RAC On Elk Management

[Broomer]

Went to the Central RAC tonight. I question why I even went. It's clear the RAC shows up just for PR, they didn't hear one word the public said. The only guy on the RAC who showed he cared what the vast majority of attendees had to say was John Bair.

They talked about the elk survey. They propositioned 16,000 hunters only 5,700 responded. Out of those the vast majority said they wanted to hunt quality elk more often like 5-10 years. It was proposed that a test unit (Wasatch) be used for a tag allocation of 50% archery tags to give more opportunity and still stay at objective. NOTE: I counted maybe 35 public attendees and every person that commented on this proposal favored the Wasatch Unit be used to give archery hunters more tags. Needless to say the RAC denied it.

It was similar to the Health Care Bill, Where the majority of Americans didn't want it and still the DEM's said we don't care what you want we want it, and they passed it. The RAC sat there like stubborn DEM's and wanted nothing to hear about more archery tags.

One member said that it would create mass rebellion by Rifle hunters. But admitted that no voice from the rifle hunters where there. Also admitted that Archery hunters had consistently spoken out on this issue.

What is there like 90,000 hunters statewide and only 35 ish of us show up and give our voice in each RAC. No wonder the powers to be think they are the only smart ones.

Oh yeah, spike tags increased to 13,750, Anis' response to the question whether they would sell that many he replied yes because there are more units in peoples back yards. Yeah and the fact that, that is the only opportunity to hunt elk in Utah OTC. Very Frustrating!!!

 

[elkantlers]

You mean to tell me that there are still 35 people that think the RAC gives a Dam: what real people want.

You are absolutly correct, they could care less what is said in the meetings. It is all a show.

 

[SuperSlam]

I tell you one of these days it isn't going to be a mass rebellion by rifle hunters it's going to be a mass rebellion by all hunters. When you look at this plan for the next five years and there not being more hunters moving through the system it is going to look bleak. Take the current trend in applications and you'll see that nearly a thousand applicant increase every year. So in 2009 with "0" pts it was 6,393 persons applied and received a pt. that was up from 5,203 in 08' that had "0" pts. This trend is real and in five years there is going to be near 10,000 applicants entering the ELK draw and from now until then there will be over 50,000 applicants with 6 pts or less. This is 7,000 more than the total applicants for all pt levels.

Give out 50- 100 more tags just to Archery guys on every unit and keep every thing else the same and you'll move people through this awful bog of a system and harvest will be 25% so a few more bull are killed WHO FREAKING CARES!!!

 

[lucaar]

This might be an ignorant question but how do we get the RAC to start listening to us? Any ideas?

 

[Ticks N Tines]

"This might be an ignorant question but how do we get the RAC to start listening to us? Any ideas?"


Duct Tape and scary masks buddy. That's the only way I see them listening to us.

 

[elkantlers]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-10 AT 11:04AM (MST)[p]>This might be an ignorant question
>but how do we get
>the RAC to start listening
>to us? Any ideas?
>


When the consumer quits buying their product! Which will NEVER EVER happen, and they know it.

 

[WapitiBob]

I doubt they have to listen to you.


Back when real estate was worth something, I went down to the planning dept and asked about tearing down my existing house, splitting my lot into 2 parcels and building 2 houses. She said they needed to have a "public comment" period.
"So, If all my neighbors write and complain, can they stop me from building?"
"No, if you meet the requirements for a lot division, which you do, we can't deny you."
"So, it's just smoke and mirrors?"
"yep, we're required by law to have a public comment period and, by law, we can't deny you based on anything from that comment period."

I would guess they have the RAC meetings because people raised a fuss about "transparency" of the system, having a "voice", and all that other nonsense that Joe Public burdens the poor Government with. So you have RAC meetings, which appease the public, and the Committee goes about their business as usual.

 

[nebo12000]

Interesting comments-- so do you think that the RACs ( which are only an advisory board and their votes are not binding) should try to do things that seem to be best for most of the people or just for you ? Would you be happy if you could draw an LE tag every 3 years and some people would then never draw ? It is interesting how some get on this forum and say the elk hunting is going straight to heck because "they" don't get the benefits just for themselves. There are two hundred (200) or so more LE elk tags than last year. Archery hunters have been given more tags. Spike elk hunting isn't the only over the counter tags-- try open bull units-- they are sold over the counter. If you want to hunt elk the way it was 30 years ago-- try an open bull unit. The system is not perfect and I dare say that most of you haven't been to many RAC meetings- I have been to some where there have been some pretty nice difference of opinions and proposals. Some of the proposals I have made personally came from ideas given to me by "average" elk hunters. Ther are loud voices out there that think that every elk unit should be managed for 3-4 year old bulls so that "they" get to hunt a mature bull every 3 years.I personally am not against using a smaller unit to test out the 60% of the tags for archery, I think the Wasatch is too big to run the test on first. Every interest had a seat at the table with the Elk Committee. They tried to give something to everyone. It never fails that there are some who think that the RACS never listen to the public and act on those ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. For some of you-- just remember the world does'nt revolve just around you and neither does the opporunity to hunt elk as "you" want it.

 

[Addicted]

I quit going to the RAC meetings because I have never been to one single meeting yet where the peoples voice was heard and taken into account.

I used to go to a couple of meetings a year but why waste my time and money to sit there and listen to the public object to these things and then watch the members vote the total opposite way.

Its frustrating to try and get involved and try to make your voice heard and try to make changes when nobody listens and nobody gives a rats a$$ what the average hunter wants or even wants to hear what we want.

 

[Addicted]

Nebo im not trying to start anything BUT, how can you say that the RACS listen?

I used to go to the meetings (see my previous post) and have quit going.

Did you attend the meetings last year about the statewide archery? There was absolutly no support for getting rid of it the meetings were full of people opposing it and yet it passed how is that listening to the public? Same thing goes with the meetings a few years back about the convention tags being handed out, no support and nothing but opposition and what happened it passed.

Like I said im not starting anything I just want to know your opinion on this subject.

 

[Packout]

It can be a frustrating system. In the past, the RAC would consider each point made by the public and discuss the issue. Over the years, it seems that has been lost. I have been part of many public recommended changes over the years, but the last 2 or 3 years have seemed more difficult. The System (RAC, Board, UDWR) should understand that if they want public input then they should have the decency to discuss the specific points brought up. They can vote them in or out, but consideration should be made of each issue.

 

[SuperSlam]

I think that out of 90,000 elk hunters or somewhere in that range, the masses want opportunity. I don't know if the 60% archery is the answer but the committee didn't represent the masses. 5700 people responded to the survey that is 15% of the hunters. Of that 15% most wanted more opportunity. A small percent of the 90K plus hunters are ever going to hunt long enough to kill what they think they want. Every guy out there execpt a few kill on the opening weekend. It's so predictable, most guys tag out with a lesser bull than the unit could have produced and no one can make a good argument contrary to that. What this tells me is that these same hunters would kill a 310 ish bull every chance they got.

Look it's like this, before the big bulls of Utah the open public mtns were not good elk hunting. Most hunters hunted with family and time in the field, this was one of the top desires of those who responded to the survey. Shooting a big elk was 4th on the list. So for years they hunt spikes and start seeing big bulls during the hunt and wait and wait and wait finally they draw. Opening morning BOOM it's over. MOST hunters would love to have a 360 on the wall but they don't have the experience on score and they see a mature bull and kill it.

That is the problem, the masses want opportunity and the Boards and other higher ups just don't see that. I for one never got the survey and I never asked for any person on the committee or the RAC or the Board to represent me or what I want. It was said we only think of ourselves and what is best for us. None sense, I don't think they should make all these changes for me. There is a consistent voice opposing how the Elk are being managed and the deer for that matter but the board and RAC"S and people that are asked to sit on special committees think that they know more and have a better understanding of what the masses want. That is simple not true. It makes me sick to think that I'm represented by some one that only wants to just archery hunt or to kill a 400 class bull or raise lots of money for Wildlife. The system is broke and it is all bureaucracy bull.

 

[Silentstalker]

Nebo,

I know you believe what you said in your post but for most of us who have been attending for over 10 years see a totally different picture. And who says the guys on the RAC should push "their" agenda by over ruling the public who actually shows up and speaks out or for a specific topic. After all, that is what the RAC is for isn't it? The groups pushing for change are no different then RAC members pursuing their agenda.

It is pretty sad when such a great idea (public input) is not given consideration and the decisions are made before the meeting even starts.

 

[MulePacker]

I will go on record as saying the RAC's listen to the public. However it appears they only hear the parts that fit into the agenda. Otherwise during the RAC meeting held for public input from years of attending they hear very little. Now the public (or perceived public) they seem to hear are the committtees and special interest groups, the RAC will take what those entities propose much over the people showing up at an open RAC meeting. Unfortunately the perceived public groups always have an agenda many times driven by the DWR or their peers, very seldom do they truly represent the cross section of the public the RAC was formed to represent. Utah has got so far to the left in wildlife managament it reminds me of the current national andministration and health care fiasco. Ignore the science and listen to the public that will always get the results that are best for the whole. Hardly!! Anyone who spent the time to research scientific elk management would soon learn that Utah's strategy is heading down a perilous road. I would dare bet if any of our wildife managers would have submitted the current elk managment proposal for their senior project they would have failed. It goes against the very basis of wildlife managment which is to strive for proper ratios, carrying capacity and hunting surplus to maintain population. Wildlife managers were surely never instructed to grow old age class bulls to satisfy the trophy hunter, in fact in my schooling they warned to not succumb to any special interest groups. I find irony in the strong stand against giving into the special interest of primitive weapons however we cater to the special interest of trophy hunters so much so that every survey or committee or meeting skews results to that end. The much touted survey would surely be deemed invalid if it weren't for a vocal minority controlling the DWR. You see the survey only counted those who have already hunted elk, I believe we are to manage our resources for sustainability, wildlife included. It appears to me a valid survey would have also counted those who are in the system waiting to draw that coveted permit or yet too young to hunt big game but look forward to the day the will buy the license. Yes surveying someone who like me has shot numerous elk in numerous states will skew the results as I am in the last stage of hunter progression. However had I been surveyed as a 14 yr old my answers surely would have been different . So don't believe everything a survey tells you especially when written, conducted and summized by the group desiring results.

By the way I sat in the parking lot last night waiting to go into the RAC, after years of attending I decided I would not wast my time again turned around and headed home. The RAC process is a waste of time, I feel sorry for the poor RAC members sittting on the panel thinking they are doing good. Until they have enough balls to go against the establishment they are only puppets in the system.

 

[adamsoa]

I've been to a few RAC meetings over the years and it seems to be a waste of time. While there is occasionally some discussion, the RAC doesnt seem to listen to anything the public has to say.

Also the RAC's are useless. The Wildlife Board does whatever it wants in every occasion. They might take time to listen to the RAC's but more often than not they do something completely different. I'm not sure who the Board really represents but it doesnt seem to be the public.


respect my authorita

 

[huntin100]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-10 AT 02:38PM (MST)[p]Good post mule packer. But even a flawed survey said more people wanted opportunity and still maintain great quality. The system of using age only to manage LE elk units is poor biology, poor management, and poor for the health of elk herds. It is poor for recruitment of future hunters. NV did research on age and scoring of trophy bulls. It clearly shows that after a bull hits 6-8 yrs old genetics are more important than age. You can have 6 yr old 380 bulls and 10-12 yr old bulls 300 class.

I agree with others. Most people who hunt LE elk would be thrilled with a 320-330 bull. The majority have not even shot a 6 point bull in their life.

The current management is wrong. I agree with many others. I'm interested in 350 plus bulls. I'm not the majority. I hope others get the chance including friends and kids to have the chance to hunt a trophy bull in Utah. The odds will be getting worse with this management.

Keep 10 units great quality 6-8 yr old bulls, if you have to have a age marker.

Have 10 units good quality, 5-6 yr old.

Have the remaining 8 units 3-5 yr old. 280-320 type bulls with a few 350 bulls. The North cache has been 3-4 yr old bull area for years and still produces a few 370 to 400 class bulls almost every year.

Manage more like AZ, NV, and NM. We can still have great quality and double to triple the opportunity. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

[nebo12000]

So each one of you have your opinion about what is best for elk hunting. Your opinion is just one out of thousands. Any one remember what it was like to hunt elk 30-40 years ago in this state ? It started out you could draw hopefully once in your life, then it went to every 5 year over the counter tag, then every 3 years, then the bonus point system and elk hunting was closed on some units- some for 5 years. Went from around 5000 to 6000 elk in the state to over 68,000 now and a plan to maybe increase the number to 80,000 depending on habitat improvements. The attempt to increase elk numbers is a direct result of trying to INCREASE opportunity for more hunters. You can hunt elk every year if you want to. The fact remains- their is essentially something for everyone in the proposal. I sat with the elk committee for two of the meetings as an alternate, and I can ssure you that if the proposal was written only by big game managers it would have been drastically different. The survey was an honest attempt to gauge what the hunting public wanted-- not just special interest groups. In one part they wanted more opportunity then in two other parts they wanted to be able to kill a 340+ bull when they did draw. Most of you haven't lived long enough to appreciate what opportunity you have now. I remember when killing a 5 point bull was the ultimate experience and would probably be the apex of your elk hunting for your life. You say the RACs don't listen or act. I really wish each of you could have a seat at the table to make decisions and recommendations. You most likely see only your personal agenda-- until you realize and understand their are huge differences of opinions and good ideas that are not your own. Others opinions are just as valid as your own. There have been changes made in the proposals that have come directly from hunters and that the RACs have supported.
Also, in regards to a comment made in one of the posts that they should have ask people who haven't hunted elk-- the survey was sent to anyone that had applied for an elk permit-- successful or not.
The real test is yet to come. When the DWR reveals the antlerless tag numbers-- then we will see how serious they are in getting some of the units back to herd number objectives. Thats the next fight.
Remember also, every group had a seat at the table- archery groups, agriculture, land managers (FS BLM), CWMUs, MDF, RMEF,RAC reps. etc. The DWR followed the proposal by the committee except for a couple of areas. I wouldn't say the RACs don't do everything they can to represent public views.

 

[coyoteslayer]

It would be impossible for the racs to listen to every person at the meeting, and especially to make everybody happy. I can get up and tell the rac the best idea ever, and 50 people in that meeting may agree with me, but that is such a small sample of the population. I feel this is why SFW, UBA, and Dixie wildlife seem to always get what they want because when they give a proposal, they can say that we have 10,000 members supporting this idea. That carries a lot of weight compared to 3-4 voicing individual concerns at a rac. I am not a fan of many things the UBA proposes especially the state wide archery, but I will give them props for having the numbers behind them and going to every rac in the state. I believe this is why archery hunters get so much more opportunity than muzzleloader hunters, because there is no big group voicing their concerns for muzzleloader hunters. You can see how many different ideas are here on monstermuleys, it would be impossible to please even most people. You will not walk into a meeting as an individual very often and have the rac take you serious in my opinion. Its a numbers game.

 

[MulePacker]

I see Nebo stating our elk herd is 68,000 I have also heard from 64,000 on up being thrown around. Can anyone provide documentation of numbers. The last count (2008) I can find still lists the numbers at 58,000 which was the count prior to the last EMP indicating that in the past five years we did not realize an increase in our elk herd.

 

[nebo12000]

Mulepacker-- The 68,000 number is the number the DWR is using in their presentations in regards to increasing elk populations. I know sometimes the numbers can be skewed alot. But they are claiming there are 68,000 elk. I don't know if that is including the anticipated calf production for 2010. They sometimes include the yet unborn in their population estimates. It is interesting to note though that unit objective numbers are for actual number of animals after the hunting seasons are over.

 

[MulePacker]

Thanks for the answer. So it could be the 68,000 number is simply a guesstimate to market the DWR. I surely hope the DWR is not using unborn or even calfs in population calculation as population objectives are set for post hunt numbers. Truly we should set objectives which coincide with recruitment and productive members in order to achieve growth. I believe everyone needs to be on the same page, and 68,000 is not the number of elk in Utah we are not even close, In fact my observations indicate a slight decline in population, my observations are snapshots of specific wintering herds but they have proven as good indicators of trends for Utah elk. These observations also coincide with what research shows will happen as bull to cow ratios increase. Anyway my point is much of Utah's elk managment plan is based on specualtion and what ifs, this is unfair to future generations and the elk. As we put a 5 yr EMP in place it should be sound biology and science, not what a survey of elk hunters would like. Let the hunters and conservation groups function within the surplus animals, to simply create surplus animals to fund the system is IMO unethical and at least a plan that does not meet the requirements of responsible wildlife management. I challenge anyone to find a study indicating population growth by increasing old age class male animals, it won't happen in fact all studies I have found indicate just the opposite will result.

 

[hoytme]

"As we put a 5 yr EMP in place it should be sound biology and science, not what a survey of elk hunters would like. Let the hunters and conservation groups function within the surplus animals, to simply create surplus animals to fund the system is IMO unethical and at least a plan that does not meet the requirements of responsible wildlife management. I challenge anyone to find a study indicating population growth by increasing old age class male animals, it won't happen in fact all studies I have found indicate just the opposite will result."

Travis, I hope you don't mind if I 'steal' this and quote it at the WB next week. I think that sums it up better than I could ever come up with for sure.

 

[swbuckmaster]

mulepacker you know how to put words in my mouth.


keep talking!!

Nets are for fish!!