Elk management meeting today

Oneye

Active Member
Messages
443
So.....I don't know how many are tuned into the Wildlife Boards Elk Management plan meeting but a few things have changed.

-They are leaving the archery bull/cow permit alone. They aren't separating them into archery cow and archery spike as separate tags. Narrow vote.
-They are eliminating the multi-season Any-bull permits entirely. (Spike multi-season is still currently alive) This has passed and is done.
-2 Rifle hunts/split season will remain for spike and any bull.
-Have a 3 and 6 year review of the plan. I don't really support that. 10 years with like a 5 year review is reasonable. You have to give plans a chance to work.


Anyone else watching update as they continue. Sometimes it's kind of a cluster **** to me how the wildlife board ends up changing some recommendations the DWR makes. Personally I liked about all they came up with for this plan. Addressing point creep/opportunity and managing healthy elk herds should be top priority. Going to have to stop listening soon. So we'll see what else they do.
 
Sad to see they didn’t eliminate the multi season tags ENTIRELY. Every wagging d**k rifle hunter has bought a LR muzz, put a scope on it, essentially created another rifle season and totally f-d up what used to be a pretty quiet muzz season. Oh well, at least they got rid of it on the any bull units, guess I’ll switch back to my old stomping grounds.
 
Sad to see they didn’t eliminate the multi season tags ENTIRELY. Every wagging d**k rifle hunter has bought a LR muzz, put a scope on it, essentially created another rifle season and totally f-d up what used to be a pretty quiet muzz season. Oh well, at least they got rid of it on the any bull units, guess I’ll switch back to my old stomping grounds.
It is not so much about them eliminating the multi-season any bull hunts - it is HOW they did it. The WB completely made that decision today on a whim with ZERO public input.
 
It is not so much about them eliminating the multi-season any bull hunts - it is HOW they did it. The WB completely made that decision today on a whim with ZERO public input.
That was the point one of the RAC chairs brought up. Mentioned that this never came up or was proposed at any of the RAC or committee meetings and just seemed to be too sudden of a proposal that very few even asked for. Some concerns had been brought up on a cap, but the Wildlife Board just kinda did this after a really thorough process.
 
Sad to see they didn’t eliminate the multi season tags ENTIRELY. Every wagging d**k rifle hunter has bought a LR muzz, put a scope on it, essentially created another rifle season and totally f-d up what used to be a pretty quiet muzz season. Oh well, at least they got rid of it on the any bull units, guess I’ll switch back to my old stomping grounds.
Hence the Technology Committee proposal to eliminate variable scopes on muzzle loaders....
 
Are scopes still going to be allowed on Muzzleloaders next year or is it still a possibility that they do away with them?
 
My name is Karl Hirst, I'm one of two individuals that represent the central region on the Utah Wildlife Board. Yesterdays board meeting resulted in big changes for Utah elk hunters. If we can have a CIVIL discussion, I will provide you with an inside look at why I voted the way I did. Maybe an inside look at the wildlife board process. Screw it up and I will go back to answering emails about why I will not vote to eliminate bear hunting in Utah. I've not done this before because I get enough emails telling me how stupid I am without asking for them. Keep it civil and understand that we might not agree, and I will answer your questions.
 
Hey Karl, you dirty so and so! Just kiddin

I like most of the changes and don't have too much of an issue with them. I know it rubbed a lot of guys wrong that is seemed the multi season tags got pulled without being part of the DWR proposal and seemed like a willy nilly decision. I can see the perception that the Wildlife board can go rogue on issues without public input. I think guys want their voices heard and we have the RAC for this reason so when something happens that is unexpected folks get worried. Like when they allowed scopes on muzzy's, came out of the blue back in 2016. The board has done several things like that over the years.

I think allowing the multi season spike archers to hunt the any bull units is going to cause some issues and those tags are going to be crazy popular, especially with some LE units going to any bull this year.

Aside from that when do I get an invite to your pheasant land in a nearby state? ;) it was a good episode the other day on TV. Can't believe ya let Brett shoot your birds! (he's a good dude) I'm the recurve guy at the range with pointers--we chat sometimes

Thanks for all ya do--it's a thankless job!
 
Hey Karl, you dirty so and so! Just kiddin

I like most of the changes and don't have too much of an issue with them. I know it rubbed a lot of guys wrong that is seemed the multi season tags got pulled without being part of the DWR proposal and seemed like a willy nilly decision. I can see the perception that the Wildlife board can go rogue on issues without public input. I think guys want their voices heard and we have the RAC for this reason so when something happens that is unexpected folks get worried. Like when they allowed scopes on muzzy's, came out of the blue back in 2016. The board has done several things like that over the years.

I think allowing the multi season spike archers to hunt the any bull units is going to cause some issues and those tags are going to be crazy popular, especially with some LE units going to any bull this year.

Aside from that when do I get an invite to your pheasant land in a nearby state? ;) it was a good episode the other day on TV. Can't believe ya let Brett shoot your birds! (he's a good dude) I'm the recurve guy at the range with pointers--we chat sometimes

Thanks for all ya do--it's a thankless job!
 
I don't disagree with you that sometimes things appear to come out of nowhere. We also sometimes talk things to death. With the timetable we work with pushing an item often means a year and sometimes two. The thing that might have appeared to be rogue was the multi season tag elimination. Its been floating around since they were implimented. I tried to get a cap on them from the start and didn't get a second to my motion. I was the sole no vote on this issue. We talk with hundreds of people and answer lots of emails. The multi season tags were in the electronic comments that were read at the meeting. Some people don't think we read them. And I believe it was a question on the hunter survey that was sent out for use by the elk committee. The only thing I wish I would have thought of during the discussion was asking the RAC chairs for their opinions. They are smart people and represent smaller areas. It takes a lot of work to stay up on everything, that is why I always encourage people to join a group that thinks the way you do and attends all of the many meetings not just RAC and Board meetings.
 
The email sent to me as a Tech Committee member, stated that due to all the many changes with the elk management plan, the Technology recommendations were tabled until the spring RAC's but have definitely not been moth balled.

I wouldn't recommend asking Santa for a new scope for your muzzy ?
 
I don't disagree with you that sometimes things appear to come out of nowhere. We also sometimes talk things to death. With the timetable we work with pushing an item often means a year and sometimes two. The thing that might have appeared to be rogue was the multi season tag elimination. Its been floating around since they were implimented. I tried to get a cap on them from the start and didn't get a second to my motion. I was the sole no vote on this issue. We talk with hundreds of people and answer lots of emails. The multi season tags were in the electronic comments that were read at the meeting. Some people don't think we read them. And I believe it was a question on the hunter survey that was sent out for use by the elk committee. The only thing I wish I would have thought of during the discussion was asking the RAC chairs for their opinions. They are smart people and represent smaller areas. It takes a lot of work to stay up on everything, that is why I always encourage people to join a group that thinks the way you do and attends all of the many meetings not just RAC and Board meetings.
Karl,
You have always been a stand-up guy and your willingness to come on to this site to discuss this solidifies that even more. Props to you for doing that and for your years of service in a position that is impossible to please everyone!!

I actually am in favor of getting rid of the multi-season tags for a couple of reasons, but the way it was done seemed completely out of left field and perhaps took away from the many good things surrounding the elk plan that were put in place yesterday.

My sense is most were bothered by the fact that the WB seemed to act independently (some say went rogue) and very quickly on that decision without much discussion (whether they did or not, that was my perception and others as well), but many, myself included, were also puzzled as to why the multi-season tag was eliminated for any bull units, but left in place for spike hunts while also allowing archers to hunt both spike and any bull units still (as I understood it - correct me if that is wrong). I believe most hunters that oppose the multi-season elk tag do so because of the overcrowding it has caused on the various hunts, reducing hunter satisfaction. This overcrowding will continue for bowhunters as things stand - was there thought or discussion given to that point when deciding to eliminate the multi-season tag for any bull units, but not spike? Why not just eliminate the multi-season tag altogether and remove some of the crazy complexity with that hunt?

Overall, I am quite pleased with the way things went yesterday around the elk plan and I am very excited about the direction the WB and DWR are taking in relying more and more upon empirical data to make good decisions. Thanks for all you do for wildlife in Utah!
 
The email sent to me as a Tech Committee member, stated that due to all the many changes with the elk management plan, the Technology recommendations were tabled until the spring RAC's but have definitely not been moth balled.

I wouldn't recommend asking Santa for a new scope for your muzzy ?
I'm asked often about muzzy scopes. People either love or hate them. I really don't know where the muzzy scope issue might end up. Thanks you for serving on the Tech Committee. The issue is definitely not resolved and will come back up in the spring.
 
Karl,
You have always been a stand-up guy and your willingness to come on to this site to discuss this solidifies that even more. Props to you for doing that and for your years of service in a position that is impossible to please everyone!!

I actually am in favor of getting rid of the multi-season tags for a couple of reasons, but the way it was done seemed completely out of left field and perhaps took away from the many good things surrounding the elk plan that were put in place yesterday.

My sense is most were bothered by the fact that the WB seemed to act independently (some say went rogue) and very quickly on that decision without much discussion (whether they did or not, that was my perception and others as well), but many, myself included, were also puzzled as to why the multi-season tag was eliminated for any bull units, but left in place for spike hunts while also allowing archers to hunt both spike and any bull units still (as I understood it - correct me if that is wrong). I believe most hunters that oppose the multi-season elk tag do so because of the overcrowding it has caused on the various hunts, reducing hunter satisfaction. This overcrowding will continue for bowhunters as things stand - was there thought or discussion given to that point when deciding to eliminate the multi-season tag for any bull units, but not spike? Why not just eliminate the multi-season tag altogether and remove some of the crazy complexity with that hunt?

Overall, I am quite pleased with the way things went yesterday around the elk plan and I am very excited about the direction the WB and DWR are taking in relying more and more upon empirical data to make good decisions. Thanks for all you do for wildlife in Utah!
In the meeting I asked about the spike hunt multi season tags for the same reasons you mentioned. My impression was I wouldn't get a second to a motion and the love hate reationship Utah hunters have with multi season elk tags is about split. I decided not to push the issue.
 
In the meeting I asked about the spike hunt multi season tags for the same reasons you mentioned. My impression was I wouldn't get a second to a motion and the love hate reationship Utah hunters have with multi season elk tags is about split. I decided not to push the issue.
Fair enough - thanks Karl!
 
I'm asked often about muzzy scopes. People either love or hate them. I really don't know where the muzzy scope issue might end up. Thanks you for serving on the Tech Committee. The issue is definitely not resolved and will come back up in the spring.
Thank you for all you do Karl, you're a stand up guy.

It's not easy being in these positions, but it definitely shows the dedication and willingness to take shots for the betterment of our wildlife and the opportunities we have to hunt into the future.
 
I'm asked often about muzzy scopes. People either love or hate them. I really don't know where the muzzy scope issue might end up. Thanks you for serving on the Tech Committee. The issue is definitely not resolved and will come back up in the spring.
Karl, thank you for taking the opportunity to answer some questions.

As far as the muzzy scopes go I would suggest you guys take a hard look at a way to comprise rather than ban all together.

What that would look like to me would be say a max 4x scope on a muzzleloader. The reason I say 4x is there is already a lot of 4x scopes on the market at various price points for people to still use.

To me this would be a comprise for both sides of this debate.
 
Karl, thank you for taking the opportunity to answer some questions.

As far as the muzzy scopes go I would suggest you guys take a hard look at a way to comprise rather than ban all together.

What that would look like to me would be say a max 4x scope on a muzzleloader. The reason I say 4x is there is already a lot of 4x scopes on the market at various price points for people to still use.

To me this would be a comprise for both sides of this debate.
The three positions that people express are no sights, 4X, and leave it alone. The issue is more complicated than equipment. No sights would equal more tags, more tags is more crowding but better draw odds. Leave it alone is what people are comfortable with, and they like the time of year and the longer range. 4x is the middle ground and would be the easy answer. Where it lands, I really don't know right now.
 
I could get behind allowing a fixed 4 power. A lot of older guys can’t see open sights so I think that’s a good compromise.
This spring, at the very least get on the website and express your position. I read every email, and public comment. I know that most of the board members do the same. If you can reach out to the RAC members it helps also. People say that we don't listen. But for every person expressing a position, there is someone who is expressing an opposite opinion.
 
Thanks for all you do Karl. I appreciate your voice of reason and ideals.

The biggest issue I see with the muzzy scope topic is this:

Rifle hunters kill hundreds if not thousand’s of more bucks and bulls annually than muzzy hunters. Yet in the name of “saving bucks” we’re potentially going to see the muzzleloader hunt take a major hit while the rifle hunters will continue to be hammering bucks with long range rigs by the truck load.

It’s not about management. It’s a knee jerk reaction in the name of change for a very vocal minority. If this committee had any intent on saving bucks or making meaningful change to technology they would make changes to long range rifles, rangefinder technology, drones, etc.

I hope some common sense is applied in this and future decisions. There are a lot of hunters whose eye sight doesn’t work well with iron sights or peep sights. You would virtually be eliminating this group of hunters from this hunt.

If we’re going to make technology changes let’s do them for a measurable reason and with the weapons that impact buck survivability the most.
 
This shouldn't delve into another Muzzy scope discussion but I can't help but point out something for @Silentstalker-- the success ratios between muzzy's and rifles is pretty close to the same before and after the scope thing. Muzzy's success is not going to take a major hit if scopes get pulled.

Dudes will keep killin the same critters without scopes, it will just be at closer ranges.

To Karl's point--we need to share our opinions with the board and the RACs.
 
In the meeting I asked about the spike hunt multi season tags for the same reasons you mentioned. My impression was I wouldn't get a second to a motion and the love hate reationship Utah hunters have with multi season elk tags is about split. I decided not to push the issue.
Thanks Karl for coming on here.

I wish you would have pressed eliminating the Multi season tag on Spike units. The reason they should go is that with the multi-season tags more spikes are killed. There is just no getting around it. So, by eliminating the MS Spike tag there would be a few more spikes make it through the hunts which would allow a few more LE tags in time. More LE opportunity is what everyone wants.
 
@CrazyUtGuy
Another thing Karl, why is it the same people on every committee?
I sent emails volunteering to be on the Bear committee and never heard a word back. We need new blood. Not the same old views.
 
Thanks for all you do Karl. I appreciate your voice of reason and ideals.

The biggest issue I see with the muzzy scope topic is this:

Rifle hunters kill hundreds if not thousand’s of more bucks and bulls annually than muzzy hunters. Yet in the name of “saving bucks” we’re potentially going to see the muzzleloader hunt take a major hit while the rifle hunters will continue to be hammering bucks with long range rigs by the truck load.

It’s not about management. It’s a knee jerk reaction in the name of change for a very vocal minority. If this committee had any intent on saving bucks or making meaningful change to technology they would make changes to long range rifles, rangefinder technology, drones, etc.

I hope some common sense is applied in this and future decisions. There are a lot of hunters whose eye sight doesn’t work well with iron sights or peep sights. You would virtually be eliminating this group of hunters from this hunt.

If we’re going to make technology changes let’s do them for a measurable reason and with the weapons that impact buck survivability the most.
I'm hearing about an elk killed this year at 1900 yards. So any weapon hunts pose there own problems. I don't know what the recommendation on muzzy scopes will be. My initial thoughts were if we could reduce success, more tags could be issued, better drawing odds, maybe and its a big maybe once in a lifetime tags for muzzy. Under the current definition this will not happen. And might not even with a more restrictive definition of a muzzle loader. The main reason the tech issue was pulled it was just incomplete. Let people know your thoughts. Your right that many things need to be considered. Rangefinders are a big one, but also contribute to more accurate shots in all weapon type. Its going to be a difficult topic.
 
This shouldn't delve into another Muzzy scope discussion but I can't help but point out something for @Silentstalker-- the success ratios between muzzy's and rifles is pretty close to the same before and after the scope thing. Muzzy's success is not going to take a major hit if scopes get pulled.

Dudes will keep killin the same critters without scopes, it will just be at closer ranges.

To Karl's point--we need to share our opinions with the board and the RACs.
@Airborne

I was not very clear with what I said. Success rates may be the “ same” but overall tag numbers result in rifle hunters killing 2-5x as many bucks as muzzleloaders. Looking at success rates does not tell the whole story. Bucks killed rifle vs muzzy is not even close to the same.
 
@CrazyUtGuy
Another thing Karl, why is it the same people on every committee?
I sent emails volunteering to be on the Bear committee and never heard a word back. We need new blood. Not the same old views.
Currently the board has no say on who is selected for a committee. The State does that on purpose. Our bite at the apple comes later. There is a board member but again the State picks that person. In a previous life I oversaw multiple committees. I never recommended anyone that just sent me an email. Honestly the people I see on committees are the same folks I see at the meetings. Might not be fair and might not be an option for everyone. They shake the DWR staffs hands, give them a phone number, reach out from time to time. They get hundreds of emails.
 
Currently the board has no say on who is selected for a committee. The State does that on purpose. Our bite at the apple comes later. There is a board member but again the State picks that person. In a previous life I oversaw multiple committees. I never recommended anyone that just sent me an email. Honestly the people I see on committees are the same folks I see at the meetings. Might not be fair and might not be an option for everyone. They shake the DWR staffs hands, give them a phone number, reach out from time to time. They get hundreds of emails.
Another thing with regards to committees. Committee members agree to support the committee majority recommendation regardless of their own position. I know people that have left the first night because they wanted to fight against how they thought the committee would vote. Happened a bunch on the Mule Deer committee. I'm also asked why I didn't support the committee recommendation. Very often the opinion of the committee was generated by a very slim majority. It's also why the board sometimes appears to be doing anything they want.
 
Karl huge kudos to you coming on here and being transparent with your opinions and knowledge. I also appreciate you being one of, if not the only board member that seems to support archery hunting in this state!

With that said do you think there really is a need in limiting archery technology when the success rates are already extremely low? Seems like we are barking up the wrong tree as long range rifle hunting continues to become more popular, more impactful, and much more detrmental to our herds, yet we are spending time discussing recurve and longbows and limiting the least effective weapon.

Furthermore, how can we gain some traction in increased opportunity in the archery realm? Examples being LE late deer archery hunts on general units in place of the muzzy hunts, moving the rifle hunt out of the rut (it's time), mirroring the elk management of all of our neighboring states seems like a logical approach. The archery only once in a lifetime hunts have been a huge success and I would hope we would see more of these low impact, low success rate type of opportunities continue. Archery could be used as a very effective tool to decrease point creep, have quality hunts, with low success rates if we can get the board behind it.

Thanks again Karl for all your time, effort, and work you put in for all of us. Keep fighting the good fight!
 
So, if they readdress it in the Spring, apps are already over. Can they change this rule after someone has already applied for 2023? I’m not opposed to open sights but now that I feel hosed out of half the early hunt after 22 years, I am consider the Muzzleloader. Tired of this crap!
 
That would be a NO!
How can you say that when a board member literally just said he and several of the other board members read every single public comment?

"Listening to" and "agreeing with" are two different things. And, he also said every issue has a difference of opinion among those commenting. So, it is impossible to please everybody.

I for one am very pleased with the current board and the string of good decisions they've made over the past several years. So, they've definitely listened to and agreed with my opinion on multiple issues.
 
The WB may listen and read public comment, but it all comes down to the whims of a few people. I can live with the idea that someone ultimately has to make decision, but it bothers me when people on the board say things that are highly questionable. For example, with regard to the proposal to eliminate archery either sex elk option and then offer archery cow permits through the draw (to address point creep). A board member implies this proposal would only add 600 cow elk archery permits (opportunities) because that is how many cows all the archery hunters killed each year. This misinformation gets shared with other board members with nobody there to question it. How many thousands of archery hunters did it take to harvest 600 cow elk on the general hunts? In my mind, that would be the potential number of permits that could be added to the anterless addendum, which probably would help address point creep. I thought it was a good idea, for several reasons, but it may not have been a well-written proposal and it’s potential impact on point creep was not explained. I have my doubts that the approved management plan will last 10 years before people conclude it is broke.
 
I agree with Wiff on the late season gen tags not getting archery love and only being muzz. What about a rotation archery one year for half then muzz the next. You could add probably 25/30 percent more archery tags ( guess )and help creep on those archery years with same kill rate. Same on the Premium LE hunts a mid/late Nov rut archery tag with just a few tags would spread out the apps even more. Fixed 4x scopes would not be huge hit for muzz range. Maybe take it back to 300 instead of 500 or whatever craziness you can dial. But I agree a fixed 2.5 or 2x is FAR better on aging eyes and would help keep effectiveness under 300 yards. Limited choices on 2 and 2x scopes non extended eye relief but they are out there. Remember the days when 300 yards was long range?
 
I wonder how many conservation and landowner elk tags for limited entry units that are auctioned off will be punching the voucher for an early rifle?
 
Don't Forget About Them DAMNED Scoped SmokePole LE Hunts!

With Warmer Falls & More Hunting Pressure The Rut Has Been a Little Later On Average than When it Use To Happen!

And The StickFlippers HATE It!

I wonder how many conservation and landowner elk tags for limited entry units that are auctioned off will be punching the voucher for an early rifle?
 
- Nine Mile, Anthro
- Paunsaugunt (no archery hunts)
- West Desert (Oquirrh-Stansbury and Deep Creek is on hold for a year)
- Central Mtns, Moroni Hills and Valley Mtns
- Book Cliffs, Floy Canyon
- Box Elder, Sawtooth
Deep Creeks unit is on hold because of concerns from the Goshute tribal lands and the possible effects it may or may not present....more discussion to come over the next year.
 
The WB may listen and read public comment, but it all comes down to the whims of a few people. I can live with the idea that someone ultimately has to make decision, but it bothers me when people on the board say things that are highly questionable. For example, with regard to the proposal to eliminate archery either sex elk option and then offer archery cow permits through the draw (to address point creep). A board member implies this proposal would only add 600 cow elk archery permits (opportunities) because that is how many cows all the archery hunters killed each year. This misinformation gets shared with other board members with nobody there to question it. How many thousands of archery hunters did it take to harvest 600 cow elk on the general hunts? In my mind, that would be the potential number of permits that could be added to the anterless addendum, which probably would help address point creep. I thought it was a good idea, for several reasons, but it may not have been a well-written proposal and it’s potential impact on point creep was not explained. I have my doubts that the approved management plan will last 10 years before people conclude it is broke.
The board member you are referring to has been commenting on this post offering to explain his position. How bout you ask him why he feels the way he does.

Here's an idea, why not do both. Archery either sex, and archery cow tags that use points.
 
The board member you are referring to has been commenting on this post offering to explain his position. How bout you ask him why he feels the way he does.

Here's an idea, why not do both. Archery either sex, and archery cow tags that use points.
I did not know which board member made the comment, but I was just using this as an example to make a general point about the whole process. I did not mean to criticize this board member because, as I said, the proposal may not have been well written or fully explained. I have seen similar, but much worse things happen on the board and RACs. The worst example was when JB said something to the effect that “a muzzleloader is a muzzleloader, whether or not it has a scope”, and boom everyone now has a 700 yard muzzleloader. I’m sorry if my comment was offensive, I do appreciate the time that people take to serve on committees and boards. I can see that it is a grueling process.

I don’t see the point of having archery either sex and archery cow permits because the archery permits are unlimited. The only advantage would be that archery hunter could theoretically kill two elk, one off the general license and one off the point permit. I do not think many archery hunters would apply for these permits if the general hunt was still either sex, so this would defeat the goal of addressing point creep.

BTW, I did submit a comment to the board to support the entire management plan and the archery cow permit proposal in particular. I also read some but not all of the comments that were posted fo the regional RACs. In hindsight, I wish I would have justified my reasoning better, as many others did. Lesson learned.
 
I tend to like this idea I read on this forum when all this muzz scope controversy came up a few months ago. Some guy on here said to just keep the scopes on the muzz hunt and do away with the early rifle hunt and maybe add some of the early rifle permits to the muzz hunt. Might be a pretty good option. IDN
 
Karl.
Your a stand up guy by coming on here. I have voice my concerns over the years too you and couple others, I always get a respond back and I appreciate that.

I really think the Elk committee Did amazing job coming up with this plan.


Thanks for all that you do keep up the good work.
 
The WB may listen and read public comment, but it all comes down to the whims of a few people. I can live with the idea that someone ultimately has to make decision, but it bothers me when people on the board say things that are highly questionable. For example, with regard to the proposal to eliminate archery either sex elk option and then offer archery cow permits through the draw (to address point creep). A board member implies this proposal would only add 600 cow elk archery permits (opportunities) because that is how many cows all the archery hunters killed each year. This misinformation gets shared with other board members with nobody there to question it. How many thousands of archery hunters did it take to harvest 600 cow elk on the general hunts? In my mind, that would be the potential number of permits that could be added to the anterless addendum, which probably would help address point creep. I thought it was a good idea, for several reasons, but it may not have been a well-written proposal and it’s potential impact on point creep was not explained. I have my doubts that the approved management plan will last 10 years before people conclude it is broke.
The 600 harvested cows was my comment. I may not have presented that well. I then followed with 2000 archers to harvest those 600 cows. with a 30% harvest rate. Lets make it even larger 3000 cow archery tags against 47000 cow permit applications would do nothing for point creep. Everyone acknowledged that no one would get a cow permit even a year earlier. I personally didn't have problems with either way. I was asked to try and keep it the same. It was never going to be the perfect fit for everyone.
 
Karl huge kudos to you coming on here and being transparent with your opinions and knowledge. I also appreciate you being one of, if not the only board member that seems to support archery hunting in this state!

With that said do you think there really is a need in limiting archery technology when the success rates are already extremely low? Seems like we are barking up the wrong tree as long range rifle hunting continues to become more popular, more impactful, and much more detrmental to our herds, yet we are spending time discussing recurve and longbows and limiting the least effective weapon.

Furthermore, how can we gain some traction in increased opportunity in the archery realm? Examples being LE late deer archery hunts on general units in place of the muzzy hunts, moving the rifle hunt out of the rut (it's time), mirroring the elk management of all of our neighboring states seems like a logical approach. The archery only once in a lifetime hunts have been a huge success and I would hope we would see more of these low impact, low success rate type of opportunities continue. Archery could be used as a very effective tool to decrease point creep, have quality hunts, with low success rates if we can get the board behind it.

Thanks again Karl for all your time, effort, and work you put in for all of us. Keep fighting the good fight!
I don't personally thing that archery equipment needs to be restricted. But we are our own worse enemies. I watched a group of archers sighting in a slider sight for 120 yards. These guys couldn't even hold a group at 40 yards. There is also a story going around about an archery sheep hunt with 3 long shot misses. We don't do ourselves any favors. The OIL hunts have been tough. The folks that draw those tags are filling them most of the time. So the low success/low impact argument is not accurate. Lower odds maybe a little but keeping these hunts will be on ongoing battle. The move of the bison hunt to later was a compromise worked out to keep the hunt on the books. Or that would have gone away.
 
The 600 harvested cows was my comment. I may not have presented that well. I then followed with 2000 archers to harvest those 600 cows. with a 30% harvest rate. Lets make it even larger 3000 cow archery tags against 47000 cow permit applications would do nothing for point creep. Everyone acknowledged that no one would get a cow permit even a year earlier. I personally didn't have problems with either way. I was asked to try and keep it the same. It was never going to be the perfect fit for everyone.
But, every little bit helps.
 
If you obtain a buck or bull tag, you may not obtain an antler less tag of any kind. That should help point creep.
I don't disagree, but there are so many factors to consider. I build cow elk tags to mentor my grand kids. I have not intention of killing one myself. But I have an archery tag every year for something. Just a lot of factors to consider and I usually side on giving options.
 
Hey Karl!

There's Only One Way When Taking Some Technology Back!

You've Gotta Take Some From All 3 Weapon Types!

Look at PUNKS Scope on His Long Ranger!:D

Look At These F'N StickFlippers of Today!

It's Gonna Be ALL GAVE SOME!

NOT:

SOME GAVE ALL!

Make It Fair Across The Board!
I don't disagree, but fair to who is always the question. I don't like where long range rifles are going. I hearing there was a bull killed at 1900 yards this year. The factor with muzzleloaders for me was more tags and better odds of drawing, and potentially adding more hunting opportunities. From the contacts I have had better odds, hunting more for different species is not what the folks that have contacted me want. I really thought that I had the pulse of the muzzleloaders, but Im not sure now. Archery always wins with equipment changes because the success is lower. Its easy to just leave it alone. But like everything technology is advancing past what I think is best for hunting. Its going to be a hard discussion and I don't know where it will lead.
 
So, if they readdress it in the Spring, apps are already over. Can they change this rule after someone has already applied for 2023? I’m not opposed to open sights but now that I feel hosed out of half the early hunt after 22 years, I am consider the Muzzleloader. Tired of this crap!
If your talking about early elk rifle tags. Utah hunts elk with a rifle during the rut more than any other state. I'm often asked to mange like other states. If my vote was for just Karl, then I would have wanted to move the early rifle elk hunt completely into mid October. That would have grown more elk faster. But I was comfortable with shortening the season and decreasing the tags and still keeping some rifle elk tags in the rut. I wish we had never started the point system. But it is something we can't get out of now.
 
So, if they readdress it in the Spring, apps are already over. Can they change this rule after someone has already applied for 2023? I’m not opposed to open sights but now that I feel hosed out of half the early hunt after 22 years, I am consider the Muzzleloader. Tired of this crap!
Sorry missed a point. I think most of the changes if any will now occur in 2024.
 
If your talking about early elk rifle tags. Utah hunts elk with a rifle during the rut more than any other state. I'm often asked to mange like other states. If my vote was for just Karl, then I would have wanted to move the early rifle elk hunt completely into mid October. That would have grown more elk faster. But I was comfortable with shortening the season and decreasing the tags and still keeping some rifle elk tags in the rut. I wish we had never started the point system. But it is something we can't get out of now.
We absolutely can get out of it. I really wish that were clearer. There are viable paths to ending the point system or scaling it back significantly that don’t require shafting the upper point pools.
 
That would be a NO!
All I committed to when I took on this role was to listen. I never committed to agree. I read every email, answer most of them, and some I simply state that I disagree with the sender. I represent over a million people, hundreds of thousands of which are sportsman. The most common comment right now is follow the science and DWR. But for every one of them there is another that says I don't believe that scientists and the DWR don't know what they are talking about. Sometimes the sender takes both position in the same email depending on the topic. Again I committed to listen and will honor that position. But because I or another board member doesn't agree with your doesn't mean we haven't heard what you said.
 
I wonder how many conservation and landowner elk tags for limited entry units that are auctioned off will be punching the voucher for an early rifle?
I suspect that it will be similar to what it has been in the past. Each of these programs have strong point for an against. But I don't see it changing much.
 
But, every little bit helps.
We will just have to disagree. We have to kill cows, and every one that I can kill during August and September is one that doesn't need to be killed post rut and on the winter range. The reason for tmy strong push to keep it either sex and not issue additional cow tags was that having to pay for another tag and losing points put a hurdle to killing cows in the right place and right time. The point creep discussion was just smoke and mirrors in my opinion. The change would have had no visible change to when anyone drew a cow tag. The DWR even stated that in the meeting.
 
We absolutely can get out of it. I really wish that were clearer. There are viable paths to ending the point system or scaling it back significantly that don’t require shafting the upper point pools.
We have been put on notice that points now have value and legal action will be taken. This included willing them to family members at your time of death. Can you amagine what that would do to the point creep if grandpa's point got to go their grandchildren. There have been lengthy discussion regarding options, you think it complicated now. You should see it when the attorneys get involved. If you have options please email them to my WB email. Love to take a look at them.
 
If your talking about early elk rifle tags. Utah hunts elk with a rifle during the rut more than any other state. I'm often asked to mange like other states. If my vote was for just Karl, then I would have wanted to move the early rifle elk hunt completely into mid October. That would have grown more elk faster. But I was comfortable with shortening the season and decreasing the tags and still keeping some rifle elk tags in the rut. I wish we had never started the point system. But it is something we can't get out of now.
Soo, your saying the quota for the early rifle hunts more than likely will be decreased as well? Haven’t heard that one yet!
 
We have been put on notice that points now have value and legal action will be taken. This included willing them to family members at your time of death. Can you amagine what that would do to the point creep if grandpa's point got to go their grandchildren. There have been lengthy discussion regarding options, you think it complicated now. You should see it when the attorneys get involved. If you have options please email them to my WB email. Love to take a look at them.
I wouldn’t pretend to be a lawyer, but that’s a tenuous position at best. At no point in time was there any promise or contract attached to the points, ending the accumulation of points doesn’t mean you have to take them away. Simply creating an either or system that forces guys to choose between LE or GS options solves it. I had mentioned going GS with a capped OTC structure similar to what we have now I-70 north and keeping LE intact south with the either or mentality. Most guys are gonna gonna choose to hunt and the high point holders can sit and fight over the 7/8 units available to them.

Play with the theoretical numbers there 50,000 OTC permits, maybe some antler point restrictions to maintain some quality, heck, even add some minor eligibility restrictions to move people through it.

No legal issues there that I can see Karl. Just an aggressive restructure.

The only reason the committee wasn’t more aggressive was simply because we didn’t feel like we could get anything beyond what we submitted past the rac and board politics. You gentlemen are all that stands in the way of getting a more balanced system. That’s it.

Another path is growing more animals. We could look at raising the objective. Like make it so high we never get to it. Take that political leverage away from the FED and let the state decide how many animals it wants to manage. Let’s make the objective 250,000 elk and keep managing at 100,000 if we so choose. That’s a bunch more complex tho I get that.

Point is, there are paths we can take. We just get hamstrung by politics, and the fear of change.

Committee sentiment was far more aggressive than what we ended up submitting to you, the divisions surveys and polls showed ample public drive to increase opportunity at the cost of quality. It comes down to the politics of what is realistic to get past the board specifically.
 
I don't disagree, but there are so many factors to consider. I build cow elk tags to mentor my grand kids. I have not intention of killing one myself. But I have an archery tag every year for something. Just a lot of factors to consider and I usually side on giving options.
Karl, If there is one thing that needs to be changed with the mentor program is that it needs to allow a person's own Children or Grandchildren that live out of state to be mentored. Right now, I can't mentor my own grandson because he lives in Arizona.

I'm only asking for direct Children / Grandchildren, Not all youth.

I'm sure you love sharing your antlerless elk tags with your grandkids. I would love to do it too.


Also, I appreciate you coming on here and discussing some of the issues we face as sportsmen.
 
Last edited:
If your talking about early elk rifle tags. Utah hunts elk with a rifle during the rut more than any other state. I'm often asked to mange like other states. If my vote was for just Karl, then I would have wanted to move the early rifle elk hunt completely into mid October. That would have grown more elk faster. But I was comfortable with shortening the season and decreasing the tags and still keeping some rifle elk tags in the rut. I wish we had never started the point system. But it is something we can't get out of now.
Points are not all bad. They are a way of rewarding a person that has applied for the longest time. Nothing wrong with that. What needs to happen is getting rid of 50% tags for the highest point holders. Just make it a random draw with points. The people with the highest points are still going to have a mathematical advantage over someone with less points.
20 points means 20 chances in the draw
8 points means 8 chances in the draw.

Pass this and say it's going to start in 2026. That way it gives people with lots of points an option to use them if they choose.
 
I probably missed it somewhere. What are the break downs for tag numbers between the limited entry season. Archery, early, muzzleloader, mid and late
 
I suspect that it will be similar to what it has been in the past. Each of these programs have strong point for an against. But I don't see it changing much.
Could it be possible to make the conservation and landowner tags hunt specific? With less early rifle tags being given out, it'd be a safe bet that's the season they'll choose.
 
We will just have to disagree. We have to kill cows, and every one that I can kill during August and September is one that doesn't need to be killed post rut and on the winter range. The reason for tmy strong push to keep it either sex and not issue additional cow tags was that having to pay for another tag and losing points put a hurdle to killing cows in the right place and right time. The point creep discussion was just smoke and mirrors in my opinion. The change would have had no visible change to when anyone drew a cow tag. The DWR even stated that in the meeting.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what I thought was suggested was to eliminate the either sex archery elk tag (August/September) and replace it with some antlerless archery elk tags during the same time (August/September), but require those tags to use antlerless points to draw. I'm sure they'd sell out and I'm sure lots of cows would be harvested during August/September. And, it would help with point creep...maybe not a ton (depending how many tags you gave out), but that's what I meant when I said every little bit helps.
 
I probably missed it somewhere. What are the break downs for tag numbers between the limited entry season. Archery, early, muzzleloader, mid and late
LE Elk Tag allocation percentages are broken down as follows:

Archery: 25%
Muzzy: 15%
Any Legal Weapon: 60%; with that 60% further broken down as 10% early, 30% mid, 17% late, 3% multi-season
 
Wow, imagine if 60% of the tags went to archery. You could definitely get more people out of the pool with the same amount of elk being harvested.
Less than 15% of all LE applicants choose archery as their desired weapon that they apply for. But 25% of all tags go to archery 1st hunters.

I agree that more archers would get through the system faster, but that's not what hunters at large are asking for.
Archers are already receiving an outsized percentage of the tags.

And for the record, I archery hunt. But when given the option, will pick up a rifle or muzzleloader to improve my odds of success.
 
LE Elk Tag allocation percentages are broken down as follows:

Archery: 25%
Muzzy: 15%
Any Legal Weapon: 60%; with that 60% further broken down as 10% early, 30% mid, 17% late, 3% multi-season
what was the percentage break down prior to changes? Thanks for sharing this.
 
what was the percentage break down prior to changes? Thanks for sharing this.
Good question - I have not found a 100% clear answer on that one from the prior elk plan, but believe the breakdowns were the same with less clarity on how the 60% for ALW tags were broken down

Prior elk plan tag allocations:

Archery: 25%
Muzzy: 15%
Any Legal Weapon: 60% with these caveats: On appropriate traditional limited entry units, provide a mid season (overlaps with general season spike hunt) and/or late season rifle elk hunt to increase hunting opportunity or improve hunter distribution. i) On these units, the percent of rifle permits in the early season rifle hunt will not exceed 60%, unless there is a management-related need. h) On suitable traditional limited entry units, offer 3% of bull elk permits for multi-season hunting opportunities. These permits will be subtracted from the any weapon permit allocation.)
 
For a NR, I'm planning to get out of everybody's way pretty soon. Throwing in the towel on early rifle idea, and switching to something that will give better odds of drawing and still be fun before I'm too old. I imagine there's quite a few guys in the same situation. Creeping up on 3 decades is a long time to stick with it. Anxious to see what the resulting bonus pass options are for NR hunters in 2023
 
For a NR, I'm planning to get out of everybody's way pretty soon. Throwing in the towel on early rifle idea, and switching to something that will give better odds of drawing and still be fun before I'm too old. I imagine there's quite a few guys in the same situation. Creeping up on 3 decades is a long time to stick with it. Anxious to see what the resulting bonus pass options are for NR hunters in 2023
I haven't looked at NR odds much, but have you looked at some of the muzzy hunts? With the board pushing the emerging technologies discussion to Spring, I doubt any changes will be made with muzzleloaders for 2023 (scopes still allowed).

I think the muzzy hunts are actually better hunts than the early rifle hunts for the most part in terms of elk being active, rutting, etc. Odds may be tough for a NR though, so maybe archery is your best bet. The new elk plan/board did extend the archery hunt 4 days later in September, which is a little bonus (still think they should run the archery hunt from Sept 1 - Sept 30, but we have too many whiny rifle hunters in Utah :ROFLMAO: )
 
Are bonus points sold with a guarantee to hunt and harvest a trophy animal? Passing them down after a death is just people reaching for what they want. My dad passed away with a load of elk points that were never able to be used. Wish I would have been able to hunt with him, but it shouldn’t mean that my kids can take them and use them. Those points were sold to him without a guarantee, just a better chance to draw a tag for him to use.
 
Are bonus points sold with a guarantee to hunt and harvest a trophy animal? Passing them down after a death is just people reaching for what they want. My dad passed away with a load of elk points that were never able to be used. Wish I would have been able to hunt with him, but it shouldn’t mean that my kids can take them and use them. Those points were sold to him without a guarantee, just a better chance to draw a tag for him to use.
Was it a better chance at drawing a tag really?
 
Less than 15% of all LE applicants choose archery as their desired weapon that they apply for. But 25% of all tags go to archery 1st hunters.

I agree that more archers would get through the system faster, but that's not what hunters at large are asking for.
Archers are already receiving an outsized percentage of the tags.

And for the record, I archery hunt. But when given the option, will pick up a rifle or muzzleloader to improve my odds of success.
Makes you wonder how much point creep skews the outcome here. If it wasn’t a tag every 20 years but rather every 5 I think the results would be different. I don’t believe the data used here to express demand is really a true expression of demand but rather a result based on scarcity. I do the same thing for the same reason.
 
Thanks For The Reply CrazyUtahGuy!

The Technology Has Advanced In Every Weapon Type!

We Had Some Californians Show Up Here in A Drainage Several Years Ago!

They Were Always Glassing From The Paved Road Glassing in to What I Call NEXT WEEK!

This Year I Seen One Of Them Glassing & Decided To Stop & Talk To Them!

They Didn't Wanna Talk Much!

One Guy Did Finally Say They Were Looking for Elk in the 2,000-3,000 Yard Range!

They Wouldn't Let Me See Their Guns!

But They Did Say They Were Using 60,000.00 Rifles!

They Also Told Me One Guy in their Group Hit a Bull Last year at 2,300 Yards!

Wounded It Of Course,Took All Day The Following Day To Get Up Where He Wounded It,Lucked Out & Found The Bull & Finished Him Off!

UN-F'N-BELIEVABLE!

And We're Worried JUST About SmokePole Scopes?

I Say We Clamp Down On All 3 Weapon Types!

It's Past Time!

People Don't Like My SmokePole & Mine Doesn't Even Compare To What Alot Of Guys Are Packin!

A Maximum of 1X Scopes on All Rifles!

No Scopes On MuzzleLoaders!

Recurves for StickFlippers!

There!

That Oughta Piss The Pope Off!











I don't disagree, but fair to who is always the question. I don't like where long range rifles are going. I hearing there was a bull killed at 1900 yards this year. The factor with muzzleloaders for me was more tags and better odds of drawing, and potentially adding more hunting opportunities. From the contacts I have had better odds, hunting more for different species is not what the folks that have contacted me want. I really thought that I had the pulse of the muzzleloaders, but Im not sure now. Archery always wins with equipment changes because the success is lower. Its easy to just leave it alone. But like everything technology is advancing past what I think is best for hunting. Its going to be a hard discussion and I don't know where it will lead.
 
The 600 harvested cows was my comment. I may not have presented that well. I then followed with 2000 archers to harvest those 600 cows. with a 30% harvest rate. Lets make it even larger 3000 cow archery tags against 47000 cow permit applications would do nothing for point creep. Everyone acknowledged that no one would get a cow permit even a year earlier. I personally didn't have problems with either way. I was asked to try and keep it the same. It was never going to be the perfect fit for everyone.
I wouldn't burn my cow elk points for that tag. You were right about that.
 
Was it a better chance at drawing a tag really?
Not sure about that… I guess it’s kind of like holding your place in line. Eventually he would have had a chance to hunt, but who knows how long it would have taken. Random tag draws have issues too… somebody could apply for decades and never get lucky.
 
Maybe I missed it, did the SFW Tech Ten list get posted as requested earlier in this thread?
I can’t find it anywhere.
 
Makes you wonder how much point creep skews the outcome here. If it wasn’t a tag every 20 years but rather every 5 I think the results would be different. I don’t believe the data used here to express demand is really a true expression of demand but rather a result based on scarcity. I do the same thing for the same reason.
I guess we will start to find out over the next few years!
 
Hey Karl!

There's Only One Way When Taking Some Technology Back!

You've Gotta Take Some From All 3 Weapon Types!

Look at PUNKS Scope on His Long Ranger!:D

Look At These F'N StickFlippers of Today!

It's Gonna Be ALL GAVE SOME!

NOT:

SOME GAVE ALL!

Make It Fair Across The Board!

Thanks For The Reply CrazyUtahGuy!

The Technology Has Advanced In Every Weapon Type!

We Had Some Californians Show Up Here in A Drainage Several Years Ago!

They Were Always Glassing From The Paved Road Glassing in to What I Call NEXT WEEK!

This Year I Seen One Of Them Glassing & Decided To Stop & Talk To Them!

They Didn't Wanna Talk Much!

One Guy Did Finally Say They Were Looking for Elk in the 2,000-3,000 Yard Range!

They Wouldn't Let Me See Their Guns!

But They Did Say They Were Using 60,000.00 Rifles!

They Also Told Me One Guy in their Group Hit a Bull Last year at 2,300 Yards!

Wounded It Of Course,Took All Day The Following Day To Get Up Where He Wounded It,Lucked Out & Found The Bull & Finished Him Off!

UN-F'N-BELIEVABLE!

And We're Worried JUST About SmokePole Scopes?

I Say We Clamp Down On All 3 Weapon Types!

It's Past Time!

People Don't Like My SmokePole & Mine Doesn't Even Compare To What Alot Of Guys Are Packin!

A Maximum of 1X Scopes on All Rifles!

No Scopes On MuzzleLoaders!

Recurves for StickFlippers!

There!

That Oughta Piss The Pope Off!
I'm not the Pope, and I'm not pissed off, but I have to tell you that harvest stats say there is very little difference between using compound bows or recurves! AND, in fact, the average success rate is now actually LOWER than it was before compounds. So, if it makes you feel any better to see an old man struggling to hold a 60 lb recurve long enough to get a good shot, then so be it, but you won't get the results you're looking for.

*Average Annual Archery General Season Success Rates:
-1952 to 1966 when Hollis Allen started marketing crude compound bows------17.1% (He got his patent in 1969.)
-1967 to 2021---------16.4%.
-The highest yearly success rate was 23.9% in 2015 and the second highest was 23.8% in 1954.

How could that possibly be so? Well, no matter which bow you have in your hands, there are at least 7 things that don't change.
1- You have to get quite close. (No more than 50 yards for most of us.)
2- It's not enough to know what's in front of you. You have to know what's behind you and what's on each side of you and what's below and above your bow hand so you don't bump something when you raise your bow and release the arrow.
3- You have to make the draw by moving your whole arm, not just your finger and that's much easier for the animal to see.
4- You're restricted in your shooting positions. No lying down or sitting on the ground.
5- All shots are freehand with no rest for your bow.
6- You're shooting a slow projectile. A deer can hear your release in time to drop before the arrow gets to him/her, even at 20 yards.
7- The arrow has to hit the vitals which means a broadside or quartering away shot. There is no shock value with an arrow like there is with a bullet and a leg, rump or high shoulder shot with an arrow won't bring them down for a LONG time if it ever does.

Whether future technology will solve some of those issues, it's hard to say, but I wouldn't count on it and the restrictions on archery equipment will end up being a feel-good social issue.

*Every years' stats from 1952 to 2021 per some GRAMA'ed Annual Big Game Reports, Annual Big Game Harvest Reports, Big Game Proclamations that published harvest information and from Microfilm and transcripts of reel-to-reel recordings and minutes of Big Game Board Meetings at Utah Archives on Rio Grand Ave, SLC. Many were double or triple checked.
 
EASY There efa!

I'm Not Pushin The Restrictions!

I'm Sayin For The Umteenth F'N Time:

If You're Gonna TAKE!

You're Gonna TAKE Fairly Across The Board!

If You Don't Believe That Most Modern Day StickFlippers Ain't Shooting 50+ Yards You Are Very Wrong Or Secluded!

They Took Your Apples!

They'll More Than Likely Take More!

Will It Fix The Big Problem?

HELL NO!
 
I'm not the Pope, and I'm not pissed off, but I have to tell you that harvest stats say there is very little difference between using compound bows or recurves! AND, in fact, the average success rate is now actually LOWER than it was before compounds. So, if it makes you feel any better to see an old man struggling to hold a 60 lb recurve long enough to get a good shot, then so be it, but you won't get the results you're looking for.

*Average Annual Archery General Season Success Rates:
-1952 to 1966 when Hollis Allen started marketing crude compound bows------17.1% (He got his patent in 1969.)
-1967 to 2021---------16.4%.
-The highest yearly success rate was 23.9% in 2015 and the second highest was 23.8% in 1954.

How could that possibly be so? Well, no matter which bow you have in your hands, there are at least 7 things that don't change.
1- You have to get quite close. (No more than 50 yards for most of us.)
2- It's not enough to know what's in front of you. You have to know what's behind you and what's on each side of you and what's below and above your bow hand so you don't bump something when you raise your bow and release the arrow.
3- You have to make the draw by moving your whole arm, not just your finger and that's much easier for the animal to see.
4- You're restricted in your shooting positions. No lying down or sitting on the ground.
5- All shots are freehand with no rest for your bow.
6- You're shooting a slow projectile. A deer can hear your release in time to drop before the arrow gets to him/her, even at 20 yards.
7- The arrow has to hit the vitals which means a broadside or quartering away shot. There is no shock value with an arrow like there is with a bullet and a leg, rump or high shoulder shot with an arrow won't bring them down for a LONG time if it ever does.

Whether future technology will solve some of those issues, it's hard to say, but I wouldn't count on it and the restrictions on archery equipment will end up being a feel-good social issue.

*Every years' stats from 1952 to 2021 per some GRAMA'ed Annual Big Game Reports, Annual Big Game Harvest Reports, Big Game Proclamations that published harvest information and from Microfilm and transcripts of reel-to-reel recordings and minutes of Big Game Board Meetings at Utah Archives on Rio Grand Ave, SLC. Many were double or triple checked.
To limit magnification on muzzle hunting is a feel good social issue, the magnification is not what tunes the bullet
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but what I thought was suggested was to eliminate the either sex archery elk tag (August/September) and replace it with some antlerless archery elk tags during the same time (August/September), but require those tags to use antlerless points to draw. I'm sure they'd sell out and I'm sure lots of cows would be harvested during August/September. And, it would help with point creep...maybe not a ton (depending how many tags you gave out), but that's what I meant when I said every little bit helps.
The proposal was purchase a bull or cow tag, or both. But if you purchased an OTC tag you lost all accumulated cow points. The proposal was also to change the private land tags so that you would not lose your points by buying an OTC cow tags. They should be the same. In the end the archery association supported just leaving it the same and allow archers to purchase a either sex tag. I supported that position at the board meeting.
 
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom