December RAC meetings

I hate the idea of Harvest objective for bear. To me this is a money fueled decision. the only reason for doing this is to make more money for the DWR. Instead of selling ten tags for ten bears they will sell hundreds of tag for the same ten bears. Harvest objective areas are going to get more females and juveniles killed. The mentality on these units is that if you don't kill the first animal you see you may not get another chance or another hunter is going to kill it.

This is another bad decision by our inept DWR.
 
It gives more people a chance to hunt, even if they don't kill one. I'm for it.

Guys remember if the dwr makes more money it helps them make it better for hunter/fisherman.. Its not going in someones pocket....

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
83$ a tag......460 tags sold is $38,180.00. Any ideas what it costs to run a Government agency annually.....I highly doubt they are going to Vegas on that. I will get the fiscal report if that will help you guys. I don't think this is a conspiracy. If there is an issue, let's leave it as a problem with the hunt, and not turn it into personal attacks on people, or entities. I'm sure there will be things we disagree on in the future, and I would hope that you chalked it up to a difference of opinions and not the content of my character. It's also important to remember that many of these decisions are heavily influenced by you as a hunter at these meetings....if you show up to let me know what you think and want. . . . . . . . . .. . . hope to see you at this one.

I appreciate the feedback, but do you have any solutions, or possible methods for making it better?

7642bear_report.jpg


5235bear.jpg



All of this information, and more on the bear hunt stats, can be found at -

http://wildlife.utah.gov/bear/pdf/10_black_bear_report.pdf
 
Thanks for the reply Carrie. I may just buy one, that way I would have another excuse to spend some time in the hills. I'm always looking for a "hunt extender" BUT, having dealt with the policy makers at the DNR for several years, I'm pretty certain if the HO bear hunt was going to cost $38,180 it would never have been proposed by DWR.
 
I agree totally that there is a bottom line on this hunt, but the money from tags is not pocketed by the director, nor is it pocketed by the COs. I think you guys would be surprised how much these people actually make. Someone has to keep the lights on though. :)
 
I am excited about the limited quota bear tags. I have hunted this type of hunt in Arizona and it is a lot of fun. The bears are harder to kill than you would think. The unit that I have hunted in Arizona has a ton of bears in it. We still have a hard time finding them on a spring and fall hunt spot and stock.
 
I hope that I didn't in anyway, shape, or form imply that anyone was stuffing pockets with any of the funds generated. The pressure that the legislature has been putting on the state agencies to do more with almost nothing (and cutting budgets every year) has been tremendous. Every decision they make has to have a fiscal impact discussion.
 
HO on bear is a terrible idea. I hope that we as sportsmen will but more emphasis on the wildlife than money on this proposal. Yes you will make a lot more money, and at the same time take the fun of drawing a limited entry bear tag and hunting without a lot of pressure from other hunters. It will also make it so more females with cubs will be killed and then we will have orphan cubs running around getting in trouble searching for food around man and then they will be shot as troubled bears. JMO
 
Gauge,

I appreciate your feedback on this subject, there is a delicate balance of biological, social, and economic issues at hand. I see a lot of opportunity created here on a hunt that has historically low success rates, and a growing population.

Some sows will be taken.....some cubs will be casualties of that circumstance. I hate that more than anyone you will ever meet. But nature is a large set of circumstances, and cow elk are taken while pregnant.....and cars hit animals all of the time.
Bears are unique though.......they reproduce very slowly and cannot withstand a high population hit, and recovery is either non existant or very slow.
Would a sub quota for sows help the problem?

What else can we do to help control population growth, increase opportunity, protect the resource, build habitat, study the animals, and make the sportsman happy?

Would lowering the cost of the tag help us move past the idea that this is a ploy to make money?
 
If it is not a ploy to make money why else would they implement the HO hunt? The DWR can get as many bears harvested as they need with the Limited entry tags.

Heaven forbid we have a growing population of bears. The DWR needs to nip that in the bud right away.

We need to find a way to get them to manage the mosquitos.
 
Find a way to score a mosquito, mount it, and call it a trophy, and I'm sure they will be handled.
Hahhaa.....best quote of the day.

I've said it once, I will say it again....if you want the DWR fiscal report, let me know. I will arrange a meeting with the division to explain it all in great detail. What is it you think they are doing with the money, who is pocketing the cash? Its really not generating wealth beyond your wildest dreams....trust me I've spent some time scrupuliously going over the reports and looking for leaks, there aren't any. I also know what a CO's family gets to live on annually..let's move past the conspiracy theories. The proposal is based on low success rates, rogue bear population growth, incident reports, migration of bears into residential areas, and a high level of bears in the state. Now......do I think we should kill them all just because they are there....absolutely not. Without question. However.....an abundance in resource (which doesn't happen often) also means a potential for opportunity.

If current hunting methods are not controlling the bear population, or maintaining the number of bears in the state....we make a decision, more bears, or more hunters.

Do you suggest more LE tags as an alternative???
 
Harvest objective let them control it better to me.. No more turning out 15 tags and hunters taking 5 bears where 15 Need to be taken.

It open up opportunity for people to buy a tag and try to take a bear.


4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
I am all for a HO bear hunt as long as it is spot and stalk. No hounds, no baiting. That is the way it is done in WY and has been very successful. Just have to call in to make sure the season is still open. It isn't all that hard and it provides a fun hunt.
 
Some of the waste I see is full size 4x4 trucks getting 14mpg being driven around like they are cars. They take them to meetings in slc. to RAC meeting all over. You go to a DWR meeting and there are 1/2 dozen trucks sitting there. I even saw two DRW trucks ram each other because they were driving and one stopped and the other one rammed him. This was on the mountain and each truck had one person in it. There could be alot better planning on their part.

As two point said, I would be in favor of the HO tags if they made it spot and stalk only and they did the same thing with the mtn lion harvest objective tags. NO hounds, just spot and stalk.
 
The highway patrol has a much higher fleet bill......and I doubt they need lime green chargers.

Spot and stalk, no hounds, no bait....how do you feel about sub quotas?
 
Sub-Quota for females is excellent as it protects the females. I could careless if someone shot a 1 year old male or a 10 year old male. There should be no sub-quota on males because the overall quota should protect the boars. Bears with cubs at their side should be protected (as they are with any limited hunt). A mandatory on-line course could also be passed before going afield. Kind of like the management buck, extended archery, and shed hunting educational courses.
 
I think sub quotas are a must. I would say if more than 10% of the harvested bears are female they need to shut the hunt down!

I guess I just really don't like HO tags. I would rather see an increase in LE tags. If the DWR feels there need to be more bears harvested there are alot of things they could do to make that happen. One is to lengthen the spring season and allow baits to be hunted with muzzleloaders not just archery. I feel the DWR sets up their hunts so people will have the least likly chance of harvest. Alot of times the Spring bear hunt is just starting to get good when the hunt closes. They only allow archers to hunt over bait and only allow two bait sites.

If they are worried about problem bears there are plenty of houndsmen that would love to be caled day or night to come take care of a bear that is causing trouble.

The only thing HO tags can do that and slight increase of LE tags can't do is bring in more money.

Look at our elk herds. We had the best elk hunting anywhere. What does the DWR do? they increase tags to the point where our herds are going down hill. And, once they increase tags they will let the herds (or bears) get completely to the point that they must do something before they decrease tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-05-11 AT 11:24AM (MST)[p]Elk Antlers,

The HO allows more hunting opportunity than increasing limited entry tags. For instance, if the unit needs 25 bears harvested, then the DWR would give out 25 L.E. permits or maybe slightly more if the harvest rate is down. HO on the other hand would allow anyone who wants to to get a bear tag (Unlimited number of hunters) and hunt the unit until the 25 bears are harvested. The HO still only allows 25 bears to be taken, but allows for a lot of opportunity to a lot more hunters to go after the 25 bears. The down side would possibly be a crowding issue on the HO strategy.

I don't believe it is a $$ issue here. It is an opportunity issue. The HO allows more opportunity, but still maintains the harvest at a quota to protect against overharvest.
 
I think it's great. Good move DWR.

Growing up I'd rarely see bears in Utah. I see them regularly now.

I'm glad guys are going to have an opportunity to get out and hunt them.
 
Tell me how they can do a HO tag that is spot and stalk only while the LE tags can use dogs? Are they going to cut into the LE season?

I want to see an increase in LE tags. I would rather have a quality hunt that I know lasts 2 months, rather than buy a tag for $83 bucks that may close in a week.

It's just $$$ for the DWR. They will sell a boat load of unsuccessfull tags is what it will boil down to.
 
Carrie,
So with the HO system, how does it affect guys with points?
In the proposal will all the units be HO or will some be LE and some HO?

I'd hate to see money and time spent by the sportsman, with absolutely no benefit, because of a rules change.

If the harvest objective isn't being met, under the current LE system, a simple tag increase would balance things out. Tags numbers could fluctuate based on previous harvest. It's simple management and keeps things under the current system.

If a hunter has no points I can see why he'd want an OTC HO system. He has nothing invested in a LE hunt!

If my understanding is correct. I don't like the HO system one bit!

Thanks, Zeke
 
Hey guys-

I just got a response email from Mr. Shivik (mammal coordinator for the DWR) he has given me the condensed version of the proposal...I will post it below. (Thanks to him for taking the time to give me a "simplified version", it is appreciated)

Zeke, excellent question!! I will find out today.

As background, we are trying to balance hunter opportunity with minimizing bear conflicts with protecting the resource. ??Three things that are often contradict each other.
?
Also, it is very difficult to accurately and precisely estimate the number of bears in the state, but we actually don't need to.? We can manage for the 3 things above by using proxy measurements that we can record accurately:? % of females and % of adult males harvested.
?
Here?s the reason we watch % of females and adult males.? Adult males get out earlier and move around more than females.? Thus, in the spring, males are more available to hunters than adult females. They are more susceptible to harvest.
?
Based on this fact and research that was done in Idaho, we know that if populations are hunted lightly we will see high proportions of males and low proportions of females in the harvest.? Essentially, in a lightly harvested population, there are many surplus males moving around, and they get harvested.
?
Alternatively, if a population is hunted liberally (heavily), then the proportion of females will be higher. ?There are fewer surplus males relative to females.
?
As for the way we increase and decrease hunting pressure:
?
Dates of hunts may be extended, and we may raise permit numbers or add harvest objective hunts in areas where there is a history of nuisance issues (livestock or campgrounds and residences) and where we want to have fewer bears.? These are units that are managed in a liberal way, and we watch the proportions of adult males and females as indicators.?
?
An important point about timing is that later in the spring, females get out and about as much as the males do.? Thus, the longer a hunt goes on, the more females roam, and the more susceptible they are to harvest. ?You?ll see units with extended spring hunts due to human conflict with bears and the desire to put a little more hunting pressure on that local population.? That is why we sometimes extend season dates.? An extended season quickly results in higher proportions of females harvested and makes the unit more liberal.
?
A harvest objective hunt sounds more complicated than it is.? It means we have a set target (quota) of bears that we want to have harvested from the unit.? It also means there can be many people hunting on the unit at the same time.? This is in contrast to a limited entry, which as a set number (limit) of people that are allowed to enter the unit to hunt.? In a harvest objective unit, tags are over the counter and they remain valid until the quota is met.? The system creates more opportunity for people because there is no long waiting period to draw, and it should increase the efficiency and intensity of harvest by getting more people out for a short period of time.?
?
We will experiment with 3 types of harvest objective hunts this year.? The first is a regular quota, where we shut down the hunt when a specific number of bears are harvested.? The second is a split, which starts as a regular limited entry hunt, but then becomes a quota if the target number is not met during the limited entry portion.? The last is a female sub-quota, where we monitor the numbers of females harvested too, and either shut down the hunt when the total target number of bears is achieved, or when a smaller target of females are harvested.? Again, it is about proportions of females harvested in this case.
?
We are not certain which type of harvest objective hunt will be the best in the long run, so that is why we are trying three types now.
?
I hope that I've been able to explain a 37 page plan and several pages of specific recommendations in a little more than one page.? If you need further explanation or detail, please don't hesitate to email or call me.? My cell is (801) 520-0145.
John Shivik
Mammal Coordinator
Division of Wildlife Resources
Salt Lake City,? UT
(801) 538-7360 office


END of letter

Thanks again for the info.

The north eastern RAC is tomorrow, please come on out.

Any other questions or comments, feel free to get ahold of me.

Carrie Mae
 
Carrie,
Thanks for the reply.

I hate to think about the 11 years which I've spent planning and plotting for the right time to cash in my bear points.

The feeling will be "I just got SCREWED".

Damn sure it's not the money, it's the 11 years waisted if we go to a HO system State wide!

Gawd, tell me it's not true!!!!!!!!!!!

Zeke
 
Zeke,

I just got off of the phone with Mr. Shivik.

Here's the skinny.....

There is only one unit that will move to a full HO hunt, which is Wasatch/Avintiquin* unit. It will be an open HO in the spring only, and in the fall, it will be a LE (good news for point holders). The 9 mile unit will be LE in the first part of the hunt, and based on the number of harvested animals, will then move to HO.

This is kind of a trial and error period on these HO hunts...they are running 3 different types of HO (sow sub quota, LE to HO, and straight HO). So...don't get too concerned too quickly. This is NOT across the entire state either.

I hope that helps.....

There is genuine concern for the sportsman who have put in a lot of time, and money (let's face it.....11 years at 10 dollars a year IS substantial...I don't care who you are), I don't think they are trying to leave anyone in the dark, or screw anyone over.

Read through that letter, and let me know if you have any other questions. I hope that helped.

Carrie Mae
 
We need HO tags issued on buck deer in all the limited entry units, there are plenty of deer in those units and if we sold another 1000 tags at the going rate imagine how much more money the dwr would have for habitat improvment. Of course we would have to have a doe harvest quota to protect the herd. 25% should do since deer multiply a lot faster.
 
But of course it would be archery only, no muzzle loaders or rifles that would free up some space and make it a fun hunt while avoiding a potential over kill
 
Carrie,
Thanks for the response.
I appreciate the info.
We'll see how it all shakes out.

Zeke
 
Disgruntled much?

I'm here to hear any discussion, and constructive criticism......but don't be condescending and ignorant, it's just not called for.

If you dislike the HO, why, and what would YOU LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN???

Throw out some ideas here.
 
Why not it makes a great point. Everyone is willing to see their sport promoted at the cost to others. I don't really care for running bear but I wouldn't start asking to kill more bear to save some lions. Or deer. Or elk.. to say no more bear will be killed even though tons of more people can buy a tag is crazy. On top of that the system is flawed. I could shoot a bear wherever I want and say I got it in a Ho unit. This will definatly end up with more sows being killed. How I see absolute outrage about does being killed or even the mere discussion of shooting one. I find it hypocritical to not feel the same way.
 
Thanks again. You're the bomb (and a sharp one at that)!

BTW: Part of the reason I posted my rant on MM was because there are hundreds of hunter who will be affected. Otherwise I would have just called or emailed you.

Zeke

"The one constant is change"
 
And that's why I post on here too......to be honest, I have better things to be doing with the time I really put into this stuff....... But when I signed up on the RAC, I was asked to solicit opinion and recommendation from the public. :) So here we are. Never half assed. I appreciate you taking the time to care.....I'm afraid a lot of people don't. And the less we care, the less chance hunting has in the future (which is my overall objective.)
 
See, now we are getting somewhere. . . . good deal.

Not all females are created equal (haha, I laughed out loud when I typed that). The Doe scenario is a little different (socially) due to the decline in deer numbers, and the political spotlight it has taken. . . . . keep that in mind when you are gauging hypocrisy. But you are right, all females do carry the babies of future generations.....so........there's the conundrum.

I hear ya on the regulatory issues. I'm not exact on how this system will be regulated....but YES, there will be unlimited tags sold over the counter for the HO hunts. It is at the discretion of the hunter to check with the state (I'm guessing website, or phone call) to make sure the hunt is still open. That's a LOT of responsibility, but I think they can handle it. If not, they will be prosecuted as such......

Will more bears be killed...I hope so, that's the point here. A dead bear is both advantageous to the hunter, but also to the resource itself. There was a high percentage of bears taken on depredation in the last few years, and the way I see it, that's opportunity the hunter could have had.....SO.....HO opens that up a little......and the sow sub quota protects the females to a degree (on the hunts that is employed.) Yes, females are killed.....but so are cow elk on a bull elk tag when the hunter recklessly herd shoots....it's the nature of the beast. It happens. But, out bear populations look great! I posted some info on past harvest reports earlier. Check those out.

My concerns with HO units is overcrowding.....mainly because I just don't know how many people ACTUALLY hunt bear in the state, and how many are going to be hunting the same bear. That seems dangerous and unnecessary. There should be a cap, a bear education, and an ethics course before being issued a tag.

I don't hunt bear myself sir.....But I've been putting in for archery bear for a few years now, and am excited for the opportunity to try. KNOWING FULL WELL I most likely won't be successful because I don't like the concept of bait (for personal ethical reasons) and don't want to run hounds......so, guess what. I'm going to dump 83 dollars into the system, and I'm going to enjoy the hell out of a few weekends of chasing bear.
 
I appreciate you coming on here and get some opinions, However it sounds like it is all a done deal after reading your responce from John Shivik.

Others and I have given you our objections to the HO tags and are just getting met with reasons we are wrong and why our ideas won't work (like increased LE tags which would help bonus point holders).

I guess I just feel like you aleady have your mind made up.
 
I just drafted an email to ask what the upside to the HO hunt is, versus a limited entry HO hunt.......

So combine the two ideas.......

We have a limited entry, with 5 times the applicants...which would 5x our success rate right??? (hypothetically speaking).....so set our harvest, cut the hunters loose......and call off the dogs when the objective is hit. The hunters who harvested start over with points, the hunters who didn't loose that years points, and start over again in the draw next year......

I'm not decided, trust me.....

I HATE the idea of 3 different variable groups on this HO....do one way, test it, alter it, fix it, try again.....but I'm a science major, so go figure.

I'm not against upping LE tags, but how much do we up them? How do we ensure the number of bears that NEED to be taken, are.....especially when we don't know how many bears we actually have.

Kind of a loose ended deal if you ask me.
 
K let me clean that up...I typed too fast on my idea......


A limited entry hunt, with a harvest objective. So basically, we just control how many people are in the field with the HO.
 
That makes more sense to me.
Here are my 2 cents;
The F&G knows the success rate in every unit and if they want more bears killed simply increase the number of LE tags issued.
The F&G also know that when a unit is flooded with hunters the success rate goes down, way down because the increased pressure keeps everyone from success!
The HO make zero sense to me at this point.

That's probably enough said from me at this time.

Thanks for listening!

Zeke
 
HAha.....You are welcome Zeke.....

But what happens in a year where all of the stars align, and there is an exponentially high success rate on a LE unit that we have jacked up the tags on....hmm....mass kill. But what if we have a harvest objective on those units........so if by some chance, we do hit objective, hunt is over.
 
Of course more hunters with the same kill means decreased success rates. That is not bad in my opinion. I get to do it more often and maybe kill a bear. It isn't like they are HOing every unit.

If I want to hunt a bear then I can buy a tag over the counter for Wyoming on a HO basis. If I want to hunt mature bull elk I can draw a tag every other year and hunt mature bulls in the rut in Wyoming. Utah's management of high success is great for the lucky few who draw. Utah has the best elk-waiting in the country. Other states such as Wyoming have the best elk hunting in the country. I guess I am saying that I'd rather hunt 5 times in 10 years and kill 1 bear, rather than wait 10 years to hunt 1 time and kill a bear.
 
You sir are an opportunity hunter......so am I.

Not everyone feels the same way, and a balance has to be found between "trophy" hunters, and "opportunity" hunters. The problem is, if you compromise, everyone didn't get what they want, so everyone is mad......so it comes down to, who can yell the loudest.
 
you brought up the point that there are plenty of bear in the state. Ok increase a few extra tags. I have said it before and I will say it again, our biggest fight against antis is that we are managing the wildlife. if we do not effectivly manage the wildlife we lose that. I do not haver a problem with making money off of hunting but if it becomes a issue where it puts the whole thing at risk what is the point! Do we want to be like california? From the way I hear it, (dont know for sure) but Idaho is in a bad position and it is the same concept. Also I would like to note, and this information is based off of many houndsmen I have talked too (I wouldnt personally know since I have been here for 4 years only.) Utah used to have a good population of mountain lions... before the HO tags. These are good old time hound guys, i dont know many who will say there is a good population of them anymore.
 
9011wild-wolf-animal-howl.jpg

Except the mule deer guys who claim them to be a leading perp in the loss of the deer herd......

See where the angle becomes an issue? Depends on how you look at the situation.

Overall, this proposal is good news......more bears, how to increase opportunity in proportion to the growth.
 
well save taht argument for another day. My point is go find a hound guy and ask him about the lion populations 99% will tell you its in the dumps. Ask him or her what it was like before HO tags. different answer I bet. Those HO tags will surely increase the oppurtunity to kill a bear for the first few years. But what then, what will the division do to make money then.. I vote for deer HO tags in the henrys.
 
9011wild-wolf-animal-howl.jpg

Bring it to the bucks and bulls rack next year. We would love to hear your ideas.
 
RACs have already made themselves clear on their opinions of houndsmen. RAC just stands for SFW we all know that.
 
I'm going to do my absolute best to not take that personal.......but if you want to call me tomorrow and discuss that particular accusation, please please please do. I would love to give you my personal opinion on that. Don't burn this down......don't be the bad apple.
Be constructive, or don't respond to my posts.

Carrie Mae
 
We all is a blanket statement, I sure as hell don't fit in with it.. So not ALL of us feel that way. Don't give stupid excuses why your not going to show up... Put up or shut up, its that simple.


4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-11 AT 09:42PM (MST)[p]I don't agree with the HO it will ruin the bear hunt. I feel like i've wasted all my bonus points.
 
Lol, well......I will be somewhere sipping wine from the SFW cabana leaves.......let me know if I can help anyone in any way.
 
I have a question for you then.

What is the reason, or goal of selling bear HO tags?
 
First of all....I'm not selling anything, or getting paid to be on the RAC...keep that in mind.

The reason I like the HO.......

We have a growing population of Bears, who are by nature, territorial. When you have a lot of bears, the stragglers become issues for residential areas. A certain amout of tags are issued because that many bears can safely be taken without hurting the population. Those tags are not being filled....and there is a crazy waiting period for bears. The objective hunt manages the bears, and hopefully eliminates problem bears.

Its also a huge increase in opportunity for the 5 areas we are implementing the HO hunt. (Areas that can withstand that type of prressure)

I don't like the idea of 500 guys with guns chasing 12 bears though...and I think we should either draw more tags, with a HO in place.......or cap over the counter tag numbers to prevent a potentially dangerous situation, and over crowding.
 
Again Carrie, the harvesting quotas could take place by simply increasing thr number of LE tags issued without going to an OTC HO hunt.

This is a great opportunity for the LE applicants, a great opportunity to releive the points congestion and all without flooding an area with hunters.

Over-crowding equals near zero success. I've hunted bears in other States over 20 times and if another hunter is in the area you can count on NOT SEEING BEARS, PERIOD!

Even in areas where populations are high, the numbers of actual bears are so much lower, compared to other game, that it's nothing like a deer or elk hunt.

Recap; too many hunters equal ZERO harvest. I'm not kidding. If you talk to hunters who have hunted bears very much they'll say the same thing.

I can see no other reason for the F&G to adopt a HO type hunt unless money motivated.

Thanks again Carrie for your thoughtful conversation.

Zeke
 
Ok, I'm in on increase LE tags, but how much of an increase? And put a quota or sub quota on it or not?
 
What I could live with is an increase in LE tags based on past harvest averages.

If unit-X has a tag allotment of 10 bear tags and the average hunter success is 70% that says the DWR wants 3 additional bears removed. I would propose that the DWR adds and additional 5 tags with the theory that the additional 5 hunters would have the same 70% success rate. 5x.07 (70%) =.35 or 3.5 more bears harvested. Givin this theory, the total harvest on unit-X would be 10 to 11 bears instead of 7 bears. Based off historical averages I believe this would work.


Worse case, If HO tags are implemented I would like to see them as part of the draw so people have to use their points and limit the numbers so it could still be considered a quality hunt.
 
Which would be fine if our success rates were that high...but we have somewhere around 8 percent success on some units......its a gamble to base tags on that. What if all systems are a go and there is an unusually high success rate that year and we have based tag numbers on suspected success.....might be a bad deal if we take 10x more bears than anticipated..........
 
There will always be pros and cons to every management plan.
That's not a bad thing, it's just the way it is.

Some will be happy to have the opportunity. Some will be happy with a more private experience. It's impossible to make everyone happy all at once.

Those who have supported the system and have points will HATE the HO plan since they have points to lose and those who have no points will LOVE it since they have opportunity to gain.

Nothing wrong with either bunch but the paradigms are totally different.

I don't like the HO!

Zeke
 
I would highly doubt that a unit that is averaging 8% success is going to have a year that is anywhere close to 100%. There has got to be some other limiting factor that keeps success low: like low bear densities, extremely rougged terrain or loats of private property.

I would say that if a hunt is averaging 8% harvest there needs to be a decrease in tags not an increase.
 
Its not for a lack of bears.....maybe Jim Shockey should do more shows on bear hunting in North America vs. Bear island, so people have a better idea of what this hunt REALLY is.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-11 AT 04:44PM (MST)[p]I know what bear hunting is. I killed a bear in 05'. I also know if hunter harvest is 8% something is wrong.
 
Are the bear units so under-subscribed that we need a celebrity to promote bear hunting so the tags get sold?

Do we need a celebrity to teach people how to spot and stalk bears?

The answers are NO and NO.

If the bears are visible a good spotter will find them. If you run a couple guys down a ridge then NOBODY will see a bear. This is why it's imperative to have a quiet, spot and stalk, LE type hunt. Any other type bear hunt is a crap-shoot. I've been there and done that on a few of my bear hunts and it's just terrible.

Zeke
 
Zeke, I understand your concern and normally agree with you...but I am one of those on the other side of the fence on this one. HO in a few units should not be a major issue with you unless one of those units is the one you want to cash your 11 points in on. Then I would feel the same way you do..I drew a spring boulder tag 4 years ago after waiting 7 years for a tag. A long cold spring and a district ranger who was anti baiting made it difficult to fill my tag. I hunted 15 days and still ended up eating tag soup. I now will probably wait another 10-12 years making me near 70 years old before I will likely draw a tag again. This could happen to you [I hope it dosn't] and then a harvest objective unit or 2 would make a lot of sense right? The DWR is in a tough position and like you said will never please everyone. This is a good compromise between those who want a great no pressure type bear hunt and those who just want an opportunity to hunt a bear. I would favor a few units being HO with the majority left the way they are or with a reasonable increase in LE tags to obtain desired harvest.
 
Ok so we do have a healthy population but it is growing so we need to trim it back to keep them from overpopulating and causing more problems than needed. I won't beat the dead horse about flooding the areas with rifle hunters. If the numbers truly need to trim do what works best increase the LE tags so that the guys who hunt bears can fill the tags. I think it is a joke to say we need to start a HO program to reduce the numbers and increase oppurtunity to hunt while saying no hounds.
 
Dirt brings up another point about SOME of the units being HO and SOME being LE.
This will concentrate the points applicants in the LE areas and cause an even greater butt-plug for points holders.
I was hoping for one quiet, secluded, more private experience in Ut but it looks like things are changing back to the fiasco type Utah hunting.
I have no problem out-competing with other hunters for the available game but it's just not as much fun.
This is the reason why private land and LE hunts are so desirable. It's not just about killing an animal, it's about the experience of having a canyon to yourself!
Time will tell....... it's hard to roll back the clock.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful responses.
Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-11 AT 12:02PM (MST)[p]Zeke,

The Harvest Objective (HO) only effects 3 units out of the 23 Bear units in the State and are units that have not been considered the better units to hunt bear. Also, there is still a Limited Entry Season for these 3 HO units. Utah has a fall season and spring season. Two of the HO units have a spring and a fall LE season, followed by the HO season. On the third HO unit, the HO season occurs in the spring, but the LE season is in the fall.

Also, as you mentioned private land, the 3 HO units contain a considerable amount of private land.....that was one of the criteria for choosing a unit for HO.

Additionally, the harvest and biological stats have shown that the bear population in Utah continues to rise and the DWR has increased LE tags for 2012 by 11%, thus making it easier to draw a tag.

Given what I just said, I just don't see where a HO season in 3 units out of the 23 units is going to put a big clogg in the points system.
 
That's good information!
Thanks for pointing it out to me again.
I'm starting to feel a bit more comfortable with the potential change. I'm one of the older dogs and I'm not fond of change just for change sake. It has to make sense to me.
The picture is starting to become a bit more clear and my stand is moderating..... somewhat. (not that I'm the one who makes the decisions. lol)
Thanks,
Zeke
 
In my opinion if you think you need more bears harvested just give out more LE tags. The problem I see with HO is every hunter will shoot the first bear they see from long distances not knowing the sex of the bear or if it is a cub of a sow with cubs. You have to shoot the first bear you see cause you might not get a chance latter on. Where with a LE tag you can be a lot more selective.
 
>In my opinion if you think
>you need more bears harvested
>just give out more LE
>tags. The problem I see
>with HO is every hunter
>will shoot the first bear
>they see from long distances
>not knowing the sex of
>the bear or if it
>is a cub of a
>sow with cubs. You have
>to shoot the first bear
>you see cause you might
>not get a chance latter
>on. Where with a LE
>tag you can be a
>lot more selective.

Correct! That's part of the fiasco I was referring to.
Zeke
 
>>In my opinion if you think
>>you need more bears harvested
>>just give out more LE
>>tags. The problem I see
>>with HO is every hunter
>>will shoot the first bear
>>they see from long distances
>>not knowing the sex of
>>the bear or if it
>>is a cub of a
>>sow with cubs. You have
>>to shoot the first bear
>>you see cause you might
>>not get a chance latter
>>on. Where with a LE
>>tag you can be a
>>lot more selective.
>
>Correct! That's part of the fiasco
>I was referring to.
>Zeke


I said the same thing in the first posy on this thread...
 
I'm done with this thread. The rac process has already started and they have passed in the southern units despite what the public thinks.
 
Carrie, I am very impressed with the way you handle yourself and are willing to listen to public comments. Keep up the good work, I wish others would follow your example.

There's always next year
 
Gauge,

It is incorrect to say that the the RACs did not listen to the public on this issue. Some of the public (bear hunters) like the Harvest Objective proposal. You may not like the HO, but other bear hunters do. The RAC members have to listen to both sides. The Decision by the RAC and the Board NEVER satisfy everyone. One group is always unhappy because they did not get there way and say the RAC and the Board did not listen. Other times the RACs and the Baoard try to find a compromise and then nobody is happy and the RACs and the Board get accused of not listening by everybody.

Gauge - have you listened to the others that like the idea of HO? Are you listening to what they are saying? Are you willing to hear what they have to say even if you disagree?

I really don't think HO seasons in 3 units out of 23 bear hunting units in the State is going to ruin bear hunting Statewide.
 
>I really don't think HO seasons
>in 3 units out of
>23 bear hunting units in
>the State is going to
>ruin bear hunting Statewide.

The trouble with this thought is that the DWR will start with an inch and end up with a mile.

When the DWR realizes they can do the same thing with deer your going to flip.
 
>When the DWR realizes they can
>do the same thing with
>deer your going to flip.
>

That would be awesome..... NOT!
Phone in every day to see if you could still deer hunt? Pretty silly way to hunt IMHO. It probably won't come to that but HO for bears seems just as silly to me.

I'm just glad it will only be in 3 or so uniits. I'll avoid them like the plague..... until after I've drawn a good tag.

Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-11 AT 05:59AM (MST)[p]Reddog you make it hard to post. I started bear hunting 20 years ago and spend most of my time bear hunting. I also spend a lot of time hunting Elk, Deer, Big horn Sheep, lion and Bobcats. I do not like the idea of HO for bear. For the reasons that have been stated above. With all the Private land HO in the Nine Mile/Range Creek area might be ok. If you want to kill more bear put out more LE tags. We also have way to many Non-Residents chasing bear on the Spring hunts down in Southern and Eastern UT.
 
Hey folks, sorry for the delay in response.

Here are the fallacies I have read so far (one of which is mine).

Hounds are allowed on the straight HO unit on Wasatch/Avinaquin. Two hunts have a female sub quota, so the hunt will end EITHER when the 3 females are killed or the 8 amount of males........
2 are HO to start, and if objective has not been met, it becomes a LE tag.

My concern at the RAC meeting was the balance between a quality hunt, opportunity, and objective killing to prevent nusiance bears. My suggestion was take the 10 year success average for each unit moving to HO (which is 11 percent on the avinaquin unit not 8, my apologies) increase tags by the exponent needed to make success 100 percent. So approximately 10 percent success X 10 is 100. So if there were 7 tags, put out 70 tags and have a cap. If 7 bears are killed, hunt is over. Althought that is a LOT of hunters, at least we have a handle on how many people will actually be out there.

There was limited feedback from the rac or public....it was dropped and we passed as proposed. Which I voted for.

I will get a map with units as soon as it is available.

Thanks guys.

Carrie Mae.
 
(2 are HO to start, and if objective has not been met, it becomes a LE tag.)
This doesn't make any sense to me, It will be interesting to see if anyone would put in for this LE hunt after 70 people couldn't kill 7 bear. Which may be the case because of how crowded it will be. Sounds like an area I will stay away from. One thing is for sure, we will face a lot of changes as bear hunters.
 
Cut me some slack, the SLC inversion and shopping for 2 weeks have seriously inhibited my abilities to speak.

Same scenario....flipped. Starts as LE and moves to HO.
 
Thanks. That makes more sense to me. And thanks for taking your time to explain all this to us.
 
BLTSO,
Shopping? I hope you got me something good! LOL

Thanks Carrie for keeping us well informed.

Zeke
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

8610A34A-4B80-4398-ABE3-704C43D7E410.jpeg
4E7A2B65-0984-454E-AD69-30C026AD81CC.jpeg
A6296F8F-3EA4-4F3E-9C7B-1EA0C7FD3412.jpeg
B7AF8038-E554-490E-8F84-9EFFFEE4953C.jpeg
ADED22BE-883B-47A1-A355-CA31A3DE4C66.jpeg
NIFG9433.JPG
Idaho 2022!!!
8CC43526-33C0-4F04-8E9F-820B54EE25E4.jpeg
Big Buck on the Wheeler
441932D3-F283-47B8-8D4C-427F39424EC0.jpeg
ABCA1A49-5E77-443D-BEC7-DD732F14F29A.jpeg
8421elk.jpg
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