B
BLTSO
Guest
Here's the gist of last night's meetings......
Although, this is a reflection, and might be somewhat emotionally charged, with a personal spin....
I encourage you all to read through to the minutes. They aren't posted yet, but will be soon (http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/board-rac.html)
First and foremost 2lumpy, I'm putting up the effort...I will be at every RAC (unless some catastrophe happens.) This is important guys, and you need to understand that the RAC WORKS FOR YOU, to REPRESENT YOU! And unless I know what you want, I can't help you.
Bessy, I didn't see your post until today, however, I feel as though I represented your points at the pre-RAC as well as the RAC, maybe not as eloquently as you put it here, but in so many words. Next time, PLEASE CALL ME. I'm not as avid of a MM'er as Justr, so you'll have to give me a few to become an addict.
Ok...here's the skinny.
Most everything was in fact accepted as proposed by the state, with the exception of the extended archery boundary, which was altered to include the Maser area (approx. 3 miles north of 500 W.) and the eastern boundary was extended to include all land up to the Monument boundary. The one mile buffer was REMOVED from the green river. Much to the dismay of the Bowhunters. I voted in affirmation of the motion BECAUSE it was proposed to the RAC that this is no longer a depredation hunt, it is strictly recreational, and will be managed as such. Because this is not a tactic to remove depredation animals anymore, the buffer becomes a hazy line, and for law enforcement issues, was limited to the north side of the Green.
I believe the bow hunters are going to propose the reinstatement of the buffer to the Wildlife Board, as well as an inclusion of the Pleasant Valley area.
Everything else was business as usual, and the motions were accepted as state proposal.
Here's where it got interesting.
DIAMOND MOUNTAIN.
grrrr.......
A letter was sent to the RAC regarding a variance from a law that allows the land owners to be exempt from allowing one hunter to access their property for every voucher given. (let me know if you want a copy of that letter) Mr. Dave Chivers was present at the meeting, along with an outfitter that works for him. The outfitter stood up and told the RAC that because there is a high monetary value on the animal, they are worth more in general. Here's where I became irate. The division was questioned regarding the variance, and was told "all is well." I had requested a list of general public hunters that were allowed access no the property (the landowners had claimed to have the information). It was not provided to me. Mr. Chivers, as well as the division claimed that the long running 17 year history of the variance had proven to be successful in the past. We voted, it passed. It was after the vote that I began hearing an OUTPOURING of public discontent with the vote.
Here's the deal. I know NOTHING about the Diamond. Educate me, please. All I know is it is vastly private, and there is limited access.......let's hear the opinions. Bessy, fill me in here. The vote was made without public input, which allows for me to strike the vote from the record, if there is enough public input in negation of the vote. Basically, if it makes you guys mad.....let me know. I'll do what I can.
....NEXT......
Blanket management. 18-25/100 ratios are the general management tactic across the state. Historically the Taylor is in the single digits for buck to doe ratio......upwards of 20 years ago. Here's what that boils down to. If we manage that unit on the 18-25 buck ratio, we will continue to cut tags, until there are no tags left.....with no hope for regeneration. My question to the state was, if we are going to manage on a unit by unit basis....shouldn't we do just that? I asked to implement the historical data of a unit into the equation of ration numbers, and not manage the state under a blanket. It's not logical.
...Next......
I made a proposal to amend the state wide Management plan to allow for the implementation of a management deer hunt on a limited entry unit. This is a broad amendment that needs to be put into place so we can start a management hunt in the book cliffs. The idea is to gear the management tags (3 point or smaller on one side) towards the youth and seniors in order to regenerate lost tags, and increase opportunity on the unit. We would like to see it in place for 3 years as a trial (as deemed fit by the division biologist on that unit (Dax).
That will hit the board at the next meeting, I'll keep you updated.
That is the basic gist of the meeting. Any questions, comments, hate mail, please email me.
Thanks for your passion, and dedication to the resource.
Carrie Mair
[email protected]
Although, this is a reflection, and might be somewhat emotionally charged, with a personal spin....
I encourage you all to read through to the minutes. They aren't posted yet, but will be soon (http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/board-rac.html)
First and foremost 2lumpy, I'm putting up the effort...I will be at every RAC (unless some catastrophe happens.) This is important guys, and you need to understand that the RAC WORKS FOR YOU, to REPRESENT YOU! And unless I know what you want, I can't help you.
Bessy, I didn't see your post until today, however, I feel as though I represented your points at the pre-RAC as well as the RAC, maybe not as eloquently as you put it here, but in so many words. Next time, PLEASE CALL ME. I'm not as avid of a MM'er as Justr, so you'll have to give me a few to become an addict.
Ok...here's the skinny.
Most everything was in fact accepted as proposed by the state, with the exception of the extended archery boundary, which was altered to include the Maser area (approx. 3 miles north of 500 W.) and the eastern boundary was extended to include all land up to the Monument boundary. The one mile buffer was REMOVED from the green river. Much to the dismay of the Bowhunters. I voted in affirmation of the motion BECAUSE it was proposed to the RAC that this is no longer a depredation hunt, it is strictly recreational, and will be managed as such. Because this is not a tactic to remove depredation animals anymore, the buffer becomes a hazy line, and for law enforcement issues, was limited to the north side of the Green.
I believe the bow hunters are going to propose the reinstatement of the buffer to the Wildlife Board, as well as an inclusion of the Pleasant Valley area.
Everything else was business as usual, and the motions were accepted as state proposal.
Here's where it got interesting.
DIAMOND MOUNTAIN.
grrrr.......
A letter was sent to the RAC regarding a variance from a law that allows the land owners to be exempt from allowing one hunter to access their property for every voucher given. (let me know if you want a copy of that letter) Mr. Dave Chivers was present at the meeting, along with an outfitter that works for him. The outfitter stood up and told the RAC that because there is a high monetary value on the animal, they are worth more in general. Here's where I became irate. The division was questioned regarding the variance, and was told "all is well." I had requested a list of general public hunters that were allowed access no the property (the landowners had claimed to have the information). It was not provided to me. Mr. Chivers, as well as the division claimed that the long running 17 year history of the variance had proven to be successful in the past. We voted, it passed. It was after the vote that I began hearing an OUTPOURING of public discontent with the vote.
Here's the deal. I know NOTHING about the Diamond. Educate me, please. All I know is it is vastly private, and there is limited access.......let's hear the opinions. Bessy, fill me in here. The vote was made without public input, which allows for me to strike the vote from the record, if there is enough public input in negation of the vote. Basically, if it makes you guys mad.....let me know. I'll do what I can.
....NEXT......
Blanket management. 18-25/100 ratios are the general management tactic across the state. Historically the Taylor is in the single digits for buck to doe ratio......upwards of 20 years ago. Here's what that boils down to. If we manage that unit on the 18-25 buck ratio, we will continue to cut tags, until there are no tags left.....with no hope for regeneration. My question to the state was, if we are going to manage on a unit by unit basis....shouldn't we do just that? I asked to implement the historical data of a unit into the equation of ration numbers, and not manage the state under a blanket. It's not logical.
...Next......
I made a proposal to amend the state wide Management plan to allow for the implementation of a management deer hunt on a limited entry unit. This is a broad amendment that needs to be put into place so we can start a management hunt in the book cliffs. The idea is to gear the management tags (3 point or smaller on one side) towards the youth and seniors in order to regenerate lost tags, and increase opportunity on the unit. We would like to see it in place for 3 years as a trial (as deemed fit by the division biologist on that unit (Dax).
That will hit the board at the next meeting, I'll keep you updated.
That is the basic gist of the meeting. Any questions, comments, hate mail, please email me.
Thanks for your passion, and dedication to the resource.
Carrie Mair
[email protected]
(It's gonna be a Tough Job)
