops:

I personally hunted the Pahvant unit in 2020 - there were a TOTAL of 54 LE bull tags for ALL hunts on the unit if I am remembering correctly. When I talked to Mike Wardle before applying for my hunt, he told me that several hunters in 2019 had killed 2-3 year old bulls on the Pahvant, which obviously drags down the average age of bulls killed and "artificially" shows that the unit is not meeting age objective. So what happens? The biologist's hands are tied on recommending increased tag #'s for the unit, even when bull to cow ratios are beyond crazy and there are a crapload of 320-330 bulls running all over the unit that MANY hunters would be elated to kill.

Here we are 2 years later and the proposed # of tags on the Pahvant is 53 LE bull tags. I guarantee you based on my own experience and the # of bulls I saw during my scouting and hunting, that this unit could SIGNIFICANTLY increase the number of bulls harvested if we managed for bull to cow ratio rather than age objective.

On these more premium units that manage for a 7-8 year old bull, there is an overabundance of surplus bulls that are not being harvested but biologists HAVE to manage the herd to an age and a specific herd #, so we kill cows (and some spikes) to keep the herd at or under objective and limit mature bull harvest to keep the age objective. This leads to a bull heavy herd and adversely impacts future production.
The herd suffers and ultimately we as hunters do as well. We are pissing away opportunity every year on these units and not addressing point creep issues because idiots and special interest groups full of greed want their 400" bull because they have waited 25 years for it and that is how we have managed things in the past.

It is FAR beyond time to piss off these greedy people and blow things up in Utah for the benefit of the elk and not the greedy hunter!!! I hope the new Elk committee has the juevos to address this issue along with addressing season dates to pull the most successful weapons out of the most vulnerable times for elk.
Click to expand...
I agree that some changes could be made but what really makes these people any more greedy than those wanting MORE opportunity? Most units are not managed for 7-8 year old bulls and you can already hunt spikes on these units every year. Oh, I guess you want more opportunity at bigger bulls? Sounds a bit hypocritical. I think the state can continue managing for a diversity of hunting opportunities without completely blowing things up for those that have waited for quality opportunity, recognizing that it is nice to have areas where everyone, hunters and non-hunters, can see mature animals.
 
I agree with the OP that managing for average age can be counter-productive, especially when there are relatively few tags on the unit. As stated, a few people happily shooting younger bulls can skew the data, and this does happen.

It isn't necessary to change to bull cow ratio, however. You could look at the average age of the "oldest 50% of the harvest", or even use the median age instead of average. There are many better statistical measures of the maturity of the herd than the raw average age of harvest.

Changing the statistical parameter would be much easier than a wholesale change to bull/cow ratio.

Bill
 
We have killed so many cows off the Beaver, that there is little to no recruitment of bulls that reach the age of 3 the past 3 years. Mark my words, the Beaver mature big bull elk hunt in going to tank in the next 3 years. Then your not going to have the quality or the quantity. They counted around 350 cows and 350 bulls on the Beaver unit a month and a half ago, with very few spikes or raghorns. I am not sure what the answer is, but this is not it. We have to be able to keep more cows on the range to produce bulls. They have a spike hunt on the Beaver, but not many get killed, because not many were born the prior year.
 
Last edited:
gundog2 said:
I agree that some changes could be made but what really makes these people any more greedy than those wanting MORE opportunity? Most units are not managed for 7-8 year old bulls and you can already hunt spikes on these units every year. Oh, I guess you want more opportunity at bigger bulls? Sounds a bit hypocritical. I think the state can continue managing for a diversity of hunting opportunities without completely blowing things up for those that have waited for quality opportunity, recognizing that it is nice to have areas where everyone, hunters and non-hunters, can see mature animals.
Click to expand...
Look at the data the biologist shared on the Beaver unit - this is not about wanting more opportunity at bigger bulls. This is about a resource that is not being utilized properly - if left unchecked as is, the future will be even more bleak.
 
Believe it or not it’s ok to have some older bulls leftover after the season. The OP has a personal objective that is based off a biased personal opinion. Luckily the powers at be do not make decisions based off one fall spent in an area. They try to keep personal objectives out of it which is difficult to do.

I can totally relate to more opportunity to hunt but at what cost?
 
elkhunterUT said:
After watching the Utah Wildlife Board working session yesterday, I was even more convinced that Utah's elk management needs a complete overhaul and should be governed by bull to cow ratio rather than age objective. Mike Wardle, the biologist over some of the best units in the state (Beaver, Pahvant, etc.) shared that their latest classification flight with helicopter indicated that the Beaver unit had over 84 bulls per 100 cows. He also said that those flight counts are often low because of the challenge with finding/seeing all bulls in the unit - he felt like the bull to cow ratio could actually be nearer to a 1:1 bull to cow ratio :oops:

I personally hunted the Pahvant unit in 2020 - there were a TOTAL of 54 LE bull tags for ALL hunts on the unit if I am remembering correctly. When I talked to Mike Wardle before applying for my hunt, he told me that several hunters in 2019 had killed 2-3 year old bulls on the Pahvant, which obviously drags down the average age of bulls killed and "artificially" shows that the unit is not meeting age objective. So what happens? The biologist's hands are tied on recommending increased tag #'s for the unit, even when bull to cow ratios are beyond crazy and there are a crapload of 320-330 bulls running all over the unit that MANY hunters would be elated to kill.

Here we are 2 years later and the proposed # of tags on the Pahvant is 53 LE bull tags. I guarantee you based on my own experience and the # of bulls I saw during my scouting and hunting, that this unit could SIGNIFICANTLY increase the number of bulls harvested if we managed for bull to cow ratio rather than age objective.

On these more premium units that manage for a 7-8 year old bull, there is an overabundance of surplus bulls that are not being harvested but biologists HAVE to manage the herd to an age and a specific herd #, so we kill cows (and some spikes) to keep the herd at or under objective and limit mature bull harvest to keep the age objective. This leads to a bull heavy herd and adversely impacts future production.
The herd suffers and ultimately we as hunters do as well. We are pissing away opportunity every year on these units and not addressing point creep issues because idiots and special interest groups full of greed want their 400" bull because they have waited 25 years for it and that is how we have managed things in the past.

It is FAR beyond time to piss off these greedy people and blow things up in Utah for the benefit of the elk and not the greedy hunter!!! I hope the new Elk committee has the juevos to address this issue along with addressing season dates to pull the most successful weapons out of the most vulnerable times for elk.
Click to expand...
Agree, they could give out way more LE elk tags. It may even help deer numbers. Most people would be very very happy with a 320 bull like you said. I know the bull quality has gone down from the mid-2000s but still we could increase the tags. Increase the Primitive weapon hunts, take the rifle hunt out of the rut, come on Utah. They have been making some good changes so maybe this is next?
 
SS! said:
Believe it or not it’s ok to have some older bulls leftover after the season. The OP has a personal objective that is based off a biased personal opinion. Luckily the powers at be do not make decisions based off one fall spent in an area. They try to keep personal objectives out of it which is difficult to do.

I can totally relate to more opportunity to hunt but at what cost?
Click to expand...
An 84:100 bull to cow ratio (and that is a conservative count) is not “some” older bulls leftover.

I have no issue with managing a few of our units for more trophy quality, but the way these units are being managed now is heading for disaster and an outcome that no one will be happy with.
 
elkhunterUT said:
An 84:100 bull to cow ratio (and that is a conservative count) is not “some” older bulls leftover.

I have no issue with managing a few of our units for more trophy quality, but the way these units are being managed now is heading for disaster and an outcome that no one will be happy with.
Click to expand...
Plenty of bulls aren't getting harvested, I agree, and it's definitely time for an overhaul.

We have killed way too many cows off most units but don't kill enough bulls by trying to keep the age class higher.

I think what gets missed is a very low percentage of bulls get to a quality that "score" and people pass on them.

Our units are full of 10 year old 310" (hypothetical score) that people pass because they think they are young and they want the biggest best bull they can find.

Hell, a good genetic bull can hit 350" at 4 years old, which in turn gets documented as a young harvest below the objective.

We've got to change from age objective and start looking at killing some bulls because they are bulls, not for score.
 
They should open a big gay bull hunt. That would lower the number bulls on the unit by half…because we live in a day where everyone is out of the closet on this topic…including the elk and deer….all the trail cam pics prove it.
 
It seems from the OP that the target harvest stays low every year because they are basing the next year's target on average age of harvested bulls. If I am wrong please correct me.

What this makes me wonder is where and what are the biologists on the unit doing the rest of the year. If they are doing their job they shouldn't have to rely only on harvest data to set the next year's targets.
 
The wildlife board sets the target age range of harvested bulls on any given unit. This part is pretty much a social issue driven by feedback from organizations and individual hunters about individual units.

The DWR/biologists manage to the directive from the WB. The age data is a 3 year average.

The DWR/biologists already have the data that shows this management plan is creating some major problems that don't bode well for the herds.

It will take a major effort to change the mindset of organizations and hunters promoting the current management plan. The elk committee has been formed to look into this as well as to come up with the next 10 year plan.
 
Thanks a bunch for the info Middlefork.

So are the biologists cut out of the decision making process completely or just ignored?
 
Yes the DWR/biologists have input. Part of the workshop discussion of March 31 involves their input.

They are getting some impressive data from the ongoing tracking program.

It really is a great idea to watch the work session presentations and discussions. It gives a MUCH better idea how the information is obtained and utilized.
 
middlefork said:
Yes the DWR/biologists have input. Part of the workshop discussion of March 31 involves their input.

They are getting some impressive data from the ongoing tracking program.

It really is a great idea to watch the work session presentations and discussions. It gives a MUCH better idea how the information is obtained and utilized.
Click to expand...
This!!?

Like I stated in my previous post.....everyone complaining about how things are ran in this state needs to watch these workshops and see what they are faced with.
It's not as easy as "grow more deer and elk".
 
Last edited:
elkhunterUT said:
I've suggested as a compromise that the DWR designate one unit as the WHCE unit where they can grow (or transplant) all the unnaturally old bulls and bucks they want to. Auction those tags for millions. Then manage everywhere else for tag numbers tied to male:female ratios to allow higher odds for everyone else to draw tags.
Click to expand...
 
elkhunterUT said:
Look at the data the biologist shared on the Beaver unit - this is not about wanting more opportunity at bigger bulls. This is about a resource that is not being utilized properly - if left unchecked as is, the future will be even more bleak.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you are probably are correct some harvest objectIves are problematic, but the point of my previous comment is that there is no need to label people that have been patiently waiting 25 years to hunt the top elk units as greedy. I think it is fair to say that all hunters want something, whether that be more opportunity (such as spike hunts) or more mature bucks and bulls. I think spike hunts are a waste of resource, but many people disagree and I have to admit it is nice that we can still buy elk tags on a first come first serve basis (like I did last year). There are merits to having a diversity of management strategies. I took time to watch the UWB session myself. Major changes are needed but it will be painful for many people no matter what you do. Diplomacy and good reasoning are needed to make major changes. Name calling and encouragement to piss others off will not make this go well.
 
Agree 100%-my use of the word greedy is really pointed at the special interest groups and corporate guides/outfitters, not any one individual hunter. I should have been more clear.

My hope is that changes will be made that are best for both the resource and the hunter-I think it is possible for a win-win scenario here if decisions are allowed to be made based on data and not emotion/social pressure.
 
"I think it is possible for a win-win scenario here if decisions are allowed to be made based on data and not emotion/social pressure."


??????????????
 
So early 2000's Utah was sitting on some great mature bulls I think we can all agree on this.
Utah has been in the top 5 as far quality Elk for the last 20 years. But I believe that it is going the other way The quality is not the same as it was 10 years ago.
We have 30 LE units That have 70 to 80% of our Elk population the.
So what has changed?

#1 Drought
#2 Technology
#3 Spike hunting with NO way of knowing how many we harvest every year.
#4 Points system has creeped to 20 Years plus and heading towards 30 years to draw.

Is there a fix absolutely. But what is stopping the fix? Point holders
When you have waited that long to draw your dream tag it's hard to give up and let change happen. I get it I have points as well.

That said.
So what happens when you do draw after 25 years do you apply for Deer? or do you give up because you know you wont be able to draw another tag in your lifetime. What ever the case may be it's Messed up and we all know it.

There is no fix to our point's system at all. when they only issue 2,756 LE Elk tags and there is 56,000 hunters applying you can't fix it.

Now look what is in jeopardy here GS any bull /spike. All because of what?
30 LE units and 2,756 Tags this is what is dictating the tag numbers on our GS/spike hunting.
What is going to happen when you have to wait 2 to 3 years to get a Any bull tag or a spike tag.
While your waiting to draw you LE bull tag. This will happen I have been watching this for the last 10 years it has slowly creeped up to where they almost all sell out in one week any bull is just a few hours. 10 years ago you could almost buy them the day before the rifle hunt opened.

So what is more important?

Points or having a guarantee tag in your pocket every year.

we can fix this problem right now to were we don't need to draw out for GS elk or ever be sold out of tags.

I truly want you to think of your kids and grand kids before you answer this.
because look at what it will be like 20 years from now.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
So early 2000's Utah was sitting on some great mature bulls I think we can all agree on this.
Utah has been in the top 5 as far quality Elk for the last 20 years. But I believe that it is going the other way The quality is not the same as it was 10 years ago.
We have 30 LE units That have 70 to 80% of our Elk population the.
So what has changed?

#1 Drought
#2 Technology
#3 Spike hunting with NO way of knowing how many we harvest every year.
#4 Points system has creeped to 20 Years plus and heading towards 30 years to draw.

Is there a fix absolutely. But what is stopping the fix? Point holders
When you have waited that long to draw your dream tag it's hard to give up and let change happen. I get it I have points as well.

That said.
So what happens when you do draw after 25 years do you apply for Deer? or do you give up because you know you wont be able to draw another tag in your lifetime. What ever the case may be it's Messed up and we all know it.

There is no fix to our point's system at all. when they only issue 2,756 LE Elk tags and there is 56,000 hunters applying you can't fix it.

Now look what is in jeopardy here GS any bull /spike. All because of what?
30 LE units and 2,756 Tags this is what is dictating the tag numbers on our GS/spike hunting.
What is going to happen when you have to wait 2 to 3 years to get a Any bull tag or a spike tag.
While your waiting to draw you LE bull tag. This will happen I have been watching this for the last 10 years it has slowly creeped up to where they almost all sell out in one week any bull is just a few hours. 10 years ago you could almost buy them the day before the rifle hunt opened.

So what is more important?

Points or having a guarantee tag in your pocket every year.

we can fix this problem right now to were we don't need to draw out for GS elk or ever be sold out of tags.

I truly want you to think of your kids and grand kids before you answer this.
because look at what it will be like 20 years from now.
Click to expand...
#5 Predators.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
So early 2000's Utah was sitting on some great mature bulls I think we can all agree on this.
Utah has been in the top 5 as far quality Elk for the last 20 years. But I believe that it is going the other way The quality is not the same as it was 10 years ago.
We have 30 LE units That have 70 to 80% of our Elk population the.
So what has changed?

#1 Drought
#2 Technology
#3 Spike hunting with NO way of knowing how many we harvest every year.
#4 Points system has creeped to 20 Years plus and heading towards 30 years to draw.

Is there a fix absolutely. But what is stopping the fix? Point holders
When you have waited that long to draw your dream tag it's hard to give up and let change happen. I get it I have points as well.

That said.
So what happens when you do draw after 25 years do you apply for Deer? or do you give up because you know you wont be able to draw another tag in your lifetime. What ever the case may be it's Messed up and we all know it.

There is no fix to our point's system at all. when they only issue 2,756 LE Elk tags and there is 56,000 hunters applying you can't fix it.

Now look what is in jeopardy here GS any bull /spike. All because of what?
30 LE units and 2,756 Tags this is what is dictating the tag numbers on our GS/spike hunting.
What is going to happen when you have to wait 2 to 3 years to get a Any bull tag or a spike tag.
While your waiting to draw you LE bull tag. This will happen I have been watching this for the last 10 years it has slowly creeped up to where they almost all sell out in one week any bull is just a few hours. 10 years ago you could almost buy them the day before the rifle hunt opened.

So what is more important?

Points or having a guarantee tag in your pocket every year.

we can fix this problem right now to were we don't need to draw out for GS elk or ever be sold out of tags.

I truly want you to think of your kids and grand kids before you answer this.
because look at what it will be like 20 years from now.
Click to expand...
point schemes are the stupidest thing ever. the fact that any hunter (even the ones with 25 points) think that it is in any way shape or form designed to be a benefit for them... well, refer to the first sentence of my post here. clues in there...
 
elkhunterUT said:
#7 Greedy special interest groups
Click to expand...
Because this is greed and has contributed to declining big game......?
Screenshot_20220404-114312_Chrome.jpg
 
slamdunk said:
Because this is greed and has contributed to declining big game......?
View attachment 73364
Click to expand...
Look Slam - I am not going to argue that conservation permits haven't brought in a lot of dollars to Utah, and I actually think they have their place in the whole picture if used correctly, but Utah has gone WAY overboard on the # of auction tags (don't know the exact # but is OBSCENE compared to any other western state) and to what end?

It certainly hasn't pushed our herds above and beyond other western states that only have a handful of auction tags and it could be argued that the bloated # of auction tags in Utah actually devalues them to some degree.

The bigger issue I have, and why I added "Greedy special interest groups" to the list here is because these groups and their auction tags are what drive the way things are done in this state. They want their tags to generate as much dollar value as possible, so of course they aren't going to support moving rifle elk hunts out of the rut and working to maximize the # of tags for all sportsmen. They only care about their CASH COW or BULL in this case and will fight tooth and nail to keep things the way they are, meanwhile one of our prize units has a 1:1 bull to cow ratio and is destined to tank even more than it is right now.

Tell me @slamdunk -how is that approach good for hunters or our herds???
 
elkhunterUT said:
Look Slam - I am not going to argue that conservation permits haven't brought in a lot of dollars to Utah, and I actually think they have their place in the whole picture if used correctly, but Utah has gone WAY overboard on the # of auction tags (don't know the exact # but is OBSCENE compared to any other western state) and to what end?

It certainly hasn't pushed our herds above and beyond other western states that only have a handful of auction tags and it could be argued that the bloated # of auction tags in Utah actually devalues them to some degree.

The bigger issue I have, and why I added "Greedy special interest groups" to the list here is because these groups and their auction tags are what drive the way things are done in this state. They want their tags to generate as much dollar value as possible, so of course they aren't going to support moving rifle elk hunts out of the rut and working to maximize the # of tags for all sportsmen. They only care about their CASH COW or BULL in this case and will fight tooth and nail to keep things the way they are, meanwhile one of our prize units has a 1:1 bull to cow ratio and is destined to tank even more than it is right now.

Tell me @slamdunk -how is that approach good for hunters or our herds???
Click to expand...


Can you look up the percentage of auction tags from total number of LE tags?

I think that is important before we all buy tickets to the Hyper Bowl of hyperbole.
 
slamdunk said:
Because this is greed and has contributed to declining big game......?
View attachment 73364
Click to expand...
I’m so tired of the middle class having to pay for everything. “If not for the revenue” my ass! We just sent over a BILLION dollars of tax payer money to Ukraine! We spend BILLIONS on illegal aliens and welfare recipients yearly! Lets put some of that dope legalization money to work for us, let’s stop sending money to countries who hate us and apply it to conservation and such. Seems like every year I have to purchase a habitat stamp, game license, antler tag, access validation stamp, permit, two rod validation stamp, and whatever else they can think of to generate a dollar! I just had my taxes done and because I took a little money out of my 401k last year to buy a shop the State of NM says I owe them $25,000. I’m sure I do, but I’m so sick and tired of funding local as well as world wide dead beats! Just venting. Good luck on your draws.
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
So early 2000's Utah was sitting on some great mature bulls I think we can all agree on this.
Utah has been in the top 5 as far quality Elk for the last 20 years. But I believe that it is going the other way The quality is not the same as it was 10 years ago.
We have 30 LE units That have 70 to 80% of our Elk population the.
So what has changed?

#1 Drought
#2 Technology
#3 Spike hunting with NO way of knowing how many we harvest every year.
#4 Points system has creeped to 20 Years plus and heading towards 30 years to draw.

Is there a fix absolutely. But what is stopping the fix? Point holders
When you have waited that long to draw your dream tag it's hard to give up and let change happen. I get it I have points as well.

That said.
So what happens when you do draw after 25 years do you apply for Deer? or do you give up because you know you wont be able to draw another tag in your lifetime. What ever the case may be it's Messed up and we all know it.

There is no fix to our point's system at all. when they only issue 2,756 LE Elk tags and there is 56,000 hunters applying you can't fix it.

Now look what is in jeopardy here GS any bull /spike. All because of what?
30 LE units and 2,756 Tags this is what is dictating the tag numbers on our GS/spike hunting.
What is going to happen when you have to wait 2 to 3 years to get a Any bull tag or a spike tag.
Click to expand...

Elkslayer2015 said:
Points or having a guarantee tag in your pocket every year.

we can fix this problem right now to were we don't need to draw out for GS elk or ever be sold out of tags.

I truly want you to think of your kids and grand kids before you answer this.
because look at what it will be like 20 years from now.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say we could have unlimited OTC bull hunts in Utah for the next 20 years if we give stop LE hunts? That’s funny.
 
@elkhunterUT
Unfortunately I cannot drag this link over, but it's 30 pages of breakdown of every dollar spent in Utah from conservation resources in 2020.
I encourage you to look it up and study it with clarity.
Screenshot_20220404-195436_Drive.jpg


Obviously I cannot answer why Utah's big game isn't flourishing in comparison to other states with the horrendous amount of money being put back into both revive and or sustain what we have left.

Conservation dollars can buy collars and studies for future projects.
It can by fences and build crossings.
It can pay ranchers for damage versus killing wintering game.
It can buy guzzlers and fund countless habitat projects and burn scar restorations.
It can buy transplanting and relocation of animals, and the list goes on.....

You know what conservation dollars cannot buy?
It cannot buy us out of continual drought situations in back to back years, it cannot buy much needed winter snows and spring and summer rains, and it cannot buy fawns.

Let me ask you this question.
Where would Utah's animals be without these millions of extra dollars under these helpless natural conditions?

I'm sure those deer, elk, sheep, bison, antelope, reptiles, birds and insects very much appreciate the water these guzzlers are offering them in August when it's 105°.

I have faith in our big game futures because I get involved and I know whats going on behind the scenes.
Nothing is going to revive and rebound herds in a year or two, three or even four, but sitting back and doing nothing to aid our struggling herds against natural occurrences certainly isn't being proactive.
 
slamdunk said:
@elkhunterUT
Unfortunately I cannot drag this link over, but it's 30 pages of breakdown of every dollar spent in Utah from conservation resources in 2020.
I encourage you to look it up and study it with clarity.
View attachment 73407

Obviously I cannot answer why Utah's big game isn't flourishing in comparison to other states with the horrendous amount of money being put back into both revive and or sustain what we have left.

Conservation dollars can buy collars and studies for future projects.
It can by fences and build crossings.
It can pay ranchers for damage versus killing wintering game.
It can buy guzzlers and fund countless habitat projects and burn scar restorations.
It can buy transplanting and relocation of animals, and the list goes on.....

You know what conservation dollars cannot buy?
It cannot buy us out of continual drought situations in back to back years, it cannot buy much needed winter snows and spring and summer rains, and it cannot buy fawns.

Let me ask you this question.
Where would Utah's animals be without these millions of extra dollars under these helpless natural conditions?

I'm sure those deer, elk, sheep, bison, antelope, reptiles, birds and insects very much appreciate the water these guzzlers are offering them in August when it's 105°.

I have faith in our big game futures because I get involved and I know whats going on behind the scenes.
Nothing is going to revive and rebound herds in a year or two, three or even four, but sitting back and doing nothing to aid our struggling herds against natural occurrences certainly isn't being proactive.
Click to expand...
All good but you didn’t answer my question or address the issue I raised.
 
elkhunterUT said:
All good but you didn’t answer my question or address the issue I raised.
Click to expand...
I cannot directly answer your question, just as I clearly stated, all I can offer is what IS being done, why and where.

{"They want their tags to generate as much dollar value as possible"}
Of course they do, isn't that the idea behind any auction?


{"of course they aren't going to support moving rifle elk hunts out of the rut"}
Speculation?
I am not aware of any opposition to this whatsoever.
We are smart enough to realize bigger bulls brings more money and opportunities.

{"They only care about their CASH COW or BULL in this case and will fight tooth and nail to keep things the way they are"}
More speculation.....

Back up your statements and we can have further discussion, I'll gladly dig deeper if needed.
 
elkhunterUT said:
All good but you didn’t answer my question or address the issue I raised.
Click to expand...
I don't even know why I answer these questions about "hunting".
I am with the MDF, we are a conservation organization, not a hunting voice like a few of the others.

We plant bushes, collar deer, build guzzlers, etc, etc.
We don't get involved in where your hunt dates are, what you can and cannot use for a weapon or equipment used for killing your quarry.

Ask the appropriate sources these questions.

Anything I say on hunting techniques or tools to get the job done are MY voice and have absolutely nothing to do with the organization I choose to be affiliated with.
 
slamdunk said:
I cannot directly answer your question, just as I clearly stated, all I can offer is what IS being done, why and where.

{"They want their tags to generate as much dollar value as possible"}
Of course they do, isn't that the idea behind any auction?


{"of course they aren't going to support moving rifle elk hunts out of the rut"}
Speculation?
I am not aware of any opposition to this whatsoever.
We are smart enough to realize bigger bulls brings more money and opportunities.

{"They only care about their CASH COW or BULL in this case and will fight tooth and nail to keep things the way they are"}
More speculation.....

Back up your statements and we can have further discussion, I'll gladly dig deeper if needed.
Click to expand...
@elkhunterUT
I have seen the president of SFW get up in front of the Wildlife Board and advocate for them to move the rifle hunt out of sept. I believe on more then one occasion.
 
slamdunk said:
I don't even know why I answer these questions about "hunting".
I am with the MDF, we are a conservation organization, not a hunting voice like a few of the others.

We plant bushes, collar deer, build guzzlers, etc, etc.
We don't get involved in where your hunt dates are, what you can and cannot use for a weapon or equipment used for killing your quarry.

Ask the appropriate sources these questions.

Anything I say on hunting techniques or tools to get the job done are MY voice and have absolutely nothing to do with the organization I choose to be affiliated with.
Click to expand...
And there in lies much of the problem. Separating the two allows the Conservation organizations to keep collecting donations, without offending the various factions, and keep collecting donations without offending their members by siding with one or another hunting group, and even the anti hunters who will still donate if your mission is only improve habitat.

Example: RMEF lost a huge amount of its members and wealthy donors because the hunters that belonged to RMEF eventually told the RMEF they had to “state” they were opposed to introducing and growing wolf’s in the lower 48. They were furious when they were confronted with the choice of “hunters or antihunter” but they eventually chose hunters, took a position to oppose wolves and immediately lost hundred if not thousands of members and donor dollars.

Other conservation orgs have been doing the same thing, to be able to avoid supporting any hunting issue, either or against. They avoid it like the plague, so Slam Dunk is right, when he speaks regarding hunting strategies, he’s not representing MDF. Sad, very sad. Money talks, every thing else walks.

Why is it sad?

Because, most hunters don’t understand the MDF doesn’t get involved, at least on the public record, on hunting strategies. And sad because habitat and hunter strategies are inseparable. It would be the same as if a rancher hired two foremen, one to care for the feed and the water and have total responsibility for the range, and a second foreman to care, grow, and manage the cow herd. He would decide how many cows there should be on the ranch, where to pasture them, when to change pastures, where to provide water and when to move it. And the have the owner tell the two foreman they were not to coordinate the management of the ranch. No input from the habitat manager on when this or that pasture is ready to take the herd, when the water will be turned on or turned off, how many cows he needs to have feed for during the summer, and how much dry hay he has to make available for the winter. It would be totally irresponsible for the cow foreman to move an extra 500 herd of cow into the winter pasture without notifying the habitat foreman he had to have extra hay. Or less hay, if the cow foreman decided to sell 500 in October and not notify the habitat foreman it could sell off 2,000 ton of hay in September.

Seems like a self serving mission objective to me, that is, refusing to be involved in hunting strategies when it’s the significant reason we attempt to keep our big game animal herd growing at a surplus and for that very purpose only. That was the reason for saving these animals orginally and it’s the reason they haven’t been reduced to a natural novelty and nothing more a century ago.

But Slam Dunk’s sharing this information will come and go, without so much as curious “huh” from 99.9% of hunters and the situation will carry on as it has for decades.

This is not directed negatively at you personally Slammy. It’s not you that makes the rules…….. but the folks should know what’s going on besides just the public’s perceptions. You where simply stating the facts, I was just sharing the “why” it’s that way.
 
@2lumpy

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject but again and just like the previous post, these are speculative assumptions and just a plain and poor assessment of "how and why".

The MDF organization may very well be full of hunters like myself, but they are not hunting advocates or lobbyists like "the other guy".

It not "part of the plan" as you speculate to keep a bipartisan stance, that's ludicrous.
The MDF's focus and mission is habitat conservation plain and simple.

I agree with you that the MDF as a whole should get more involved as a voice, in fact I just had that conversation with my RD last week and he mentioned it is being discussed up the line as well.

When the baiting and camera issues first came up, I asked my RD what "our" stance on the bill was and he said "we don't support it as written" but because we don't have a committee to get involved in actual hunting strategies and techniques, we (they) didn't feel it was in their scope to be a voice as it has never been part of the mission as founded.

I hope in the future and very near future we get more involved in that aspect.
I do know the majority of the MDF body are hunters and do have individual voices that should come together.
 
gundog2 said:
Are you trying to say we could have unlimited OTC bull hunts in Utah for the next 20 years if we give stop LE hunts? That’s funny.
Click to expand...
YES.
There is nothing funny about it at all. it can be done with the right structure.
I am not saying do away with all the LE units we can keep some of our top units, but we don't need 30 LE unit's in this state.
 
Last edited:
JakeH said:
@elkhunterUT
I have seen the president of SFW get up in front of the Wildlife Board and advocate for them to move the rifle hunt out of sept. I believe on more then one occasion.
Click to expand...
I have as well and I will give Troy full credit for doing so. With that leadership, my hope is things will change for the better. That has not always been the case with SFW though, and everyone here knows it or you are simply creating revisionist history.

@slamdunk -I don't have much beef with MDF, and I know you are fully entrenched there so our opinions may not line up on this topic. There are a couple of indisputable facts though with the way Utah is run:

1. The conservation/auction tag system is bloated and out of control. Not sure the total # of tags currently, but it is out of control. Other western states (Arizona, Nevada) don't have near the # of auction tags and face the same issues Utah faces (drought, predator issues, etc.). Why is Utah not head and shoulders above them? I am fine with some auction tags because they do bring in needed dollars for conservation, but let's be reasonable and appropriate here and not remove opportunity from the "average joe".
2. Special Interest groups (primarily SFW) have run things in this state for many years. If you don't agree with that, just look at the makeup of the Wildlife Board for the past 10-15 years. Also look at the Expo situation when RMEF should have been awarded the contract. Many other examples as well. Let's get away from special interest groups steering the ship. I see some promising things from SFW's current leadership as mentioned already - hopefully things will continue to move in the right direction there.
 
Slam Dunk
“When the baiting and camera issues first came up, I asked my RD what "our" stance on the bill was and he said "we don't support it as written" but because we don't have a committee to get involved in actual hunting strategies and techniques, we (they) didn't feel it was in their scope to be a voice as it has never been part of the mission as founded.”

You made my point…… better than I did.

Make no mistake, MDF doesn’t “have a committee to get involved in actual hunting strategies and techniques, we (they) didn't feel it was in their scope to be a voice as it has never been part of the mission as founded.” by design.

That is the why and if you study these kinds of organizations, that are big time fund raisers, not just for wildlife, you will find their mission statements are written very very carefully, so as to not offend potential donors. There is a long history of “how to do this”.

Sad.
 
2lumpy said:
Slam Dunk
“When the baiting and camera issues first came up, I asked my RD what "our" stance on the bill was and he said "we don't support it as written" but because we don't have a committee to get involved in actual hunting strategies and techniques, we (they) didn't feel it was in their scope to be a voice as it has never been part of the mission as founded.”

You made my point…… better than I did.

Make no mistake, MDF doesn’t “have a committee to get involved in actual hunting strategies and techniques, we (they) didn't feel it was in their scope to be a voice as it has never been part of the mission as founded.” by design.

That is the why and if you study these kinds of organizations, that are big time fund raisers, not just for wildlife, you will find their mission statements are written very very carefully, so as to not offend potential donors. There is a long history of “how to do this”.

Sad.
Click to expand...
Sad but true, it’s all about the money. Michael Jordan was once asked his political views on Republicans and he said “Republicans buy shoes also”. Smart man, it’s all about protecting your interests. Money…….
 
2lumpy said:
Because, most hunters don’t understand the MDF doesn’t get involved, at least on the public record, on hunting strategies. And sad because habitat and hunter strategies are inseparable. It would be the same as if a rancher hired two foremen, one to care for the feed and the water and have total responsibility for the range, and a second foreman to care, grow, and manage the cow herd. He would decide how many cows there should be on the ranch, where to pasture them, when to change pastures, where to provide water and when to move it. And the have the owner tell the two foreman they were not to coordinate the management of the ranch. No input from the habitat manager on when this or that pasture is ready to take the herd, when the water will be turned on or turned off, how many cows he needs to have feed for during the summer, and how much dry hay he has to make available for the winter. It would be totally irresponsible for the cow foreman to move an extra 500 herd of cow into the winter pasture without notifying the habitat foreman he had to have extra hay. Or less hay, if the cow foreman decided to sell 500 in October and not notify the habitat foreman it could sell off 2,000 ton of hay in September.
Click to expand...

I can't speak directly about how it's done in Utah, but in AZ the game department's critter biologists have a lot of input as to what projects the alphabet organizations fund/complete. Those same biologists are the ones who are making the decisions of 'how many cows...' etc. Thus, there is no need for the conservation groups to get involved in any of that or the 'social engineering' of hunter numbers & methods. And that's how it should be, IMO.

And as aside...

There is water & then there is water. Water trucked to a tank or from a guzzler can keep animals from dying of thirst. Water, by way of moisture from rain or snow, is what fuels them with quality food. That's what builds herds. No conservation organization can supply the 2nd type.
 
OutdoorWriter said:
I can't speak directly about how it's done in Utah, but in AZ the game department's critter biologists have a lot of input as to what projects the alphabet organizations fund/complete. Those same biologists are the ones who are making the decisions of 'how many cows...' etc. Thus, there is no need for the conservation groups to get involved in any of that or the 'social engineering' of hunter numbers & methods. And that's how it should be, IMO.

And as aside...

There is water & then there is water. Water trucked to a tank or from a guzzler can keep animals from dying of thirst. Water, by way of moisture from rain or snow, is what fuels them with quality food. That's what builds herds. No conservation organization can supply the 2nd type.
Click to expand...
Thank you ?
 
OutdoorWriter said:
I can't speak directly about how it's done in Utah, but in AZ the game department's critter biologists have a lot of input as to what projects the alphabet organizations fund/complete. Those same biologists are the ones who are making the decisions of 'how many cows...' etc. Thus, there is no need for the conservation groups to get involved in any of that or the 'social engineering' of hunter numbers & methods. And that's how it should be, IMO.

And as aside...

There is water & then there is water. Water trucked to a tank or from a guzzler can keep animals from dying of thirst. Water, by way of moisture from rain or snow, is what fuels them with quality food. That's what builds herds. No conservation organization can supply the 2nd type.
Click to expand...
I’ll offer a final comment on this discussion, on this thread……. Regarding water and feed during drought conditions. Yes wildlife management and domestic live stock management are different……, most folks understand that, so many analogies are made as a way to help clarify an intent or a meaning rather than to be taken literally. One finger typing takes far too long to always layout a fully detailed rational. One has to assume the reader understands the intent rather than the “simple reference” in the comment.

Regarding droughts, feed, water and wildlife. Historically, public lands are subject to the realities of weather variables, and wehave lived with the consequences of the deep swings between extremely wet years and extremely dry years and the in between so called normal years.

However, private land owners that raise domestic live stock “never” leave it up to the weather to determine how there animals grow or decrease in numbers. They build “systems” on their land that, to a far greater degree, minimize the effects of weather variables. They plan for these fluctuations in weather with their “systems” of water storage, water movement, irrigation, production of feed, fertilization, storage of feed, winter supplementing of feed, all systems to flatten and mitigate the variables in the weather. When these low fence ranchers/farmer are maintaining wildlife on their private property, as a profit center, they “attempt” to flatten weather impact on the deer, elk, upland game, as well as the livestock. And…. to a greater degree, wildlife on their land do better than wildlife on public lands.

It’s time we stopped allowing weather to control our wildlife, at least to the degree that it has been ignored up until now.

While weather mitigation on public land wildlife is different than weather mitigation on livestock, that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t be doing more and we definitely should be engaged more aggressively in developing “unique systems” on public land to do that for our wildlife big game animals.

It goes back to the old saying. “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got”.

That’s my story I’m sticking to it.
 
2lumpy said:
I’ll offer a final comment on this discussion, on this thread……. Regarding water and feed during drought conditions. Yes wildlife management and domestic live stock management are different……, most folks understand that, so many analogies are made as a way to help clarify an intent or a meaning rather than to be taken literally. One finger typing takes far too long to always layout a fully detailed rational. One has to assume the reader understands the intent rather than the “simple reference” in the comment.

Regarding droughts, feed, water and wildlife. Historically, public lands are subject to the realities of weather variables, and wehave lived with the consequences of the deep swings between extremely wet years and extremely dry years and the in between so called normal years.

However, private land owners that raise domestic live stock “never” leave it up to the weather to determine how there animals grow or decrease in numbers. They build “systems” on their land that, to a far greater degree, minimize the effects of weather variables. They plan for these fluctuations in weather with their “systems” of water storage, water movement, irrigation, production of feed, fertilization, storage of feed, winter supplementing of feed, all systems to flatten and mitigate the variables in the weather. When these low fence ranchers/farmer are maintaining wildlife on their private property, as a profit center, they “attempt” to flatten weather impact on the deer, elk, upland game, as well as the livestock. And…. to a greater degree, wildlife on their land do better than wildlife on public lands.

It’s time we stopped allowing weather to control our wildlife, at least to the degree that it has been ignored up until now.

While weather mitigation on public land wildlife is different than weather mitigation on livestock, that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t be doing more and we definitely should be engaged more aggressively in developing “unique systems” on public land to do that for our wildlife big game animals.

It goes back to the old saying. “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got”.

That’s my story I’m sticking to it.
Click to expand...
Maybe one of the bests posts I have seen from you.
 
2lumpy said:
I’ll offer a final comment on this discussion, on this thread……. Regarding water and feed during drought conditions. Yes wildlife management and domestic live stock management are different……, most folks understand that, so many analogies are made as a way to help clarify an intent or a meaning rather than to be taken literally. One finger typing takes far too long to always layout a fully detailed rational. One has to assume the reader understands the intent rather than the “simple reference” in the comment.

Regarding droughts, feed, water and wildlife. Historically, public lands are subject to the realities of weather variables, and wehave lived with the consequences of the deep swings between extremely wet years and extremely dry years and the in between so called normal years.

However, private land owners that raise domestic live stock “never” leave it up to the weather to determine how there animals grow or decrease in numbers. They build “systems” on their land that, to a far greater degree, minimize the effects of weather variables. They plan for these fluctuations in weather with their “systems” of water storage, water movement, irrigation, production of feed, fertilization, storage of feed, winter supplementing of feed, all systems to flatten and mitigate the variables in the weather. When these low fence ranchers/farmer are maintaining wildlife on their private property, as a profit center, they “attempt” to flatten weather impact on the deer, elk, upland game, as well as the livestock. And…. to a greater degree, wildlife on their land do better than wildlife on public lands.

It’s time we stopped allowing weather to control our wildlife, at least to the degree that it has been ignored up until now.

While weather mitigation on public land wildlife is different than weather mitigation on livestock, that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t be doing more and we definitely should be engaged more aggressively in developing “unique systems” on public land to do that for our wildlife big game animals.

It goes back to the old saying. “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got”.

That’s my story I’m sticking to it.
Click to expand...
The devil is always in the details.

I certainly agree that SOME low-fence private systems for livestock might benefit wildlife, as well. It might depend on what vegetation is available; something that feeds elk might not feed deer.

Is there an ideal system on every piece of private land? I doubt it, especially on high-fenced properties. In many cases, if hunting that land is part of the livestock 'system,' the landowner is normally doing a minimal reduction in critter numbers. So recruitment to fill the void isn't as crucial as it is in public land situations more geared to providing opportunities for the most hunters, thus a much larger harvest.

That's my story. The last word is yours for the taking. ;)
 
Elkslayer2015 said:
So early 2000's Utah was sitting on some great mature bulls I think we can all agree on this.
Utah has been in the top 5 as far quality Elk for the last 20 years. But I believe that it is going the other way The quality is not the same as it was 10 years ago.
We have 30 LE units That have 70 to 80% of our Elk population the.
So what has changed?

#1 Drought
#2 Technology
#3 Spike hunting with NO way of knowing how many we harvest every year.
#4 Points system has creeped to 20 Years plus and heading towards 30 years to draw.

Is there a fix absolutely. But what is stopping the fix? Point holders
When you have waited that long to draw your dream tag it's hard to give up and let change happen. I get it I have points as well.

That said.
So what happens when you do draw after 25 years do you apply for Deer? or do you give up because you know you wont be able to draw another tag in your lifetime. What ever the case may be it's Messed up and we all know it.

There is no fix to our point's system at all. when they only issue 2,756 LE Elk tags and there is 56,000 hunters applying you can't fix it.

Now look what is in jeopardy here GS any bull /spike. All because of what?
30 LE units and 2,756 Tags this is what is dictating the tag numbers on our GS/spike hunting.
What is going to happen when you have to wait 2 to 3 years to get a Any bull tag or a spike tag.
While your waiting to draw you LE bull tag. This will happen I have been watching this for the last 10 years it has slowly creeped up to where they almost all sell out in one week any bull is just a few hours. 10 years ago you could almost buy them the day before the rifle hunt opened.

So what is more important?

Points or having a guarantee tag in your pocket every year.

we can fix this problem right now to were we don't need to draw out for GS elk or ever be sold out of tags.

I truly want you to think of your kids and grand kids before you answer this.
because look at what it will be like 20 years from now.
Click to expand...

What were the total licenses sold for bull for both LE and OTC (this would include spike and "hunter's choice") and antlerless (all draw an landowner) last year, so a complete total of all elk licenses sold in UT?

According to the annual report, UT's total elk herd was 80,320 (winter count).

Another western state numbers its elk herd at 90,800 with a total of 37,557 licenses sold (this would include all bull, "hunter's choice", and all antlerless). Most of the bull:cow ratio's are 1:3 and 1:4 in this state.

So, you could assume the license distribution for this state would be one bull for every three antlerless giving roughly 12,500 bull and 25,100 antlerless.

The herd in this state is healthy, and apparently has more than the state of UT does with what may very well be more permits. Everything is a complete draw, no OTC.
____________________________________________________________________

Here's the scam to UT's point system. Statewide OTC opportunity for spike bull and "hunter's choice" and very, very limited opportunity for the bull draw units with really nothing to offer that you can't find in many other western states...
 
2lumpy said:
I’ll offer a final comment on this discussion, on this thread……. Regarding water and feed during drought conditions. Yes wildlife management and domestic live stock management are different……, most folks understand that, so many analogies are made as a way to help clarify an intent or a meaning rather than to be taken literally. One finger typing takes far too long to always layout a fully detailed rational. One has to assume the reader understands the intent rather than the “simple reference” in the comment.

Regarding droughts, feed, water and wildlife. Historically, public lands are subject to the realities of weather variables, and wehave lived with the consequences of the deep swings between extremely wet years and extremely dry years and the in between so called normal years.

However, private land owners that raise domestic live stock “never” leave it up to the weather to determine how there animals grow or decrease in numbers. They build “systems” on their land that, to a far greater degree, minimize the effects of weather variables. They plan for these fluctuations in weather with their “systems” of water storage, water movement, irrigation, production of feed, fertilization, storage of feed, winter supplementing of feed, all systems to flatten and mitigate the variables in the weather. When these low fence ranchers/farmer are maintaining wildlife on their private property, as a profit center, they “attempt” to flatten weather impact on the deer, elk, upland game, as well as the livestock. And…. to a greater degree, wildlife on their land do better than wildlife on public lands.

It’s time we stopped allowing weather to control our wildlife, at least to the degree that it has been ignored up until now.

While weather mitigation on public land wildlife is different than weather mitigation on livestock, that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t be doing more and we definitely should be engaged more aggressively in developing “unique systems” on public land to do that for our wildlife big game animals.

It goes back to the old saying. “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got”.

That’s my story I’m sticking to it.
Click to expand...
Great read but you didn’t state what “more” you would do. What unique systems would you apply?
 
@2lumpy
"It’s time we stopped allowing weather to control our wildlife, at least to the degree that it has been ignored up until now.

While weather mitigation on public land wildlife is different than weather mitigation on livestock, that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t be doing more and we definitely should be engaged more aggressively in developing “unique systems” on public land to do that for our wildlife big game animals."

Help me understand how we should ignore drought conditions while still recruiting and at least maintaining big game under poor feed conditions?
And how do you suggest we water and nourish millions of acres with "unique systems", especially when cutting funds and help from special interest groups as suggested?
 
Bigfoot 1 said:
Shouldn’t be a heavy list to post what you would do. What unique systems you would apply. I’m not criticizing you, I’m just curious.
Click to expand...


I am not speaking for 2Lumpy. A question was asked and I am sure I am speaking out of turn but I would like to put in 2 cents.

One of the main things I would change is burning. Prescribed burns need to be implemented in a constantly regulated cycle. I understand that there ate all types of regulations and policy to deal with on this but it is time to invest in overcoming and dealing with it. It should become such a common and functional tool for the state that biologists should be able to plan the next burn of an area as soon as it is burned.

One of the other things and I know people don't like hearing this but it is long past time to start supplementing winter feed. We all talk about winter grounds getting smaller and smaller from human development. If we are shrinking their winter food source there is nothing wrong with replacing it.

Water source development is very important for dealing with deer in a drought. Believe it or not you actually have areas that produce sustainable forage for big game species but very little game will occupy the area just because of lack of water. I can also tell you long distance traveling to water sources can open up big game to more predation.

I have been around enough to see droughts come and go. It is common to see droughts effect antler development, hair quality, body size and other phenotypic traits. It is uncommon to see drought actually wipe deer herds out. Very severe droughts can cause generation gaps in herds where you have less than a %10 fawn survival rate and high stillbirths. Specifically mule deer are very good at surviving drought conditions.

If you are dealing with droughts it is a good idea to tweak your domestic grazing practices and start pounding the hell out of your predators and less desirable species like horses and swine.

There are many other things that can be done. Some cheep and some very very expensive. The reality is we are a constant pressure upon nature even when we don't want to be. So it's time to make our presence positive and constructive.
 
slamdunk said:
And how do you suggest we water and nourish millions of acres with "unique systems", especially when cutting funds and help from special interest groups as suggested?
Click to expand...
Of the 73 million acres in AZ, about 57% of the land, comprised of about 40 million acres of state & federal holdings, is considered public. With some limitations, -- NPs, urban areas, etc.-- most of that land is available for hunting. Another 20 million acres are on the various Indian reservations. Only about 13 million acres are privately owned, which is 18% or so of the total. The fact that the terrain & accompanying vegetation types run the gamut from low, arid desert to high mountain alpine regions doesn't make 'habitat management' an easy task.

Closed livestock systems are rare. Most cattle operations use free-range grazing on either state or federal leases. Other than fences, tanks, etc. I doubt any of them do much to improve feed on the public lands other than to relocate the cows once in a while.

And now...I really am done with this thread. ;)
 
slamdunk said:
While weather mitigation on public land wildlife is different than weather mitigation on livestock, that doesn’t mean we
Click to expand...
One last thing. :rolleyes:

I did a feature article in 2000 about 'rain' & deer with extensive comments from Ray Lee, who was the head of the AGFD's Big Game Branch at the time. If you want to read it, let me know & I'll send it in a PM.
 
Tristate said:
I am not speaking for 2Lumpy. A question was asked and I am sure I am speaking out of turn but I would like to put in 2 cents.

One of the main things I would change is burning. Prescribed burns need to be implemented in a constantly regulated cycle. I understand that there ate all types of regulations and policy to deal with on this but it is time to invest in overcoming and dealing with it. It should become such a common and functional tool for the state that biologists should be able to plan the next burn of an area as soon as it is burned.

One of the other things and I know people don't like hearing this but it is long past time to start supplementing winter feed. We all talk about winter grounds getting smaller and smaller from human development. If we are shrinking their winter food source there is nothing wrong with replacing it.

Water source development is very important for dealing with deer in a drought. Believe it or not you actually have areas that produce sustainable forage for big game species but very little game will occupy the area just because of lack of water. I can also tell you long distance traveling to water sources can open up big game to more predation.

I have been around enough to see droughts come and go. It is common to see droughts effect antler development, hair quality, body size and other phenotypic traits. It is uncommon to see drought actually wipe deer herds out. Very severe droughts can cause generation gaps in herds where you have less than a %10 fawn survival rate and high stillbirths. Specifically mule deer are very good at surviving drought conditions.

If you are dealing with droughts it is a good idea to tweak your domestic grazing practices and start pounding the hell out of your predators and less desirable species like horses and swine.

There are many other things that can be done. Some cheep and some very very expensive. The reality is we are a constant pressure upon nature even when we don't want to be. So it's time to make our presence positive and constructive.
Click to expand...
Great post ☝
 
slamdunk said:
Yes please
Click to expand...
Excellent article, thank you for sharing such insightful, beneficial information from a real biological standpoint, it was very refreshing to read.

I've been relentlessly trying to defend conservation efforts regardless of the wests drought conditions.

All of the millions of dollars MDF and others are raising simply cannot buy winter snows and spring rains.

But, we have choices.
We can sit back and do nothing to help the situation or we can continue the mission and do as much as humanly possible.

It's been asked what conservation has done to help when our herd numbers still struggle?
Completely fair question.
I personally would ask "Where would we be without it?

We can't water millions upon millions of public lands habitat with massive sprinklers and well water like some private ranches do to feed cattle, but we can give them a drink from a man made guzzler.

We can continue to rehabilitate burn scars and plant millions of bitter brush and other valuable nutrition, but we cannot provide the rains to help it grow faster.

It takes several years for a 6" bitter brush to grow into a usable renewable resource, maybe even decades when ground moisture is low, but we're doing it anyway because "it's helping" not "hindering" like doing nothing does.

So what do we do while waiting for and hoping weather patterns change in our favor?

We can continue spending money on numerous collaring studies being performed throughout Utah and the West and trying to learn migration routes and corridors, how they've changed with urban sprawl and study ways to help the changing routes and habitat along the way and build crossings and fences.

We can continue to study predator impacts and figure out ways to help there as well.

We can keep digging holes and planting cover and food sources and we can keep maintaining guzzlers and building new ones where the studies tell us they are needed.

We can continue to work with private landowners, especially during wintering months and keep as many does alive as possible.

We can keep on working our butts off and we pray for moisture, thats what we do, so that all these years of projects can mature into what they are intended for.

Or we sit back and do nothing.....thats our choices.

I choose to stay my course.
 
Last edited:
I know I have said it before but I will say it again.
Thanks Slam!

It has took a generation plus to get the deer numbers to the amount we have now.
It will take a generation plus to get them back to a respectable amount.
 
Tristate said:
I am not speaking for 2Lumpy. A question was asked and I am sure I am speaking out of turn but I would like to put in 2 cents.

One of the main things I would change is burning. Prescribed burns need to be implemented in a constantly regulated cycle. I understand that there ate all types of regulations and policy to deal with on this but it is time to invest in overcoming and dealing with it. It should become such a common and functional tool for the state that biologists should be able to plan the next burn of an area as soon as it is burned.

One of the other things and I know people don't like hearing this but it is long past time to start supplementing winter feed. We all talk about winter grounds getting smaller and smaller from human development. If we are shrinking their winter food source there is nothing wrong with replacing it.

Water source development is very important for dealing with deer in a drought. Believe it or not you actually have areas that produce sustainable forage for big game species but very little game will occupy the area just because of lack of water. I can also tell you long distance traveling to water sources can open up big game to more predation.

I have been around enough to see droughts come and go. It is common to see droughts effect antler development, hair quality, body size and other phenotypic traits. It is uncommon to see drought actually wipe deer herds out. Very severe droughts can cause generation gaps in herds where you have less than a %10 fawn survival rate and high stillbirths. Specifically mule deer are very good at surviving drought conditions.

If you are dealing with droughts it is a good idea to tweak your domestic grazing practices and start pounding the hell out of your predators and less desirable species like horses and swine.

There are many other things that can be done. Some cheep and some very very expensive. The reality is we are a constant pressure upon nature even when we don't want to be. So it's time to make our presence positive and constructive.
Click to expand...


Great "dreams"

Now here's reality

First. Swine?

Second. Utah hunters forfeited political clout when we decided to cut 150,000 hunters. We don't need to argue the "but, but, but" facts are facts, and as a voting block, or political powerhouse, or economic powerhouse, we did that to ourselves.

Meaning, there will be zero mustang cull. Don't forget, Mitt Romney was putting out a plan 2 years ago, still on it I suppose.

We don't have numbers/ industry size to "dictate" to grazers.

We ain't burning nothing.

As usual, we as hunters never ask the follow up, "THEN WHAT?"

Here's a few

Increasing elk herds, hurts deer herds.

Supplemental feeding changes migration patterns, and increases disease.

What if Al Gore is right?
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
Excellent article, thank you for sharing such insightful, beneficial information from a real biological standpoint, it was very refreshing to read.

I've been relentlessly trying to defend conservation efforts regardless of the wests drought conditions.

All of the millions of dollars MDF and others are raising simply cannot buy winter snows and spring rains.

But, we have choices.
We can sit back and do nothing to help the situation or we can continue the mission and do as much as humanly possible.

It's been asked what conservation has done to help when our herd numbers still struggle?
Completely fair question.
I personally would ask "Where would we be without it?

We can't water millions upon millions of public lands habitat with massive sprinklers and well water like some private ranches do to feed cattle, but we can give them a drink from a man made guzzler.

We can continue to rehabilitate burn scars and plant millions of bitter brush and other valuable nutrition, but we cannot provide the rains to help it grow faster.

It takes several years for a 6" bitter brush to grow into a usable renewable resource, maybe even decades when ground moisture is low, but we're doing it anyway because "it's helping" not "hindering" like doing nothing does.

So what do we do while waiting for and hoping weather patterns change in our favor?

We can continue spending money on numerous collaring studies being performed throughout Utah and the West and trying to learn migration routes and corridors, how they've changed with urban sprawl and study ways to help the changing routes and habitat along the way and build crossings and fences.

We can continue to study predator impacts and figure out ways to help there as well.

We can keep digging holes and planting cover and food sources and we can keep maintaining guzzlers and building new ones where the studies tell us they are needed.

We can continue to work with private landowners, especially during wintering months and keep as many does alive as possible.

We can keep on working our butts off and we pray for moisture, thats what we do, so that all these years of projects can mature into what they are intended for.

Or we sit back and do nothing.....thats our choices.

I choose to stay my course.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

Most of my articles from the last 40 yrs. or so are on a broken computer. Thinking you would find it interesting, I managed to find that one on a site where I posted it in 2007.

FWIW, a while after I wrote that, Lee left the department. When I was writing the Coues book in 2003, I asked his replacement what he thought of Lee's comments. He agreed with all of it.
 
Straw Poll:

'lol-face' if you built a home on winter range.

'sad-face' if you expect somebody else to do it.

'angry-face' if you're pissed off that somebody hasn't fixed it for you.

'shades' if you've actually done something to improve winter range you own.

'heart-eyes' if you've personally improved water resources for wildlife.

Keep scrolling if you've done nothing.
 
hossblur said:
Great "dreams"

Now here's reality

First. Swine?

Second. Utah hunters forfeited political clout when we decided to cut 150,000 hunters. We don't need to argue the "but, but, but" facts are facts, and as a voting block, or political powerhouse, or economic powerhouse, we did that to ourselves.

Meaning, there will be zero mustang cull. Don't forget, Mitt Romney was putting out a plan 2 years ago, still on it I suppose.

We don't have numbers/ industry size to "dictate" to grazers.

We ain't burning nothing.

As usual, we as hunters never ask the follow up, "THEN WHAT?"

Here's a few

Increasing elk herds, hurts deer herds.

Supplemental feeding changes migration patterns, and increases disease.

What if Al Gore is right?
Click to expand...


Yes swine. I am talking about people everywhere managing wildlife in a drought. Quit thinking it's a problem proprietary to Utah.

Second, all that stuff you say is impossible, is how quitters deal with their problems. If you have no will quit crying and get out of the way of men.

But then you really don't care about wildlife or hunting anyway.
 
Tristate said:
Yes swine. I am talking about people everywhere managing wildlife in a drought. Quit thinking it's a problem proprietary to Utah.

Second, all that stuff you say is impossible, is how quitters deal with their problems. If you have no will quit crying and get out of the way of men.

But then you really don't care about wildlife or hunting anyway.
Click to expand...


You stick to "managing drought" and killing non existent pigs, and mustangs with federal.protection.

The rest of us will not waste time with fairy tales and unicorns.

"Men".

Hilarious. How big a stool do you need to see one?
 
hossblur said:
You stick to "managing drought" and killing non existent pigs, and mustangs with federal.protection.

The rest of us will not waste time with fairy tales and unicorns.

"Men".

Hilarious. How big a stool do you need to see one?
Click to expand...
You're still crying boy.

Face it Susie, the truth is out. Nobody is going to "ban" their way to a better deer herd.
 
Man
Tristate said:
You're still crying boy.

Face it Susie, the truth is out. Nobody is going to "ban" their way to a better deer herd.
Click to expand...
Managing buck harvest is the goal behind restrictions, it has nothing to do with "herds" in general.

Two completely separate issues and statagies.

I thought we already had this argument put to bed??‍♂️
 
Tristate said:
You're still crying boy.

Face it Susie, the truth is out. Nobody is going to "ban" their way to a better deer herd.
Click to expand...


Reading is tough, I know.

The OP is about ELK MANAGEMENT IN UTAH.

Not deer. Or Swines.

Thanks for the usual, non contribution via dozens of posts
 
grizzly said:
Has it improved Utah's big game?

Utah sells more auction permits than all other states combined. Why are our herds not better than those other states if this money is so productive and essential?
Click to expand...
THIS.
 
The State of Utah and Federal agencies are burning in Utah.
The Monroe mountain has had burns up on that mountain every November for over five years now. They are burning today up Salina Creek and I know the BLM and the USFS are planning on burning tens of thousand acres.
Slam keeps giving examples of habitat rehabilitation efforts being sponsored by the big bad special interest groups.
In the past 20 years there has been hundreds of guzzlers put in throughout the state of Utah again paid by the big bad special interest groups.
High Fencing of highways and over passes or culverts under highways again paid buy you know who.
Some guys on this site can not admit stuff is getting done because of your hate for the so call special interest groups.
We have only so much acreage that can be of good production of big game so if we want more big game we need to increase the quality of the grazing acreage.
Yes we have not seen alot of return yet, but there is alot of work being done and it will take time to see if all of this will help.
I for one say it is worth SFW, MDF and RMEF raising the money that they do raise.
Do you really believe the hunting for game will get better if we don't improve habitat or put in guzzlers or fence highways.
You can say this thread is not about deer but the facts are yes elk managment is about deer.
The state of Utah does not have enough prime habitat to have one hundred thousand elk and have even close to the number of deer that was back in the 1970 that is one of the reason they have harvested so many cow elk on some units.
Deer and Elk do eat the same groceries. One eats a little more grass and the other eats a little more Forbs.
 
notdonhunting said:
The State of Utah and Federal agencies are burning in Utah.
The Monroe mountain has had burns up on that mountain every November for over five years now. They are burning today up Salina Creek and I know the BLM and the USFS are planning on burning tens of thousand acres.
Slam keeps giving examples of habitat rehabilitation efforts being sponsored by the big bad special interest groups.
In the past 20 years there has been hundreds of guzzlers put in throughout the state of Utah again paid by the big bad special interest groups.
High Fencing of highways and over passes or culverts under highways again paid buy you know who.
Some guys on this site can not admit stuff is getting done because of your hate for the so call special interest groups.
We have only so much acreage that can be of good production of big game so if we want more big game we need to increase the quality of the grazing acreage.
Yes we have not seen alot of return yet, but there is alot of work being done and it will take time to see if all of this will help.
I for one say it is worth SFW, MDF and RMEF raising the money that they do raise.
Do you really believe the hunting for game will get better if we don't improve habitat or put in guzzlers or fence highways.
You can say this thread is not about deer but the facts are yes elk managment is about deer.
The state of Utah does not have enough prime habitat to have one hundred thousand elk and have even close to the number of deer that was back in the 1970 that is one of the reason they have harvested so many cow elk on some units.
Deer and Elk do eat the same groceries. One eats a little more grass and the other eats a little more Forbs.
Click to expand...
Very well said and spot on!

We all enjoy elk hunting here in Utah, but if we want our deer to rebound back up to a sustainable and renewable size per unit, a balance between the two species has to happen.
We can't just scream "more deer, more elk", it doesn't work that way.

As NDH mentioned, feed and habitat has to be created first and foremost, which is exactly what these controlled burns are for.

All of these projects being done take time, perhaps even decades to grab hold and prove beneficial.
They ARE an investment into our future.
 
The best way to manage for the future that doesn’t cost any money is limit every family to two kids.

Doesn’t matter how many water tanks or bushes you plant. There’s too many two legged wolves.

MDF should give out condoms and birth control.
 
SS! said:
The best way to manage for the future that doesn’t cost any money is limit every family to two kids.

Doesn’t matter how many water tanks or bushes you plant. There’s too many two legged wolves.

MDF should give out condoms and birth control.
Click to expand...

They could quit liquoring up the "huntresses" at the expo. November gets busy in the delivery rooms.?
 
Lions eat meat? Here’s my shocked face ?. Ground breaking stuff coming out of Utah.

Killed and not consumed? Ummmm it’s pretty common knowledge that they will come back later to eat. No biased at all in the post. Does a two legged hunter eat the elk within a couple hours? FFS
 

Similar threads

Bigbucks
Fillmore Pahvant vs Plateau Boulder Muzzleloader Elk
Replies
16
Views
2k
wstrntines
wstrntines
J
The Wake-up Call….
Replies
26
Views
3k
cgmoonsky
cgmoonsky
C
Wasatch thoughts
2
Replies
193
Views
4k
elkassassin
elkassassin

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

98760681-F676-412B-B45A-9F6AB7C86B94.png
0F677D0B-058A-4C7D-B7E8-E97C9B4C8D1C.png
9F07BB9E-9445-4CF5-B656-E226D54BC2B6.jpeg
0FB2AC61-6476-49D8-BC12-E0E1399D53ED.jpeg
IMG_4307.jpg
EDB98FC3-AD39-4C6A-BEFC-5A5F6955F715.jpeg
2021 still needs mounted
F55C09AF-51E2-4A1C-AEFE-3D975BC7A5C3.jpeg
IMG_4655.jpg
54543.jpeg
DSCF0064.mov
Screenshot_20230718-151302_Messages.jpg
Back
Top Bottom