Low success hunt??
- Thread starter Utahelk1
- Start date
M
MsDestiny
Guest
My Guess would be yes... These hunts are to raise Money.
I watched a real nice guy try to get a cow elk tag filled when I was out scrounging for Deer last year... he tried for days but never saw an elk... I'm sure that after I shot my big bull on Public land a few weeks earlier that the cows and calfs hooked up with one of the CWMU Bulls.
I think its neat that the DNR has the guts to let you know that success may be low... could be many reasons.... water, feed, private property... limited Public property areas... the Weather... maybe it takes a good snow to bring them to the Unit ?
Destiny
I watched a real nice guy try to get a cow elk tag filled when I was out scrounging for Deer last year... he tried for days but never saw an elk... I'm sure that after I shot my big bull on Public land a few weeks earlier that the cows and calfs hooked up with one of the CWMU Bulls.
I think its neat that the DNR has the guts to let you know that success may be low... could be many reasons.... water, feed, private property... limited Public property areas... the Weather... maybe it takes a good snow to bring them to the Unit ?
Destiny
AWHOLELOTTABULL
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,357
I guess my question to you would be....what do you think the general season deer tag is? Yes it's to raise money and yes it is low success.
It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
Daxter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,426
Here is a scenario for you, you have a landowner that constantly complains about elk in his fields/haystacks that wants to get paid for damages. The DWR sets up a cow hunt to try to remove the offending elk, but the landowner will not allow hunters access, yet he still wants to get paid when the elk come back on his property. He probably hunts bulls on his land during the general season hunt, but won't let any cow hunters on. Should this landowner still get paid for the damages? Where does the money for the damage payments come from? Is it better for landowners and/or DWR employees to shoot the elk at night with a spot light, or to give tags to the public?
Scenario number two, you have a unit that you want to manage primarily for mule deer and don't want elk there for various reasons (i.e. Henry Mtns., Pine Valley) there are a few elk there and you don't want numbers to grow, but you know that there are so few animals that hunter success will be low. What do you do?
Scenario three, you have units where elk populations are higher than desired and you need to kill animals, but the terrain is rough and road access is limited. Most cow hunters think they can drive around and kill one, and are unsuccessful. What do you do? Do you advertise the hunt as a low success hunt as a warning/disclaimer to make potential hunters aware before they put in?
Just some possible scenarios that could lead to a low success hunt. I really don't think it is solely to generate revenue or the DWR would start selling tags for the "snipe hunt".
Scenario number two, you have a unit that you want to manage primarily for mule deer and don't want elk there for various reasons (i.e. Henry Mtns., Pine Valley) there are a few elk there and you don't want numbers to grow, but you know that there are so few animals that hunter success will be low. What do you do?
Scenario three, you have units where elk populations are higher than desired and you need to kill animals, but the terrain is rough and road access is limited. Most cow hunters think they can drive around and kill one, and are unsuccessful. What do you do? Do you advertise the hunt as a low success hunt as a warning/disclaimer to make potential hunters aware before they put in?
Just some possible scenarios that could lead to a low success hunt. I really don't think it is solely to generate revenue or the DWR would start selling tags for the "snipe hunt".
AWHOLELOTTABULL
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,357
S
SMELLYBUCK
Guest
Nothing against Utahelk1 specifically, just a general comment about this website...
Why does the phrase "its all about money" come up almost everytime someone is disturbed with a wildlife agency?
It's like "ha ha I just proved your hand is in the cookie jar." Wake up and welcome to the adult world. We all have jobs. We all need to get paid. Money is an important part of getting anything done in the U.S. Managing wildlife is not "all about money" but money is a huge part of managing wildlife. That is how it is and always will be.
Are people disturbed that the feds spend more than they take in? If so you can't blame wildlife agencies for paying attention to their budgets!!!
Why does the phrase "its all about money" come up almost everytime someone is disturbed with a wildlife agency?
It's like "ha ha I just proved your hand is in the cookie jar." Wake up and welcome to the adult world. We all have jobs. We all need to get paid. Money is an important part of getting anything done in the U.S. Managing wildlife is not "all about money" but money is a huge part of managing wildlife. That is how it is and always will be.
Are people disturbed that the feds spend more than they take in? If so you can't blame wildlife agencies for paying attention to their budgets!!!
AWHOLELOTTABULL
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,357
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,583
Money, sure, but I have another reason: people want to hunt!
Just try to institute very limited hunting in all quarters in Utah and listen for the howling by the displaced hunters! Sure everyone wants to kill the "big-un" and have a decent chance to do it, but mostly they want to hunt. Try introducing a proposal to cut the number of hunters in those areas by 50% or more and see what kind of response you get from the resident hunters out there. It would not go over well. And you would have to reduce numbers by about that much before the hunter success would go up much.
So, money, sure, but as they say, be careful what you wish for....
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
Just try to institute very limited hunting in all quarters in Utah and listen for the howling by the displaced hunters! Sure everyone wants to kill the "big-un" and have a decent chance to do it, but mostly they want to hunt. Try introducing a proposal to cut the number of hunters in those areas by 50% or more and see what kind of response you get from the resident hunters out there. It would not go over well. And you would have to reduce numbers by about that much before the hunter success would go up much.
So, money, sure, but as they say, be careful what you wish for....
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
2lumpy
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,029
tx, you hit that pigpen right square in the head.
Many, many years ago the Utah dwr's mission statement was established. Paraphrasing, it's says the dwr will "provide maximum recreational opportunity".
Now who doesn't want maximum recreational opportunity?
The problem comes from the fact that we can't all agree on what maximum recreational opportunity is. My meaning maybe that the dwr regulate for the harvest of 7 to 8 year old and older deer, elk and moose etc. someone else's definition of maximum opportunity might be that the dwr manage for as many hunter days afield as the herds can stand without utter inhalation.
In other words, when it suits them the dwr use the agreement either way to meet their objectives, not necessarily yours and mine. When they're after money they say their mission is to put as many sportsmen out the door, on the hunt, regardless of the success rate or over crowding. When they need to give in to pressure for more units with older populations they argue the opposite by once again saying they are just attempting to provide maximum recreational opportunity which means, fewer hunters, more and older animals.
For the dwr the "maximum recreational opportunity" is a perfect mission statement to hid behind. They can have it either way. No matter which group of sportsmen they are attempt to satisfy, they can craft their decision around this wonderful sounding but hollow/harmful mission statement.
Of course I'm just a grumpy old man clinging to the pass, like the pass twenty five years of mule deer management is anything anyone would want to cling to.
Oh well,
dc
Many, many years ago the Utah dwr's mission statement was established. Paraphrasing, it's says the dwr will "provide maximum recreational opportunity".
Now who doesn't want maximum recreational opportunity?
The problem comes from the fact that we can't all agree on what maximum recreational opportunity is. My meaning maybe that the dwr regulate for the harvest of 7 to 8 year old and older deer, elk and moose etc. someone else's definition of maximum opportunity might be that the dwr manage for as many hunter days afield as the herds can stand without utter inhalation.
In other words, when it suits them the dwr use the agreement either way to meet their objectives, not necessarily yours and mine. When they're after money they say their mission is to put as many sportsmen out the door, on the hunt, regardless of the success rate or over crowding. When they need to give in to pressure for more units with older populations they argue the opposite by once again saying they are just attempting to provide maximum recreational opportunity which means, fewer hunters, more and older animals.
For the dwr the "maximum recreational opportunity" is a perfect mission statement to hid behind. They can have it either way. No matter which group of sportsmen they are attempt to satisfy, they can craft their decision around this wonderful sounding but hollow/harmful mission statement.
Of course I'm just a grumpy old man clinging to the pass, like the pass twenty five years of mule deer management is anything anyone would want to cling to.
Oh well,
dc
