desertpointbrian
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,347
2 utah wildlife board positions open
- Thread starter desertpointbrian
- Start date
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-15 AT 11:54PM (MST)[p]Besides the Wildlife Board and the Wildlife Board Nominating Committee openings, there are the following RAC openings, application due Mar 16
Northern Region:
2 @ Public at large
1 @ Sportsmen
1 @ Forest Service
Northeastern Region:
1 @ Nonconsumptive
1 @ Sportsmen
1 @ Elected Official
Central Region:
1 @ Agriculture
1 @ Sportsmen
1 @ Elected Official
Southern Region:
1 @ Sportsmen
2 @ Public at large
Southeastern Region:
1 @ Nonconsumptive
1 @ Elected Official
You want to make a difference? Here's a good way to do it!
Northern Region:
2 @ Public at large
1 @ Sportsmen
1 @ Forest Service
Northeastern Region:
1 @ Nonconsumptive
1 @ Sportsmen
1 @ Elected Official
Central Region:
1 @ Agriculture
1 @ Sportsmen
1 @ Elected Official
Southern Region:
1 @ Sportsmen
2 @ Public at large
Southeastern Region:
1 @ Nonconsumptive
1 @ Elected Official
You want to make a difference? Here's a good way to do it!
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
Elkfromabove, This is just a question, not a slam on SFW or any other club, and not slamming the DWR. But why does an applicant have to be nominated by a club?(sportsman) I would think that to represent the hunting community the individual should reflect the public in general and not a club or its affiliations? Again this is just a question.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-15 AT 07:04PM (MST)[p]>Elkfromabove, This is just a question,
>not a slam on SFW
>or any other club, and
>not slamming the DWR. But
>why does an applicant have
>to be nominated by a
>club?(sportsman) I would think that
>to represent the hunting community
>the individual should reflect the
>public in general and not
>a club or its affiliations?
>Again this is just a
>question.
As I understand it, only the Sportsman RAC member requires a sportsman club nomination. The rest require nominations from the groups they represent. The Public-at-Large member can be nominated by any group (including sportsmens club), business, individual, or even himself.
I'm not sure as to the exact reason for the Sportsman position but I'm assuming that the DWR wants to make sure the Sportsman member is representing hunters and fishermen and that a club nomination would be some kind of assurance. Speaking for United Wildlife Cooperative, we would probably go so far as to interview a candidate before nominating him/her to make sure they were willing to represent the majority of sportsmen and sportswomen. Of course, we would hope they would recognize that Utah has a long tradition of family oriented outdoor activities and would lean that way in their decisions, but we would be willing to consider nominating anyone who requests it, whether or not they were UWC members and I would hope the other groups would do the same.
To further answer your question, we do, in fact, have Public-at-Large RAC positions and those people do represent ALL the public, even the non-hunters.
As a side note, RAC members actually serve 2 three year terms not a 6 year term and require a nomination for the second term. So if we felt our nominee didn't live up to his/her commitment in the first 3 years, we could refuse to nominate him/her for the second 3 years and he/she would have to find someone else.
>not a slam on SFW
>or any other club, and
>not slamming the DWR. But
>why does an applicant have
>to be nominated by a
>club?(sportsman) I would think that
>to represent the hunting community
>the individual should reflect the
>public in general and not
>a club or its affiliations?
>Again this is just a
>question.
As I understand it, only the Sportsman RAC member requires a sportsman club nomination. The rest require nominations from the groups they represent. The Public-at-Large member can be nominated by any group (including sportsmens club), business, individual, or even himself.
I'm not sure as to the exact reason for the Sportsman position but I'm assuming that the DWR wants to make sure the Sportsman member is representing hunters and fishermen and that a club nomination would be some kind of assurance. Speaking for United Wildlife Cooperative, we would probably go so far as to interview a candidate before nominating him/her to make sure they were willing to represent the majority of sportsmen and sportswomen. Of course, we would hope they would recognize that Utah has a long tradition of family oriented outdoor activities and would lean that way in their decisions, but we would be willing to consider nominating anyone who requests it, whether or not they were UWC members and I would hope the other groups would do the same.
To further answer your question, we do, in fact, have Public-at-Large RAC positions and those people do represent ALL the public, even the non-hunters.
As a side note, RAC members actually serve 2 three year terms not a 6 year term and require a nomination for the second term. So if we felt our nominee didn't live up to his/her commitment in the first 3 years, we could refuse to nominate him/her for the second 3 years and he/she would have to find someone else.
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-15 AT 07:46PM (MST)[p]Thank you for your response. Your comments on interviewing an individual before nominating them would be right inline with my own desires for a RAC member. Hopefully the person nominated will be vetted by a group like yours and will represent
Sportsmen as a whole and not a group. In the passed I have felt that certain people were more or less planted in the RAC. I feel that some decisions passed on from certain RAC's were bias to special interest. Thank you again for the response.
EDIT: my thoughts about a plant were not from the UWC
Sportsmen as a whole and not a group. In the passed I have felt that certain people were more or less planted in the RAC. I feel that some decisions passed on from certain RAC's were bias to special interest. Thank you again for the response.
EDIT: my thoughts about a plant were not from the UWC
Although I don't live in Utah, I believe Hawkeye (Jason Hawkins) would be an excellent choice. He comes across as level headed, intelligent, does his homework, communicates well, and can debate an issue without getting into a pi$$ing contest. I think he would represent sportsman very well.
Hawkeye
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,014
Thanks for the kind comments guys. I would like to get more involved in wildlife issues here in Utah. However, I live in the Central Region and there are already two board members serving from the Central Region. Therefore, I am not eligible at this time.
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
Hawkeye
Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,458
I served on a RAC board for 4 years and I will never get that wasted time back....its the same crap every year with no results. A dozen or so mule deer hunters will come to the RAC meeting when we are discussing big game and they all ##### and complain about how the deer herd sucks....30 houndsmen will show up when discussing bears and lions and suggest that we cutt back tags.....I am a firm believer now that our Utah general season deer herds will always be junk and the DWR will always try and convince us that we have lots of deer...Dont waste your time.
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,458
There is nobody willing to take any extreme measures to improve the deer herds. We manage deer by buck to dow and not population objectives. Check out the mule deer plan for the last 30 years there has been only minimal changes to the plan, and guess what it is still not working, but hey if we keep trying the same thing we might get different results.
cannonball
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,266
I started reading your post and said to myself, "Holy Cow why did he serve on the RAC Board", but by the time I read your second post I had to agree with everything you said. Once they are part of the system they seem to line up and march to the same drummer.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
>There is nobody willing to take
>any extreme measures to improve
>the deer herds. We
>manage deer by buck to
>dow and not population objectives.
> Check out the mule
>deer plan for the last
>30 years there has been
>only minimal changes to the
>plan, and guess what it
>is still not working, but
>hey if we keep trying
>the same thing we might
>get different results.
So what extreme measures will work?
>any extreme measures to improve
>the deer herds. We
>manage deer by buck to
>dow and not population objectives.
> Check out the mule
>deer plan for the last
>30 years there has been
>only minimal changes to the
>plan, and guess what it
>is still not working, but
>hey if we keep trying
>the same thing we might
>get different results.
So what extreme measures will work?
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,458
One would be to stop managing by buck to doe ratio.
Buck to doe ratio should only come in play if it is to low
Or if the population objective is met.
Another is to try an isolated unit like San Juan elk ridge
Unit on total predator control. Unlimited lion, bear, and to
Hire trappers to work on coyotes intensely. Elk ridge has
Struggled for years to keep any fawns alive, it is below the
Threshold of the 44% fawn survival to maintain its population.
People will say it won't do anything by reducing predators,
But it was also said that deer won't survive transplanting.
At least by trying one unit it would put to rest all the debate
On if predators are a problem or not.
Buck to doe ratio should only come in play if it is to low
Or if the population objective is met.
Another is to try an isolated unit like San Juan elk ridge
Unit on total predator control. Unlimited lion, bear, and to
Hire trappers to work on coyotes intensely. Elk ridge has
Struggled for years to keep any fawns alive, it is below the
Threshold of the 44% fawn survival to maintain its population.
People will say it won't do anything by reducing predators,
But it was also said that deer won't survive transplanting.
At least by trying one unit it would put to rest all the debate
On if predators are a problem or not.
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 37,054
Remember cant!
The Bears are Killin all the Deer/Fawns!
Perty Bad when Joe Blow Kills a 60 lb Female Lion & They Parade it around Town like they've took a Trophy!
You've mentioned a few known Predators cant!
You forgot a couple of them also:
TARDS & DWR!
>One would be to stop managing
>by buck to doe ratio.
>
>Buck to doe ratio should only
>come in play if it
>is to low
>Or if the population objective is
>met.
>Another is to try an isolated
>unit like San Juan elk
>ridge
>Unit on total predator control. Unlimited
>lion, bear, and to
>Hire trappers to work on coyotes
>intensely. Elk ridge has
>Struggled for years to keep any
>fawns alive, it is below
>the
>Threshold of the 44% fawn survival
>to maintain its population.
>People will say it won't do
>anything by reducing predators,
>But it was also said that
>deer won't survive transplanting.
>At least by trying one unit
>it would put to rest
>all the debate
>On if predators are a problem
>or not.
[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
The Bears are Killin all the Deer/Fawns!
Perty Bad when Joe Blow Kills a 60 lb Female Lion & They Parade it around Town like they've took a Trophy!
You've mentioned a few known Predators cant!
You forgot a couple of them also:
TARDS & DWR!
>One would be to stop managing
>by buck to doe ratio.
>
>Buck to doe ratio should only
>come in play if it
>is to low
>Or if the population objective is
>met.
>Another is to try an isolated
>unit like San Juan elk
>ridge
>Unit on total predator control. Unlimited
>lion, bear, and to
>Hire trappers to work on coyotes
>intensely. Elk ridge has
>Struggled for years to keep any
>fawns alive, it is below
>the
>Threshold of the 44% fawn survival
>to maintain its population.
>People will say it won't do
>anything by reducing predators,
>But it was also said that
>deer won't survive transplanting.
>At least by trying one unit
>it would put to rest
>all the debate
>On if predators are a problem
>or not.
[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,458
I guess once you make a comment bess then the subject is done debating....lol..no bites on the comments I made.
2lumpy
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,004
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-15 AT 04:16PM (MST)[p]can'tkill, your right on, with one exception.
We no longer need to prove or disprove the need to reduce predation on mule deer units. We know it helps and we know it helps more on some units than it may on others. What needs to be done is to "get after it", hire the specialists, fund the cost and get the deer eaters removed and keep them removed, until we have a monster sized mule deer herd again, then we can afford to do a new experiment: That being, how many predators can you allow back on the unit before they adversely impact the deer population, when the herd is at unit carrying capacity.
My belief is we can have a lot more predators, if we want the damn things, if we have a lot more deer on the unit. Let's try that experiment for the next 40 years.
Push, push, push, the UDWR, the Legislature, the County Commissioners, the US Dept. of Agriculture, hunters, and mountain cabin owner associations to fund and kill predators.
They'll do it, if you push collectively in your areas. Do it now! Don't wait for someone else to do it, you do it. Gather your sportsmen, pound the RACS, over flow the Wildlife Board Meetings, tell them you want them to reallocate budgets, hire the professionals, build a forty year predator removal and maintenance plan.
Get your local Mule Deer Foundation, local Rocky Elk Foundation, local Turkey Foundation, local Ducks Unlimited, local NRA, local SCI, local Senator, local House Representative, all together. Don't wait on the National organizations, use the power of the local organization members. Get 5 from each group on board, go arm and arm to the RACs and Wildlife Board Meeting, 50 guys, one at a time, go to the micro-phone and ask for "more funding and more professional removal of coyotes, cougars and bears. You'll get it, you will. They will respond to united sportsmen, with a large and united representation.
It's the only way you'll see it happen, but it will, if you organize and unit your community. You can! Try it, you'll be amazed.
Focus your effort on uniting the active MDF, RMEF, SFW, WTF, SCI, NRA etc. banquet committee members, they are they "doers" in your area. They get things done and they aren't afraid to speak out. Use them, unit them in a common cause. These are the passionate people in your neighborhoods, they'll unit and they'll work together, if you call them together and build a plan together.
Do it. It's worth it.
DC
Did I mention: "We don't need anymore predator studies, we need fewer predators".
We no longer need to prove or disprove the need to reduce predation on mule deer units. We know it helps and we know it helps more on some units than it may on others. What needs to be done is to "get after it", hire the specialists, fund the cost and get the deer eaters removed and keep them removed, until we have a monster sized mule deer herd again, then we can afford to do a new experiment: That being, how many predators can you allow back on the unit before they adversely impact the deer population, when the herd is at unit carrying capacity.
My belief is we can have a lot more predators, if we want the damn things, if we have a lot more deer on the unit. Let's try that experiment for the next 40 years.
Push, push, push, the UDWR, the Legislature, the County Commissioners, the US Dept. of Agriculture, hunters, and mountain cabin owner associations to fund and kill predators.
They'll do it, if you push collectively in your areas. Do it now! Don't wait for someone else to do it, you do it. Gather your sportsmen, pound the RACS, over flow the Wildlife Board Meetings, tell them you want them to reallocate budgets, hire the professionals, build a forty year predator removal and maintenance plan.
Get your local Mule Deer Foundation, local Rocky Elk Foundation, local Turkey Foundation, local Ducks Unlimited, local NRA, local SCI, local Senator, local House Representative, all together. Don't wait on the National organizations, use the power of the local organization members. Get 5 from each group on board, go arm and arm to the RACs and Wildlife Board Meeting, 50 guys, one at a time, go to the micro-phone and ask for "more funding and more professional removal of coyotes, cougars and bears. You'll get it, you will. They will respond to united sportsmen, with a large and united representation.
It's the only way you'll see it happen, but it will, if you organize and unit your community. You can! Try it, you'll be amazed.
Focus your effort on uniting the active MDF, RMEF, SFW, WTF, SCI, NRA etc. banquet committee members, they are they "doers" in your area. They get things done and they aren't afraid to speak out. Use them, unit them in a common cause. These are the passionate people in your neighborhoods, they'll unit and they'll work together, if you call them together and build a plan together.
Do it. It's worth it.
DC
Did I mention: "We don't need anymore predator studies, we need fewer predators".
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
2Lumpy I had a thought in mind while reading your post. You nailed my would be comment with your last sentence. I was going to say they would immediately fund a "Study group" to look at the problem. a group full of dead a$$es that would take 40 years to come up with a plan to study (AN) area for a few years. We have talked before of some of our idea's for Deer management, Why is it that some issues are so hard to see, when they are as plane as the nose on their faces? I agree with you that more Hunters need to speak up to get the cogs turning, and that is the only way it will happen. My bet is the hounds men wouldn't have to try hard to get people to join and counter the idea. It seams when an issue about lions and bears is on the table they show up. There is ALOT of that in government,where the minority leads the politicians by the nose, and get what they want. The squeaky wheel gets the grease....
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 37,054
Hey cant!
The Subject is never done Debating!
But Until you & others Accept the Fact that TARDS & DWR are the Biggest Predators themselves,Some for Personal GREED & Some for MONEY, You haven't Accepted the Whole Problem/Seen the Big Picture!
Them SCRAWNY GAWD-DAMN Coyotes you have on SJ Ain't Big enough to take a Deer!
Wait a Minute!
I take that Back!
A SCRAWNY Coyote can take a SCRAWNY Body sized Deer!
SJ & LaSals have some of the Dinkiest Body Sized Deer Anywhere in the State!
Say what you want!
I've always said a Big Bodied Animal is way Tougher than a PISSCUTTER Sized animal!
You sure it ain't still a 100% Bear problem cant?
>I guess once you make a
>comment bess then the subject
>is done debating....lol..no bites on
>the comments I made.
[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
The Subject is never done Debating!
But Until you & others Accept the Fact that TARDS & DWR are the Biggest Predators themselves,Some for Personal GREED & Some for MONEY, You haven't Accepted the Whole Problem/Seen the Big Picture!
Them SCRAWNY GAWD-DAMN Coyotes you have on SJ Ain't Big enough to take a Deer!
Wait a Minute!
I take that Back!
A SCRAWNY Coyote can take a SCRAWNY Body sized Deer!
SJ & LaSals have some of the Dinkiest Body Sized Deer Anywhere in the State!
Say what you want!
I've always said a Big Bodied Animal is way Tougher than a PISSCUTTER Sized animal!
You sure it ain't still a 100% Bear problem cant?
>I guess once you make a
>comment bess then the subject
>is done debating....lol..no bites on
>the comments I made.
[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-15 AT 09:45AM (MST)[p]Well, now that we've highjacked this thread and discussed and solved cants' second extreme solution by suggesting we nearly eliminate all predators, ie: cougars, coyotes, bears and those d**m hunters (Ya'll forgot the 2 transplanted deer killed by bobcats), how about we talk about his first extreme suggestion of not managing the deer by buck to doe ratios? Let's see how that discussion pans out!
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 37,054
It Ain't bobcat killin all the Deer!
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-15
>AT 09:45?AM (MST)
>
>Well, now that we've highjacked this
>thread and discussed and solved
>cants' second extreme solution by
>suggesting we nearly eliminate all
>predators, ie: cougars, coyotes, bears
>and those d**m hunters (Ya'll
>forgot the 2 transplanted deer
>killed by bobcats), how about
>we talk about his first
>extreme suggestion of not managing
>the deer by buck to
>doe ratios? Let's see how
>that discussion pans out!
[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-15
>AT 09:45?AM (MST)
>
>Well, now that we've highjacked this
>thread and discussed and solved
>cants' second extreme solution by
>suggesting we nearly eliminate all
>predators, ie: cougars, coyotes, bears
>and those d**m hunters (Ya'll
>forgot the 2 transplanted deer
>killed by bobcats), how about
>we talk about his first
>extreme suggestion of not managing
>the deer by buck to
>doe ratios? Let's see how
>that discussion pans out!
[font color="redhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMsueOnu0kY
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
Elkfromabove, here were some thought about increasing age class from a while back, I copied and pasted from a discussion I had with another MMer. its a long read.. 4- here is a way to help the general area's that I talked about with others a few years ago. Before the new Units were created, we talked about making 36 units, We looked at Hunter success rates for area's already in place. The area's were just to big at the time and this is why we came up with the 36 area's. Lets forget 36 and go with what we now have. The idea was based on a revolving system, that would take an general area from the north, one from the central, and one from the southern area's in the state. We tried to make the area's from public lands and had other idea's for the "mostly or all private" area's. of the three general groups, the northern , central , and southern. each had many of the (subunits) withing its boundaries. The Idea was to take one subunit from each of the three area's and close it for 1 year, take another sub unit and make it archery only (again would love to see the archery ethics course mandatory).for this same year, and yet another sub area from the same general unit made Muzzleloader only. ( this was before the laws allowed the use of scopes and inlines, and the success rates were lower) The other subunits were left alone and permits were given as usual. The next year the "rotation" started and closed unit became the Archery unit , the previous archery unit became a muzzleloader unit, the previous muzzeloader unit became the open "general" hunting area and a new sub area was chosen fro closure. Strangely enough we were proposing a point system for permits in this idea. Hunters would be shown what area's would be and the order of the rotation 2 years in advance . And could apply for a tag, or a point (if not applying for a limited entry) in advance. meaning. If you wanted to hunt a sub area on its 4th year after being closed, archery,muzzleloader,and finally general, on its forth year. you could apply for that subunit for what ever hunt it will be in a given year , or a point for the future general,archery, muzzy Hunt,OR a limited Entry. After an area has been though the cycle (all 4 years) it could either start over with the rotation or put into a new "regular" area, where permits would be allotted much like they are now and the rotation points could be used to gain a tag. The units would have to be smaller than they are now,I believe, so as not to reduce Hunting availability to all hunters. hope this didnt bore you all too much, was an idea to improve age class from a few years ago
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
>Elkfromabove, here were some thought about
>increasing age class from a
>while back, I copied and
>pasted from a discussion I
>had with another MMer. its
>a long read.. 4- here
>is a way to help
>the general area's that I
>talked about with others a
>few years ago. Before the
>new Units were created, we
>talked about making 36 units,
>We looked at Hunter success
>rates for area's already in
>place. The area's were just
>to big at the time
>and this is why we
>came up with the 36
>area's. Lets forget 36 and
>go with what we now
>have. The idea was based
>on a revolving system, that
>would take an general area
>from the north, one from
>the central, and one from
>the southern area's in the
>state. We tried to make
>the area's from public lands
>and had other idea's for
>the "mostly or all private"
>area's. of the three general
>groups, the northern , central
>, and southern. each had
>many of the (subunits) withing
>its boundaries. The Idea
>was to take one subunit
>from each of the three
>area's and close it for
>1 year, take another sub
>unit and make it archery
>only (again would love to
>see the archery ethics course
>mandatory).for this same year, and
>yet another sub area from
>the same general unit made
>Muzzleloader only. ( this was
>before the laws allowed the
>use of scopes and inlines,
>and the success rates were
>lower) The other subunits were
>left alone and permits were
>given as usual. The next
>year the "rotation" started and
>closed unit became the Archery
>unit , the previous archery
>unit became a muzzleloader unit,
>the previous muzzeloader unit became
>the open "general" hunting
>area and a new sub
>area was chosen fro closure.
>Strangely enough we were proposing
>a point system for permits
>in this idea. Hunters would
>be shown what area's would
>be and the order of
>the rotation 2 years in
>advance . And could apply
>for a tag, or a
>point (if not applying for
>a limited entry) in advance.
>meaning. If you wanted to
>hunt a sub area on
>its 4th year after being
>closed, archery,muzzleloader,and finally general, on
>its forth year. you could
>apply for that subunit for
>what ever hunt it will
>be in a given year
>, or a point for
>the future general,archery, muzzy Hunt,OR
>a limited Entry. After an
>area has been though the
>cycle (all 4 years) it
>could either start over with
>the rotation or put into
>a new "regular" area, where
>permits would be allotted much
>like they are now and
>the rotation points could be
>used to gain a tag.
>The units would have to
>be smaller than they are
>now,I believe, so as not
>to reduce Hunting availability to
>all hunters. hope this
>didnt bore you all too
>much, was an idea to
>improve age class from a
>few years ago
So, in other words, we don't manage by buck to doe ratios, but by age classes of the bucks. And how does this improve the population numbers and/or the hunting opportunities or increase the number of permits?
>increasing age class from a
>while back, I copied and
>pasted from a discussion I
>had with another MMer. its
>a long read.. 4- here
>is a way to help
>the general area's that I
>talked about with others a
>few years ago. Before the
>new Units were created, we
>talked about making 36 units,
>We looked at Hunter success
>rates for area's already in
>place. The area's were just
>to big at the time
>and this is why we
>came up with the 36
>area's. Lets forget 36 and
>go with what we now
>have. The idea was based
>on a revolving system, that
>would take an general area
>from the north, one from
>the central, and one from
>the southern area's in the
>state. We tried to make
>the area's from public lands
>and had other idea's for
>the "mostly or all private"
>area's. of the three general
>groups, the northern , central
>, and southern. each had
>many of the (subunits) withing
>its boundaries. The Idea
>was to take one subunit
>from each of the three
>area's and close it for
>1 year, take another sub
>unit and make it archery
>only (again would love to
>see the archery ethics course
>mandatory).for this same year, and
>yet another sub area from
>the same general unit made
>Muzzleloader only. ( this was
>before the laws allowed the
>use of scopes and inlines,
>and the success rates were
>lower) The other subunits were
>left alone and permits were
>given as usual. The next
>year the "rotation" started and
>closed unit became the Archery
>unit , the previous archery
>unit became a muzzleloader unit,
>the previous muzzeloader unit became
>the open "general" hunting
>area and a new sub
>area was chosen fro closure.
>Strangely enough we were proposing
>a point system for permits
>in this idea. Hunters would
>be shown what area's would
>be and the order of
>the rotation 2 years in
>advance . And could apply
>for a tag, or a
>point (if not applying for
>a limited entry) in advance.
>meaning. If you wanted to
>hunt a sub area on
>its 4th year after being
>closed, archery,muzzleloader,and finally general, on
>its forth year. you could
>apply for that subunit for
>what ever hunt it will
>be in a given year
>, or a point for
>the future general,archery, muzzy Hunt,OR
>a limited Entry. After an
>area has been though the
>cycle (all 4 years) it
>could either start over with
>the rotation or put into
>a new "regular" area, where
>permits would be allotted much
>like they are now and
>the rotation points could be
>used to gain a tag.
>The units would have to
>be smaller than they are
>now,I believe, so as not
>to reduce Hunting availability to
>all hunters. hope this
>didnt bore you all too
>much, was an idea to
>improve age class from a
>few years ago
So, in other words, we don't manage by buck to doe ratios, but by age classes of the bucks. And how does this improve the population numbers and/or the hunting opportunities or increase the number of permits?
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
"Well, now that we've highjacked this thread and discussed and solved cants' second extreme solution by suggesting we nearly eliminate all predators, ie: cougars, coyotes, bears and those d**m hunters (Ya'll forgot the 2 transplanted deer killed by bobcats), how about we talk about his first extreme suggestion of not managing the deer by buck to doe ratios? Let's see how that discussion pans out!"--EFA--You ask about a way of managment that was not buck/doe based, I simply gave you an answer. I must have missed the part about your need for population numbers and more opportunities. You seem to talk a good talk what are your ideas, lets see them. How would your plan. " And how does this improve the population numbers and/or the hunting opportunities or increase the number of permits"--EFA. BTW with my idea there would be an increase in population, if habitat allowed it. Due to lower harvest rates and and the closed year. Is there a plane that differs from the status quo that you would entertain?
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,458
My solution:
If a unit has a population objective of 10,000 and is currently at 6,000 and is projected to have 15 bucks per 100 does. Lets take the 3 year data and if 2012 was 13.5/100 and 2013 was 14/100 and 2014 jumped to 15.5/100 but the population is still at 6,000 deer. Based on the data it has jumped over the magical buck to doe ratio so DWR will want to increase hunters in that area. The population hasn't increased but there is a few more bucks in the unit so we need to kill those bucks. My solution is not to worry about that magical number and keep the same hunters afield and let the buck to doe ratio go. If the unit was close to population objective of 10,000 deer then yes manage by buck to doe to keep the population in check. But below objective there is no reason to increase hunters, or worry about the buck to doe ratio until the unit is at population objective. There should be a too low buck to ratio to monitor but not a too high.
If a unit has a population objective of 10,000 and is currently at 6,000 and is projected to have 15 bucks per 100 does. Lets take the 3 year data and if 2012 was 13.5/100 and 2013 was 14/100 and 2014 jumped to 15.5/100 but the population is still at 6,000 deer. Based on the data it has jumped over the magical buck to doe ratio so DWR will want to increase hunters in that area. The population hasn't increased but there is a few more bucks in the unit so we need to kill those bucks. My solution is not to worry about that magical number and keep the same hunters afield and let the buck to doe ratio go. If the unit was close to population objective of 10,000 deer then yes manage by buck to doe to keep the population in check. But below objective there is no reason to increase hunters, or worry about the buck to doe ratio until the unit is at population objective. There should be a too low buck to ratio to monitor but not a too high.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-15 AT 00:09AM (MST)[p]>EFA will say is plan is
>to let the biologist say
>what is right.............as long as
>it doesn't effect opportunity.
>
>Just a guess.
Good guess, but you're only half right!
You've got the first part correct. We've hired and are paying some of the most dedicated and well trained DWR biologists around who are not only making decisions based on what they personally know, but are consulting and cooperating extensively with wildlife biologists from many federal agencies (FS, BLM, NRCS, NPS, etc.) and other states and international agencies, as well as many universities, private laboratories, and municipalities. They ain't doing this all by themselves, so yes, I'd say, let them do what they were trained to do and what they are paid for. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! It's just like any other science or industry (Medicine, Astronomy, Energy, Automotive, etc.). And that's why we have so many hands-on studies going on at any given time.
But their main challenges are non-biological mandates (social/economical/legal/technological) put on them by those in authority (Governor, DWR execs, DNR execs, Wildlife Board, Legislature, some donors). (Of course, nature has it's own mandates.) Some of those challenges are unavoidable and can't be helped, but the social challenges are where most of us fit in and that's where I think we can and should make a difference through the RAC and Wildlife Board process. And, frankly, managing a deer (elk, pronghorn, moose, sheep, goat) herd based on antler/horn size is not in the best interest of the herd nor the majority of hunters nor for the future of the sport. The irony is that managing the herd based on total population can also give us the trophies as well as the opportunity.
The second part you missed. If in the eyes of the DWR, the biology requires a loss of opportunity/permits/closure, then I would support that decision as heartedly as I would an increase! The animals come first, both with me personally and with UWC.
>to let the biologist say
>what is right.............as long as
>it doesn't effect opportunity.
>
>Just a guess.
Good guess, but you're only half right!
You've got the first part correct. We've hired and are paying some of the most dedicated and well trained DWR biologists around who are not only making decisions based on what they personally know, but are consulting and cooperating extensively with wildlife biologists from many federal agencies (FS, BLM, NRCS, NPS, etc.) and other states and international agencies, as well as many universities, private laboratories, and municipalities. They ain't doing this all by themselves, so yes, I'd say, let them do what they were trained to do and what they are paid for. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! It's just like any other science or industry (Medicine, Astronomy, Energy, Automotive, etc.). And that's why we have so many hands-on studies going on at any given time.
But their main challenges are non-biological mandates (social/economical/legal/technological) put on them by those in authority (Governor, DWR execs, DNR execs, Wildlife Board, Legislature, some donors). (Of course, nature has it's own mandates.) Some of those challenges are unavoidable and can't be helped, but the social challenges are where most of us fit in and that's where I think we can and should make a difference through the RAC and Wildlife Board process. And, frankly, managing a deer (elk, pronghorn, moose, sheep, goat) herd based on antler/horn size is not in the best interest of the herd nor the majority of hunters nor for the future of the sport. The irony is that managing the herd based on total population can also give us the trophies as well as the opportunity.
The second part you missed. If in the eyes of the DWR, the biology requires a loss of opportunity/permits/closure, then I would support that decision as heartedly as I would an increase! The animals come first, both with me personally and with UWC.
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,458
The irony is that managing the herd based on total population can also give us the trophies as well as the opportunity..
So your saying you agree.....
So your saying you agree.....
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,111
LAST EDITED ON Feb-09-15 AT 05:09PM (MST)[p]Absolutely! But I want to make this observation. I said it CAN give us the trophies AND opportunity, but that doesn't mean it will. The current and ongoing push for trophies will probably continue to be a challenge for increasing opportunity because those pushing for trophies have a vested interest in money and leverage to keep that scenerio going in spite of their claims that they're trying to increase the opportunity as well. They're already attempting to increase LE units and the conservation permits that go with them, and they continue to propose increased buck to doe ratios and to claim 'overcrowding" of hunters and to shorten seasons and to propose antler restrictions and to add youth to the draw pool without adding new permits and shutting down doe and cow hunts in units that are already over objectives and by suggesting we have even more smaller units! They've made it a seemingly never-ending battle to push their agenda at the expense of the majority of hunters, but they'll be met with resistance, rest assured.
