Southern RAC Meeting

[elkfromabove]

As usual with a heavy big game animal agenda, the meeting was 4 hours long. I missed the first half hour because of a family situation, but here's what happened on the action items per the printed agenda:

#5- R657-45 Wildlife License, Permit & COR Forms Rule amendment.
This is the amendment that allows us to purchase multi-year licenses at a possible discount. The numbers aren't yet determined per the Wildlife Board's approval, but it looks like the combo and hunting licenses are going up $6. This amendment would not only allow us to purchase a multi-year license, but it would give us a discount per year for doing so. The number proposed for the discount was $1 per year. Passed 8 to 2.

#6- R657-67 Utah Hunter Mentoring Program Rule amendment.
This amendment would remove the 10 day time requirement prior to the hunt for the submission of the written notice to share the adult's tag with the youth. This would allow the mentor to take more than just one of his children or grandchildren on the shorter hunts though he'll still only be able to share with one at a time and only one animal may be taken per tag. Passed unanimously.

#7- R657-13-7 Fishing With More Than One Pole Rule amendment.
This amendment allows fishing with more than one pole without having to purchase a second pole permit. Passed unanimously. If passed by the Wildlife Board, it will become effective July 1st.

#8- R657-60 Aquatic Invasion Species interdiction Rule amendment.
I'm sorry I didn't get all the details, but this amendment had to do with the increased number of waters (Lake Powell) where quagga mussels are found and the difficulty the DWR is having doing the cleaning and inspecting of boats and other equipment. If you have a boat, you'll need to be aware of any increased responsibilities for cleaning and penalties for failure to do so. Passed unanimously.

#9- Bucks, Bulls, OIAL & Antlerless Permit Recommendations for 2014.
There were actually 2 separate presentations and discussions on this item.

First, the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL tags were discussed. There were several amendments proposed from the audience and most had to do with the number of elk tags. The large contingents of ranchers and sportsmen (SFW) (about 20 each) had a bit of a disagreement on the number of elk counted and thus the number of tags proposed. There were conflicting numbers coming from all sides including the DWR, BLM and Forest Service as well as the ranchers and SFW. It was a relatively calm discussion, and the final bull elk amendment that passed ended up being 10 more bull elk tags on the Southwest Desert.

Another amendment that passed was to keep the same number of buck tags as 2013 on the Paunsagunt and the Henry Mountains instead of the proposed increase. The Friends of the Paunsagunt felt there hadn't been enough of a change in the trophy quality of the bucks per the management buck program to merit the increase.

The only other Bucks, Bulls and OIAL discussion had to do with the number of Desert Bighorn tags on the Zion unit. There was some concern about the quality (isolation) of the hunt with the tag increase, but it was pointed out by the division that with the latest count of 850 the herd was WAY over the initial objective and that the season is long enough to spread out the hunters and no actual proposal was made to change the presented numbers.

With the 2 passed amendments, the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL numbers as presented by the DWR passed, 6 to 4.

It's late and I'll continue the update in the morning with a second post. Good Night!

 

[tallbuck1]

Thanks for the updates, I appreciate you going and sharing the results with us!



Tallbuck1

 

[elkfromabove]

Good morning! Continuing the Southern RAC Meeting update. Item #9

While the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL discussion was more casual, the Antlerless discussion took on quite a different flavor! Again, the numbers came from all directions, but since they all knew that the cows were critical to the ultimate numbers of elk in the hills and in the fields, we had a lot more questions and comments from the audience. (Sometimes it was hard to tell where the questions ended and the comments began.) FWIW, I also was glad to hear the RAC chair say that each group only got 5 minutes regardless of where they cam from. SFW Beaver, SFW Iron, SFW Sevier, SFW State, etc. were all considered one group and even if they claimed to speak for their chapter, once one of them got 5 minutes, the rest only got 3 minutes just like individuals.

Whenever a rancher (most of them were Yardleys) got up to talk about the elk (and deer) in their fields fields, Kevin tried to explain that the DWR is more than willing to work something out with them. However, most of them weren't buying it based on previous encounters and the fact that the numbers given by the division were above promised population objectives. There were even thinly veiled promises that if the DWR didn't take care of the problem in the prescribed timely manner, the ranchers would take care of it themselves. Also, several of them said they had held their own separate meetings (napkin style) without the DWR, so that's why they all showed up and why they were in unison on the proposals to increase the antlerless elk tags. And, of course, the recent Bundy Ranch fiasco was also cited as an incentive to take on government agencies. Apparently, the local ranchers have had enough of government agencies "trying to put us out of business" per the Endangered Species Act, hunting regulations and wild horse regulations (see below).

Bottom line, with a promise from the DWR to address any specific problems with emergency hunts via current policy, the DWR's original antlerless tag numbers passed 6 to 4.

FWIW, Because the Panguitch Lake deer herd is 3,200 animals over population objective and also over buck to doe ratio, and because of the continuing destruction of the winter range on the Parowan Front where 80% of the herd winters, United Wildlife Cooperative Southern Region Chapter proposed a 200 tag increase on the Parowan Front antlerless deer hunts which would go to the youth. This proposal was included in the final amendment with the antlerless elk numbers. But, because of the promised emergency hunts, the amendment didn't pass. So, I guess we'll just kick the can (now a 55 gallon drum) down the road another year and hope this drought or a range fire or a hard winter doesn't deal that range a fatal blow. (However, maybe we'll make the same proposal to the Wildlife Board to see how that goes.)

#10- Antlerless CWMU Voucher/Permit Recommendations for 2014.
Not much discussion, but feelings were still running high from the previous discussion and the vote showed that. Passed as proposed 6 to 4.

#11- Other Business.
A letter was sent to the DWR (and others) by the BLM indicating that they are unable to control the number of wild horses and burros in the Southwest Desert and elsewhere in Utah under the current federal regulations and they have asked the local ranchers to voluntarily cut their grazing allotments as much as 50% in order to save the wild horses. They also urged the DWR to manage wildlife in a manner that would allow the wild horses and burros to survive. RMEF, along with other groups, has indorsed and sent a letter to the BLM, telling them to control the populations on their own as they promised, by doing sterilization, killing, moving, changing laws or whatever they need to do. After the letter was read, all of the groups at the RAC wholeheartedly supported it. That was good to see and thus the RAC meeting ended on a great note!

Now, let's hear about the other RAC's!

Lee Tracy
United Wildlife Cooperative
Southern Region Chair

 

[UGAhunter]

Thanks for the info. It took a lot of time to put that together, and I'm sure more than I appreciate it!

 

[Zeke]

Great reporting Mr elkfromabove! Thank you!

One question about the Zion sheep tags; There was a proposed increase in the Zion desert sheep tags. Are you saying there was no vote either way? As in, no vote to accept the increase in tags or reject it?

If there was no vote does that mean that they simple accept, through default, the tag increase?

Thanks,
Zeke

 

[elkfromabove]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-14 AT 11:41PM (MST)[p]>Great reporting Mr elkfromabove! Thank you!
>
>
>One question about the Zion sheep
>tags; There was a proposed
>increase in the Zion desert
>sheep tags. Are you saying
>there was no vote either
>way? As in, no vote
>to accept the increase in
>tags or reject it?
>
>If there was no vote does
>that mean that they simple
>accept, through default, the tag
>increase?
>
>Thanks,
>Zeke

You're sorta correct. In order to have a vote on any of the presentation DWR numbers separately, there has to be a specific amendment proposal made and seconded by 2 RAC members. The Zion sheep tags were discussed by both the audience and the RAC, actually at some length, but in the end there was no amendment proposal made by the RAC to change the DWR numbers so the DWR numbers with the increase remained as part of the final vote which passed. FWIW, there were several proposals made throughout the meeting that didn't get a second, so they died before a vote was made.

 

[big6]

OK first off I want to say Thanks to Mr. Lee for taking the time to put this together. I know how much time it takes to write up all this info.

Second I am sure I will take some heat for this but I am leaving for the cabin here in about an hour so I will reply to the comments on Monday. I am thick skinned and I can take the backlash but I am sick of seeing SFW MDF UWC and RMEF point the finger at each other. stick to your guns and do what you say you will do. I am a member of 3 of those named groups. They all have a different goal, One goal they do have in common though is that they want to see more wildlife on the ground with opportunity for everyone.

Ok, its not that big of deal but where in the hell did you learn how to count Lee? 20 SFW members ya right.

Mr. Lee States "First, the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL tags were discussed. There were several amendments proposed from the audience and most had to do with the number of elk tags. The large contingents of ranchers and sportsmen (SFW) (about 20 each) had a bit of a disagreement on the number of elk counted and thus the number of tags proposed. There were conflicting numbers coming from all sides including the DWR, BLM and Forest Service as well as the ranchers and SFW. It was a relatively calm discussion, and the final bull elk amendment that passed ended up being 10 more bull elk tags on the Southwest Desert."

If you take away all the DWR employees and the RAC members There were not 40 people in that room the other night. SFW had 5 people there and one of them left after the paunsagunt deer tags were voted on. This left 4 for the rest of the big game permit numbers.

SFW did not argue with the DWR elk count and they did not comment on elk numbers for the increase or decrease.

also there may have been close to 20 ranchers in the room but only 5 or 6 of them stood up to comment or ask questions.

next thing the only conflicting numbers at the meeting were DWR and the ranchers. DWR was the only one who presented numbers cattleman called BS and said we need to kill more elk on the beaver Panguitch and south west desert. Forest service never presented any numbers nor did the BLM.

Mr. Lee States: While the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL discussion was more casual, the Antlerless discussion took on quite a different flavor! Again, the numbers came from all directions, but since they all knew that the cows were critical to the ultimate numbers of elk in the hills and in the fields, we had a lot more questions and comments from the audience.. (Sometimes it was hard to tell where the questions ended and the comments began.) FWIW, I also was glad to hear the RAC chair say that each group only got 5 minutes regardless of where they cam from. SFW Beaver, SFW Iron, SFW Sevier, SFW State, etc. were all considered one group and even if they claimed to speak for their chapter, once one of them got 5 minutes, the rest only got 3 minutes just like individuals

Again the cattleman were the only ones to have conflicting numbers.
Also the RAC chair never put a time limit of 3 minutes onto anybody they all had 5 minutes of time if needed. most people only needed about 2 minutes. the only people that needed 5 min. was one from the UWC don't know if that was Lee but it took 2 minutes to get to the microphone 3 minutes to talk and another 2 minutes to find his chair. This was also the same case for the other person that needed 5 minutes.
UWC had 2 people there SFW had 5 people there and cattleman had like I said maybe 20 but only 5-6 of them commented.
SFW BEAVER was represented SFW State was represented and SFW Garfield/Kane was represented. They did not have anybody from Sevier county they may have had one from Iron I don't know, but there was not 20 of them there that night.

Next thing Mr. Lee states: Whenever a rancher (most of them were Yardley's) got up to talk about the elk (and deer) in their fields, Kevin tried to explain that the DWR is more than willing to work something out with them. However, most of them weren't buying it based on previous encounters and the fact that the numbers given by the division were above promised population objectives. There were even thinly veiled promises that if the DWR didn't take care of the problem in the prescribed timely manner, the ranchers would take care of it themselves. Also, several of them said they had held their own separate meetings (napkin style) without the DWR, so that's why they all showed up and why they were in unison on the proposals to increase the antlerless elk tags.

No meeting was ever held by the ranchers (napkin style) they simply said we are having a meeting the first of may for the cattleman's association and we would like the DWR present. Kevin nominated himself to be present. the Cattleman were not in unison on their numbers. That is why Yardleys wanted all the cow tags on the west side and Gleaves, Allans wanted them by Circleville Kingston and Marysville. Dale Bagley had no clue about the new hunt proposal and tried to split all the tags up equally.
Yes the division talked about emergency hunts no promises were ever made. How do you make promises to ranchers like the Gleavs and Allan's that no matter what you do they are never happy. How many elk have been killed by Mr. Allan? what has the DWR done for him? the state has reimbursed the damages that did not work he kept on shooting. They gave him fence material and offered to put it up as dedicated hunter hours. This did not work, the fence was still not up last time I checked. He turned down the dedicated hunters and volunteers and so the fencing material sits in the dirt on his land. ( this was last I checked they may have put it up by now but from the meeting the other night I assume its still not up). The point is these guys are never happy no matter what you do but the UWC sided with these ranchers in increasing the cow elk permit numbers.

There was a discussion about the antlerless permit numbers on the beaver that went on for 1.5 hours. It never should have happened. If the 2 RAC members ( Dale Bagley and Mack Morrell) and the UWC would have read the RAC packet before they got to the meeting they would have seen that there was a new hunt proposal for the beaver valley. It was the next item on the agenda, but instead we had a discussion for 1.5 hours about tag numbers and moving them to the northwest side of the beaver and over to Circleville and over here and over there. Once they got all there amendments shut down pulled their heads out of there a** and moved on to the new hunt proposal they were all happy again. They realized that the old permit numbers would cover the Circleville side and the mountain then the new hunt would cover the west side. Wow how easy was that to figure out.

The thing that pissed me off about all the discussion that went on with elk is this. RMEF had 1 representative at this meeting yes I said 1. during all the discussion on ELK he never stood to make a comment or question he did nothing. he sat back with his arms folded in his chair. then at the end of the meeting the only thing he commented on was that the RMEF supports the dwr in taking action with the BLM to help with the wild horse problem in Utah. Really! That is the whole reason you showed up to the meeting for RMEF.

My point is people, if you don't get out to your RAC meeting you will have no clue what is going on. Lee could have sat here and fed you all full of BS and nobody would have known the difference. some of his stuff is BS and even though it is minor stuff I wanted to point it out.

The other point I wanted to get across is this. At the meeting the other night I rode to the meeting with one of the RAC members and I had already read the whole RAC packet. I asked him multiple questions and he knew the topics that were in the packet. When we arrived to the meeting I watched as some of these guys opened up there RAC packets for the first time. They had no clue What was being discussed until the night of the meeting.

My Question to all of you in southern Utah is Why do we have them representing us as sportsman, cattleman and other groups? Mack and Dale are just 2 that I named, their were others there that had no clue. Harry Barber, Sam Carpenter, Rusty Aiken and Layne Torgerson, they had their packets open before they got there you could tell by the comments and question they had for the division. They were reading notes they had made and presented themselves very well. if a question was directed at them they knew the answers and had done the research. they didn't just pull numbers from outer space and make it up THEY HAD ANSWERS AND THEY WERE ON TOP OF THINGS. Mack Morrell held up the meeting because he had to do some math from some numbers in the rac packet. well if he would have opened his packet before he got there he could have had all his math worked out and ready to ask questions, instead we waited on him to do his work. This is BULL SH** and we as sportsman should be fed up with this.

I encourage everybody that has interest and time invested to helping wildlife and rebuilding our habitat, fences, stream beds, and other projects I challenge you all to attend your regional meetings this year. I challenge you all to watch the website for the rac packets and when they come out read them. if you have question email the rac members email your board members send them letters call them for hell sake. they are here to represent us, make them do what they are on the board to do.

The UWC ( LEE ) proposed the other night to have 200 head of deer killed out on the Parowan front. He suggested they go to youth and that is fine, but when our deer herd is struggling in most units I would rather see them continue with the transplants.

the way I look at it is this. We can go out and kill these does with a rifle and take care of the habitat that way, or we can continue on with the transplants and continue to learn how to relocate these deer to struggling units. Yes it cost the taxpayers money, Yes we will have some mortalitys from the transplants. Last I checked the deer that were relocated 1st we have had a 50% survival rate. That is just that many more deer saved compared to killing them.


Sorry for all the typos and grammar problems I am doing this from my phone so it is pretty tough.

 

[elkfromabove]

Really? I was that far off? I won't argue the numbers because I have no way of knowing the exact numbers of people. I didn't make any special effort to count but when you see several close knit groups of people, some with SFW (or MDF or RMEF) logos on hats and clothing, who's to know who's who? And with the crowd as mixed (and moving) as it was, it's as bad as counting deer. All I know is that there were a whole lot more people there than there usually is at a RAC meeting. And a whole lot of them spoke up.

And maybe there wasn't specifically a Sevier SFW rep there, but that was just my example of the point the RAC chair made about only allowing one SFW rep to take 5 minutes. There were enough of them speaking with the intent of taking their 5 minutes that he noticed. Plus this isn't the first time that the 5 minute per chapter thing has happened. It's quite frequent in the Southern RAC. Also, I didn't time any speaker but myself and I didn't take 5 minutes.

The majority of the discussion about elk was, indeed, mixed and quite confusing, but I'll wait until I get a chance to read the minutes before I'll address that. One thing I know about Gianni, she records and then types EVERY audible word in the minutes, even all of our stutters, ahs, ohs, and mmm's!

And if there was another UWC member there, I didn't know him. Nor did he speak for UWC.

As far as the proposal to add 200 doe tags to the Parowan Front, I didn't get into the background which started those transplants and our proposal because the RAC has already heard the reasons. In fact, Rusty Aiken was on the original range ride and knows the situation first hand. He and the RAC know that even with the transplants, we're only taking 1/2 the number of does off that damaged winter range each year that we need to take and as a consequence we now have about 2,560 more deer than the range can handle. It's just a matter of time before a drought (this year?), range fire or bad winter causes that herd to crash and the 200 dead does will be viewed a lot differently than they are now.

And how does moving more deer to a struggling unit improve the struggling unit? It's struggling for a reason and adding more deer could only make it worse.

Also, FWIW I did review the whole packet for about a week before going and had also made notes (mostly just questions), but sometimes a 72 year old man forgets to take things, so just because I picked up the shortened version packet there, doesn't mean I hadn't read it.

AND UWC (LEE) knew about the new Beaver hunt, but that item hadn't come up yet and, even than, it wasn't an issue. In fact, UWC (LEE) never spoke a word while all that elk stuff was going because I didn't want to get into the fray, so how can you assume UWC sided with the ranchers. I was just waiting on the RAC's recommendations before deciding to support or not support the numbers. And in the end, the only thing that changed was the 10 more bull tags on the Southwest Desert which was ok with us. Now, if you're referring to us as somehow being at fault for not stopping the argument, where were you?

Again, it's late and I'm no longer having fun. I'll get back to this later.

 

[elkfromabove]

I'm still not sure I'm having fun with this thread, but I needed to get back to it.

I'm not sure where the perceived finger pointing comes in, but be assured our disagreements aren't personal nor are they targeted at any group. However, I (and UWC) will disagree with any POLICY that we deem to be detrimental to our mission statement and to the resources and/or the outdoor activities of the majority of Utah's sportsmen and women. In fact, there are, and have been, and will be many projects, proposals and opportunities for all parties to cooperate and agree on, but on some issues we will differ and if that is considered finger pointing that's unfortunate.

Because of those differences, RAC and Wildlife Board meetings can get a little out of hand at times and some folks allow emotions to direct their remarks. As a result, we may view those remarks differently. Basically, you readers have two versions of the meeting and I'm sure if you had been there, we would have had three versions. In any case, the numbers and recommendations were what they were and if you disagree with the results, then make that known to the Wildlife Board who meets on the 1st of May.

For now, I've got a life to live outside of this thread, though I'm not sure I'm up to trying to beat my grandkids to the hidden Easter eggs. Even the little ones are faster than me now! Talk to you later!

 

[theox]

OHHH boy the blm has some dumb B%$^^^#s over there! Im glad they told the blm where to put it! These feral horses are a problem for all sportsman and ranchers! There numbers are outta control! Glad they told them to manage the horses themselves!

On another note gotta say I hate the mentor program! It is only gonna increase applicants of people that dont hunt inorder to better the childs odds of hunting. Im all for youth hunters but I dont like the idea.

 

[elkfromabove]

>Really? I was that far off?
>I won't argue the numbers
>because I have no way
>of knowing the exact numbers
>of people. I didn't make
>any special effort to count
>but when you see several
>close knit groups of people,
>some with SFW (or MDF
>or RMEF) logos on hats
>and clothing, who's to know
>who's who? And with the
>crowd as mixed (and moving)
>as it was, it's as
>bad as counting deer. All
>I know is that there
>were a whole lot more
>people there than there usually
>is at a RAC meeting.
>And a whole lot of
>them spoke up.
>
>And maybe there wasn't specifically a
>Sevier SFW rep there, but
>that was just my example
>of the point the RAC
>chair made about only allowing
>one SFW rep to take
>5 minutes. There were enough
>of them speaking with the
>intent of taking their 5
>minutes that he noticed. Plus
>this isn't the first time
>that the 5 minute per
>chapter thing has happened. It's
>quite frequent in the Southern
>RAC. Also, I didn't time
>any speaker but myself and
>I didn't take 5 minutes.
>
>
>The majority of the discussion about
>elk was, indeed, mixed and
>quite confusing, but I'll wait
>until I get a chance
>to read the minutes before
>I'll address that. One thing
>I know about Gianni, she
>records and then types EVERY
>audible word in the minutes,
>even all of our stutters,
>ahs, ohs, and mmm's!
>
>And if there was another UWC
>member there, I didn't know
>him. Nor did he speak
>for UWC.
>
>As far as the proposal to
>add 200 doe tags to
>the Parowan Front, I didn't
>get into the background which
>started those transplants and our
>proposal because the RAC has
>already heard the reasons. In
>fact, Rusty Aiken was on
>the original range ride and
>knows the situation first hand.
>He and the RAC know
>that even with the transplants,
>we're only taking 1/2 the
>number of does off that
>damaged winter range each year
>that we need to take
>and as a consequence we
>now have about 2,560 more
>deer than the range can
>handle. It's just a matter
>of time before a drought
>(this year?), range fire or
>bad winter causes that herd
>to crash and the 200
>dead does will be viewed
>a lot differently than they
>are now.
>
>And how does moving more deer
>to a struggling unit improve
>the struggling unit? It's struggling
>for a reason and adding
>more deer could only make
>it worse.
>
>Also, FWIW I did review the
>whole packet for about a
>week before going and had
>also made notes (mostly just
>questions), but sometimes a 72
>year old man forgets to
>take things, so just because
>I picked up the shortened
>version packet there, doesn't mean
>I hadn't read it.
>
>AND UWC (LEE) knew about the
>new Beaver hunt, but that
>item hadn't come up yet
>and, even than, it wasn't
>an issue. In fact, UWC
>(LEE) never spoke a word
>while all that elk stuff
>was going because I didn't
>want to get into the
>fray, so how can you
>assume UWC sided with the
>ranchers. I was just waiting
>on the RAC's recommendations before
>deciding to support or not
>support the numbers. And in
>the end, the only thing
>that changed was the 10
>more bull tags on the
>Southwest Desert which was ok
>with us. Now, if you're
>referring to us as somehow
>being at fault for not
>stopping the argument, where were
>you?
>
>Again, it's late and I'm no
>longer having fun. I'll get
>back to this later.

I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but per the written minutes I missed some things and got some things right. I guess I need to take better notes.

For instance, there were "approximately 48 interested parties in attendance in addition to RAC members, members of the Wildlife Board (Jake Albrecht) and Division employees." (Total of 75 without counting me since I came late.)

Maybe there weren't 20 actual SFW members there, but they were disproportionately represented with Todd Abelhouzen - SFW St. George, Donnie Hunter - SFW Iron County, Gary Syrett - SFW Garfield/Kane County, Taylor Albrecht - SFW Bryce and Garfield, Brayden Richmond - SFW State Board and also SFW Beaver County each making comments. And that's not counting Rusty Aiken (and Layne Torgerson?) on the RAC.

The ranchers who spoke were Gib Yardley, Pete Yardley, Darrell Yardley, Lee R. Yardley, Joe Yardley, Gates Nowers, Stanton Gleave, Gary Allen and Chris Smith. These guys were throwing all kinds of number around including numbers in their own fields as well as DWR objectives.

It's true that the USFS didn't give actual numbers and I misspoke on that point, but USFS rep Amy Barker, Beaver District ranger was part of the discussion and read a 300+ word letter (in behalf of Jason Kling, Richfield District; Bill Barnhurst, Fillmore District and Kurt Robbins, Fremont River) recommending "the Division consider short-term aggressive antlerless management to help decrease potential impacts to aspen regeneration on Monroe Mountain." This recommendation also extended to Beaver Mountain. Later in the discussion, Jason Graham, Richfield District ranger, when asked for a recommendation of specific numbers replied "No, we don't have a specific number in mind. We've always counted on our partnerships and our working relationships with the state folks to help us determine what the number should be."

And no BLM rep offered numbers.

John Keller, Utah Farm Bureau, was also involved in the discussion and there were some current numbers discussed by and with him along with previous numbers.

All in all, it was an interesting meeting and the outcome was as I stated. Let's see how this plays out in the Wildlife Board meeting.