Swan Closure

Tikka

Long Time Member
Messages
4,734
They reached 20 Trumpeters shot this year and closed the hunt…
But hey at least this guy earned his…
E73C7A11-9405-4BD2-A082-571A3B1CD334.jpeg
 
Ugh, I assumed the trumpeters would all be shot by accident ….because it’s a tundra hunt, right?Obviously I’m wrong.

Ya, I got the email too and it seems like a pretty early closure …again.
Zeke
 
There are plenty of trumpeter Swans. In fact there are more now than in previous years. That's why they are getting shot at such a fast pace. There really is no need to limit their harvest. They do it mostly for public perception.

Most people, me included, cant tell the difference between trumpeter and tundra when they are flying unless they are flying together and then the size difference is noticeable. Or, if they are calling.

The DWR put a waiting period on people that shoot a trumpeter. I'm sure it had little deterence to anyone. I'm pretty sure I would shoot one too Given n the chance.
 
“There are plenty of trumpeter Swans. In fact there are more now than in previous years. That's why they are getting shot at such a fast pace. There really is no need to limit their harvest. They do it mostly for public perception.”

The number of trumpeter swans and weather or not they have huntable numbers is not up to you or I… That’s up to the feds and we all take the orientation class before applying..,

Accidents happen, but targeting them should not!
 
“There are plenty of trumpeter Swans. In fact there are more now than in previous years. That's why they are getting shot at such a fast pace. There really is no need to limit their harvest. They do it mostly for public perception.”

The number of trumpeter swans and weather or not they have huntable numbers is not up to you or I… That’s up to the feds and we all take the orientation class before applying..,

Accidents happen, but targeting them should not!
Is it illegal to shoot a trumpeter?

"While it is strongly discouraged, shooting protected trumpeters is legal in Utah"
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to know how many were accidentally shot and how many were targeted.
The DWR acknowledges that they are very hard to identify and are easily mistaken for tundra.
The only person I know who has shot one didn't know it was a trumpeter when he shot it. Four Swans came into his decoys. They were all similar size. He shot one and it ended up being a trumpeter. That was four years ago. He is an experienced waterfowl hunter and he couldn't tell the difference.
 
It would be interesting to know how many were accidentally shot and how many were targeted.
The DWR acknowledges that they are very hard to identify and are easily mistaken for tundra.
The only person I know who has shot one didn't know it was a trumpeter when he shot it. Four Swans came into his decoys. They were all similar size. He shot one and it ended up being a trumpeter. That was four years ago. He is an experienced waterfowl hunter and he couldn't tell the difference.
To me that is the perfect example of why they don’t make it illegal. Because it is extremely tough to differentiate between the two and they are shot by pure accident. I think what people have a problem with are individuals specifically targeting Trumpeters like in the post above.
 
Last edited:
They should make it a 10-year waiting period for shooting a trumpeter, and a lifetime ban for someone who deliberately targets them. At least until the trumpeters make full comeback.
Most likely it will be 10 years before they hunt them again. 5 year waiting period plus it will probably take 5 plus years to draw again the way things are going. In my opinion that’s pretty substantial if it’s accidental. If it’s deliberate that’s another story.
 
They should make it a 10-year waiting period for shooting a trumpeter, and a lifetime ban for someone who deliberately targets them. At least until the trumpeters make full comeback.
What would a full comeback look like?
Right now, there are over 60,000 Trumpeter swans. Shooting 20 is .0003% of the population.

I agree that people shouldn't target them, but I bet it would be tough to pass one up.
 
I'm sitting out here scouting swans, as I read it's closed. This is the week for hunting swans. Unless youre one of the douche nozzles that are on the clubs up north.

The guides are PAID to know their species. Time to hit the guides. It's a poorly kept secret who is responsible for the majority of trumpeter kills. Perhaps let them sit 5 years without a guide license for targeting them.

I've passed several because I wasn't sure.

We are talking difference in elk and deer.

Pisses me off dudes make a paycheck, while screwing thousands of dudes.
 
this guy is an idiot for posting how deliberate and intentional his trumpeter swan harvest was.

This hunt is controversial with non-hunters. Stuff like this doesn’t paint a good picture for waterfowlers at all! I am glad he helped many other people harvest birds. I am also happy I got my tundra before the closure this year!
 
What would a full comeback look like?
Right now, there are over 60,000 Trumpeter swans. Shooting 20 is .0003% of the population.

I agree that people shouldn't target them, but I bet it would be tough to pass one up.

Not that hard. Sitting in my truck tonight I've had 500+ cross me.

It's just the modern " sportsmen" ethic. F everyone, I got mine for the Gram
 
this guy is an idiot for posting how deliberate and intentional his trumpeter swan harvest was.

This hunt is controversial with non-hunters. Stuff like this doesn’t paint a good picture for waterfowlers at all! I am glad he helped many other people harvest birds. I am also happy I got my tundra before the closure this year!


Oh, come on. If we listen to these clowns, it's impossible to not shoot one

Your 1000% correct. The story will be in all the papers, and a holes like this dude, will be the poster child for the rest of us.


I'm pissed, obviously. Another of those dudes who will pull the "we all need to stick together" line.
 
I am not a waterfowl hunter, and have absolutely no desire to shoot a swan, I didn't even know this was a thing until I watched one of the wildlife board meetings last year where they discussed this problem at length.

This douche nozzle above is absolutely one of the most selfish individuals in the hunting community. I could care less that he helped 5 dudes kill a swan. He knew that killing a trump would potentially close the season and apparently he is knowledgeable enough to be able to tell the difference. He just screwed hundreds of guys (or more i have no idea how many tags they give out) from being able to hunt swans. He is absolutely ?% a selfish prick.

If I was interested in this kind of hunting I would be pissed. Need to make killing a trump a once-in-a-lifetime event, you kill one and you ate done for life.
 
Not that hard. Sitting in my truck tonight I've had 500+ cross me.

It's just the modern " sportsmen" ethic. F everyone, I got mine for the Gram
Right, right!! If it’s as easy to differentiate them as a Mallard and a Teal or an Elk and a Deer why the orientation course? Why wouldn’t they make it illegal to shoot one if it’s so easy to tell them apart?
 
Last edited:
Right, right!! If it’s as easy to differentiate them as a Mallard and a Teal or an Elk and a Deer why the orientation course? Why wouldn’t they make it illegal to shoot one if it’s so easy to tell them apart?

They don't want to penalize accidents. Same reason they have bear courses.

It's not coincidence that with the IG, FB, Snap, suddenly the quota is getting hit yearly, and earlier.
 
Got Me A Trumpeter & Didn't Even Have A Permit For One!

I Didn't Have To Draw!

I Didn't Have To Spend Money & Time Trying To Pull a Permit!

I Promise You It Was An Honest Mistake!

The Above Seems To Be The Attitude Of Some!
 
I would say the Trumpeter population increasing is the biggest reason for it.
The DWR acknowleged this in their RAC meeting when they made the waiting period for shooting a trumpeter. The quota used to be 10. Then they increased it to 20. Maybe it's time to increase it to 40 or 50 seeing the Trumpeters numbers are increasing every year.
It certainly wouldn't hurt anything.
 
I would say the Trumpeter population increasing is the biggest reason for it.

You realize that's the whole point right? That's WHY we have a quota. To establish populations here, and throughout the flyway.

Dude LITERALLY posts that he targeted one, and you try to deny it and claim accident?

He's shooting decoying swans not pass overs at 50yrds. So he's watched them come in, watched them circle, watched them set their wings, watched them drop their legs. But can't see OR HEAR the difference?

Or, maybe, he spent "6full days" trying to pop a Trump?
 
You realize that's the whole point right? That's WHY we have a quota. To establish populations here, and throughout the flyway.

Dude LITERALLY posts that he targeted one, and you try to deny it and claim accident?

He's shooting decoying swans not pass overs at 50yrds. So he's watched them come in, watched them circle, watched them set their wings, watched them drop their legs. But can't see OR HEAR the difference?

Or, maybe, he spent "6full days" trying to pop a Trump?
You say the quota is being reached for Instagram, Facebook, etc. fame and that is the reason the season is getting shut down early. So I figured that was your point? ?

I don’t believe I ever denied that the guy in the photo targeted a Trumpeter??
I never claimed his was accidental??

What I have said is it is difficult to differentiate between the two and accidents do happen!

You however claim it’s like comparing an elk and a deer or a mallard vs. a teal. Then you say “I’ve passed several because I wasn’t sure”. Which is it??
 
The unintentional taking of a Trumpeter is understandable. The intentional taking of a Trumpeter Swan should be a crime.
Exactly!

I would bet 99.% of hunters couldn’t tell the difference between either when they are in the air.
 
You say the quota is being reached for Instagram, Facebook, etc. fame and that is the reason the season is getting shut down early. So I figured that was your point? ?

I don’t believe I ever denied that the guy in the photo targeted a Trumpeter??
I never claimed his was accidental??

What I have said is it is difficult to differentiate between the two and accidents do happen!

You however claim it’s like comparing an elk and a deer or a mallard vs. a teal. Then you say “I’ve passed several because I wasn’t sure”. Which is it??


It is, the thing I learned both from my dad, and in hunters safety in 1988,

BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET.

I've had over 20 swan tags. I'm sure it's just coincidence I've not **** a Trump.

Or perhaps it's something else?
 
I've been thinking and I'm gonna reach out to DWR.

The BR duck clubs for their own goose zone. Got a "million dollars" you get to dictate that I guess.

I'm proposing 2swan zones.

If the chuckleheads up on BR an the surrounding clubs want to chase trump's and see how quick they can end their season, let them have it.

I'm proposing northern and southern swan zones Different tags. 10 Trump's dead in each.
 
First of all, it is not illegal to shoot a Trumpeter. Is it selfish, sure, but it’s not illegal. The DWR acknowledges this and even said as much in the mtgs. They are trying to protect the Yellowstone flock but from what I’m hearing it may be that we’re not even shooting birds from Yellowstone.

The one thing I agree with is that perhaps they should establish two zones until they complete thier feather study. Once we establish where the birds are originating then we can either adjust the quota or eliminate it altogether.

A northern zone that includes Bear River and Public Shooting grounds and then the rest of the state with either a 10/10 ratio or 15/5 ratio would likely get us thru the entire season in the greater zone.

I think that is a great idea.
 
The intentional taking of a Trumpeter Swan should be a crime.

Why?

If the species required this, I’d be all for it. But the very fact that they allow a buffer, and the buffer/quota was even recently doubled more than suggests the species doesn’t require such a crime to be associated with killing one, even intentionally.

So I ask again, why should it be a crime?
 
I don’t think it’s merely coincidental that the only 4 years we have ever hit the quota coincide with the only 4 years PSG has been a part of the swan hunting area.

Take PSG back out of the area and you take care of a large part of this issue. There will still be trumps killed and some will do so intentionally, but it’s no secret that the trumps congregate at PSG for some reason. Just remove it like it was pre-2019 and see what happens to the trump killing numbers.
 
I don’t think it’s merely coincidental that the only 4 years we have ever hit the quota coincide with the only 4 years PSG has been a part of the swan hunting area.

Take PSG back out of the area and you take care of a large part of this issue. There will still be trumps killed and some will do so intentionally, but it’s no secret that the trumps congregate at PSG for some reason. Just remove it like it was pre-2019 and see what happens to the trump killing numbers.
Bingo. It comes to more location than anything. I promise you hossy would get a trumpeter if he was hunting another area…
 
The problem isn’t the trumpeters getting shot. It’s the knuckleheads that advertise the targeting and killing of a species that is controversial. All it does is stir the pot and start a fight with crazed animal rights junkies who don’t understand biology. It would be nice if this hunt continues without nonsense litigation.
 
The unintentional taking of a Trumpeter is understandable. The intentional taking of a Trumpeter Swan should be a crime.
I would like to see it handled slightly different.
I would like any ‘hunter’ that has at least one Swan kill under their belt and kills a Trumpeter to lose their waterfowling priveliges for one year.
It still allows someone to kill their ‘prized’ Trumpeter but now they are having their hunting stopped also.
If killing a Trumpeter is so special to them then it is worth it right?
It is BS that .07% of Swan tag holders can make such a selfish decision to have the power to stop 1000 hunters from continuing their hunt.
 
I don’t think it’s merely coincidental that the only 4 years we have ever hit the quota coincide with the only 4 years PSG has been a part of the swan hunting area.

Take PSG back out of the area and you take care of a large part of this issue. There will still be trumps killed and some will do so intentionally, but it’s no secret that the trumps congregate at PSG for some reason. Just remove it like it was pre-2019 and see what happens to the trump killing numbers.
This…

100% truth.
 
Why take a beautiful area to hunt away from thousands of hunters just due to some selfish people?
Do what I suggested and take the entire State away from the few experienced Swan hunters that are intent on killing Trumpeters and in the process screwing their fellow hunters out of opportunity.
 
I’m not going to ever be in favor of taking away hunting privileges from someone who is obeying the law and doing nothing wrong.

The swan quota is really no different than a harvest objective quota. Think lions. Once a predetermined number of lions gets hit the hunt area shuts down. Should the successful lion hunters be punished for being successful?

For this reason I like the idea of creating a small zone that separates the majority of the marshes from Public. Give two different quotas. I think this would solve the problem of early closures while the study can be completed and better information gained for long term decisions to be implemented.
 
Why?

If the species required this, I’d be all for it. But the very fact that they allow a buffer, and the buffer/quota was even recently doubled more than suggests the species doesn’t require such a crime to be associated with killing one, even intentionally.

So I ask again, why should it be a crime?
The fact that it's a maximum quota, and not a season, is the proof the species requires it.

Just because there's maximum allowable amount as a requisite for a Tundra hunt in no way is evidence there's an acceptable number of Trumpeters to subject them to an intentional taking. If that was the case, they'd have a limited Trumpeter season up to that maximum level.

As an analogy... Society allows justified homicide in certain circumstances, but if a court finds you intentionally went into that situation looking for a fight, the outcome will likely be very different. That's also why we have manslaughter as opposed to varying degrees of homicide, intention matters. It's the same situation here.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see it handled slightly different.
I would like any ‘hunter’ that has at least one Swan kill under their belt and kills a Trumpeter to lose their waterfowling priveliges for one year.
It still allows someone to kill their ‘prized’ Trumpeter but now they are having their hunting stopped also.
If killing a Trumpeter is so special to them then it is worth it right?
It is BS that .07% of Swan tag holders can make such a selfish decision to have the power to stop 1000 hunters from continuing their hunt.
I really, really want a bald eagle mount.

It was foggy that day and I thought it was a slow-flying goose. Can I have my freebie bald eagle and if I shoot a second one then I'll get in trouble?
 
I don’t think it’s merely coincidental that the only 4 years we have ever hit the quota coincide with the only 4 years PSG has been a part of the swan hunting area.

Take PSG back out of the area and you take care of a large part of this issue. There will still be trumps killed and some will do so intentionally, but it’s no secret that the trumps congregate at PSG for some reason. Just remove it like it was pre-2019 and see what happens to the trump killing numbers.

Nor is it a coincidence that certain folks know that, and concentrate there.

The swans, in reality had only been really hitting Farmington, Howard's, Ogden, area in mass, about a week. The hunt for us guys had barely started.
 
The fact that it's a maximum quota, and not a season, is the proof the species requires it.

The species does NOT require the intentional taking of a trump to be a crime. That’s hogwash and you know it. If that was the case, it would be so. The feds aren’t shy about protecting species that need protection. If 20 birds was going to cause problems for the species, they wouldn’t have allowed Utah to increase the quota from 10. And if 10 birds was going to be a problem, they wouldn’t have had our quota higher than Nevada’s 5. This is such a silly illogical statement above!
If that was the case, they'd have a limited Trumpeter season up to that maximum level.

Yeah, because all species that could easily be subjected to a hunt very easily have limited options available for hunting. Ever heard of wolves and grizzlies in the lower 48? It’s almost like people watch this stuff for a living, or something?

As an analogy... Society allows justified homicide in certain circumstances, but if a court finds you intentionally went into that situation looking for a fight, the outcome will likely be very different. That's also why we have manslaughter as opposed to varying degrees of homicide, intention matters. It's the same situation here.

I can go with your analogy- because it’s a giant swing and a miss. All the talk of homicide and intention is great, except for intentionally killing a trumpeter is not illegal during the swan season in Utah. Those other things are illegal because killing people in and of itself is bad, so we have laws to punish those that do it. I know you want to make it but a crime to kill a trump here, but it isn’t so now. If you want to equate killing a bird with homicide, be my guest. It still doesn’t tell us WHY it needs to be a crime. Why does intentionally shooting a trumpeter swan during the Utah swan hunt need to be a crime? You’re entitled to you option, I just want to understand how and why you’ve arrived at that opinion. The explanation above doesn’t even try to do so. So I’ll ask again: Why does the intentional shooting of a trump during the Utah swan season need to be a crime?
 
Why take a beautiful area to hunt away from thousands of hunters just due to some selfish people?

You know my feelings on this, but I’ll share again anyway. You’re only shutting it down for swans, just like it was forever before 2019. Duck and goose hunters go have your fun, but for swans, this area is very well known to hold the largest concentration of trumps. (Hence- why it was always closed before!) I’d wager the vast majority of people that hit PSG for swans are at least hoping for a shot at a trump, even if they aren’t holding out for one. Of course that isn’t everyone, but most of the swan hunters are not hunting PSG anyway, so closing it really is focused on closing an area that those few you mention are frequenting specifically to kill trumps.


Just so we are clear- I would not go out personally to specifically target a trump, tundras are plenty cool enough for me. That said, I don’t know what I’d do if I had one feet down hanging in the decoys and it’s perfectly legal to shoot that bird. I’ve passed on an awful lot of animals over the years I could have legally killed, so maybe I pass on that one too? I don’t know, maybe I’d kill it, maybe I wouldn’t. If I did, it certainly would not be illegal, but I understand why it makes it tough for other hunters.

It’s an easy call to say I won’t go out targeting them. It’s not as easy if it is incidental, even if not accidental. I do think the state has the ability to make a change here if they really want to. I’m not sure the state is all that concerned about hitting the 20, but we’ll see at the upcoming waterfowl RAC and Board meetings!
 
You know my feelings on this, but I’ll share again anyway. You’re only shutting it down for swans, just like it was forever before 2019. Duck and goose hunters go have your fun, but for swans, this area is very well known to hold the largest concentration of trumps. (Hence- why it was always closed before!) I’d wager the vast majority of people that hit PSG for swans are at least hoping for a shot at a trump, even if they aren’t holding out for one. Of course that isn’t everyone, but most of the swan hunters are not hunting PSG anyway, so closing it really is focused on closing an area that those few you mention are frequenting specifically to kill trumps.


Just so we are clear- I would not go out personally to specifically target a trump, tundras are plenty cool enough for me. That said, I don’t know what I’d do if I had one feet down hanging in the decoys and it’s perfectly legal to shoot that bird. I’ve passed on an awful lot of animals over the years I could have legally killed, so maybe I pass on that one too? I don’t know, maybe I’d kill it, maybe I wouldn’t. If I did, it certainly would not be illegal, but I understand why it makes it tough for other hunters.

It’s an easy call to say I won’t go out targeting them. It’s not as easy if it is incidental, even if not accidental. I do think the state has the ability to make a change here if they really want to. I’m not sure the state is all that concerned about hitting the 20, but we’ll see at the upcoming waterfowl RAC and Board meetings!


I don't think you would, just my bet.
 
You know my feelings on this, but I’ll share again anyway. You’re only shutting it down for swans, just like it was forever before 2019. Duck and goose hunters go have your fun, but for swans, this area is very well known to hold the largest concentration of trumps. (Hence- why it was always closed before!) I’d wager the vast majority of people that hit PSG for swans are at least hoping for a shot at a trump, even if they aren’t holding out for one. Of course that isn’t everyone, but most of the swan hunters are not hunting PSG anyway, so closing it really is focused on closing an area that those few you mention are frequenting specifically to kill trumps.


Just so we are clear- I would not go out personally to specifically target a trump, tundras are plenty cool enough for me. That said, I don’t know what I’d do if I had one feet down hanging in the decoys and it’s perfectly legal to shoot that bird. I’ve passed on an awful lot of animals over the years I could have legally killed, so maybe I pass on that one too? I don’t know, maybe I’d kill it, maybe I wouldn’t. If I did, it certainly would not be illegal, but I understand why it makes it tough for other hunters.

It’s an easy call to say I won’t go out targeting them. It’s not as easy if it is incidental, even if not accidental. I do think the state has the ability to make a change here if they really want to. I’m not sure the state is all that concerned about hitting the 20, but we’ll see at the upcoming waterfowl RAC and Board meetings!
I had two Trumpeters in my spreads this year and passed on them so my fellow hunters could continue to hunt Tundras.
And I agree with Hossblur, I think you would do the same as I do and pass on them.
 
Somebody else had a way better idea than mine and that was to make it a Tundra only hunt.
Excellent idea!
This way PSG stays open and the entire season gets to be enjoyed by all.
 
The species does NOT require the intentional taking of a trump to be a crime. That’s hogwash and you know it. If that was the case, it would be so. The feds aren’t shy about protecting species that need protection. If 20 birds was going to cause problems for the species, they wouldn’t have allowed Utah to increase the quota from 10. And if 10 birds was going to be a problem, they wouldn’t have had our quota higher than Nevada’s 5. This is such a silly illogical statement above!


Yeah, because all species that could easily be subjected to a hunt very easily have limited options available for hunting. Ever heard of wolves and grizzlies in the lower 48? It’s almost like people watch this stuff for a living, or something?



I can go with your analogy- because it’s a giant swing and a miss. All the talk of homicide and intention is great, except for intentionally killing a trumpeter is not illegal during the swan season in Utah. Those other things are illegal because killing people in and of itself is bad, so we have laws to punish those that do it. I know you want to make it but a crime to kill a trump here, but it isn’t so now. If you want to equate killing a bird with homicide, be my guest. It still doesn’t tell us WHY it needs to be a crime. Why does intentionally shooting a trumpeter swan during the Utah swan hunt need to be a crime? You’re entitled to you option, I just want to understand how and why you’ve arrived at that opinion. The explanation above doesn’t even try to do so. So I’ll ask again: Why does the intentional shooting of a trump during the Utah swan season need to be a crime?
You don't even realize you walked into a trap of your own making. I knew you would and you stepped right into it. Your argument that it's okay to hunt Trumpeters is because the Fed's allow a quota and therefore there must be enough to hunt them legally.

However, your argument presupposes that the Fed decision on wildlife management is ecologically sound. But here is where I knew you'd go... wolves and grizzlies. For your argument to be justified, you'd have to acknowledge that the Fed is correct in their decision on wolf and grizzly hunting too. Apparently that's your position, "If there were enough wolves and grizzlies to hunt, the Fed's would give us a quota so we could hunt them." I hate to break it to you, but wildlife decisions are rarely based on ecology.

The Fed's allowed a quota to give a season for Tundra Swans, not because they desired the death of Trumpeters. All the shooting of Trumpeters does is risk the Tundra Swan hunt with it.

Your red herring on equating swans to humans as if you don't understand the 'intention' analogy is weak. Bottom line is I couldn't care less if you think it's okay for a few people to go out and target Trumpeters and ruin the season for everybody else that's trying to do it right.
 
Aside from the fact that people who target trumpeters are selfish, the bigger concern is that the feds can decide that we are "targeting" trumpeters and shut the whole swan season down.

Lord knows that there are millions of people who would love to see the entire swan season shut down permanently.

I think the State provides a good hunt but the feds don't care a bit if we get to hunt either species so here we sit on the razor's edge of whether we get to hunt any of them or not!

Zeke
 
I couldn’t care less if you think it’s wrong to do so either. That’s the beauty of hunting. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Some look down on people who shoot hen ducks, shoot grouse off the ground, shoot female mtn lions, shoot spike deer, the list goes on and on. The bottom line is this: it is not illegal to do any of those things and it’s not illegal to shoot trumpeters.

It’s funny you brought up the grizzly and wolf issues. This thread reads exactly like a pro/anti wolf debate. Hunters calling for lost hunting privileges, calling out other hunters for successfully killing an animal - I can’t believe what I am reading.
 
Sure Mr. Silentstalker.

I get what you're saying. It's not illegal YET but big brother might just decide that we are not playing well and call a time-out on hunting ALL swans! That's the biggest concern!

How would that be for promoting opportunity?

Zeke
 
Grizz back to his old tricks thinking he’s in charge. Hilarious! You don’t think I knew exactly what I was doing there? Maybe you aren’t actually the trapper here?

My argument doesn’t have to presuppose anything, because the law and the facts are both on my side. I simply want to know why you think shooting a trumpeter legally should be a crime, and you still haven’t answered it. While you’re kind of an idiot at times, you’re not dumb. You’re completely capable of answering that question, if you had an answer. But I’m guessing you have zero justification for that opinion, which is also okay. I’m sure we all have irrational, emotionally based opinions on different things. This one must be one of yours.

As for whether the population can take the quota or not, don’t take my word for it!

From the article:
“The 20 trumpeters killed by Utah hunters won’t have an impact on a bird that now exceeds its target population of 10,000 adults and subadults, according to Gary Ivie, president-elect of the Trumpeter Swan Society, a nonprofit dedicated to the species recovery.”

I wonder if the Trumpeter Swan Society, an organization dedicated entirely to the species recovery, knows what they are talking about? It’s even in the Trib for you!

You can throw out your red herring and presupposition terms to try and sound smart, but one of the two of us actually knows what they’re talking about on this issue. And his name isn’t Grizz.

Should hunters be out targeting trumps? Not sure I like it, but the law allows it. One simple change back to pre-2019 conditions would solve this issue, I’m guessing. I look forward to watching Grizz speak about this at the upcoming meetings!
 
I can understand the fear of losing the hunt but I don’t think that is really going to happen. Read Vanillas posted article. The head of the trumpeter society states it’s not going to hurt the population and isn’t freaking out or calling for closures or prosecution of the legal, successful hunters.

If the DWR was really concerned about it they wouldn’t have added public to the hunt boundaries knowing full well that is where the birds seem to prefer to hang out.

For now I will support our fellow hunters and hope we can figure out a way to keep the season open longer for everyone.
 
There is a large study going on right now to see if these birds being killed in Utah are even from the Yellowstone group or not. Many people think these birds are coming from Alaska/Canada, and are not even part of the protected numbers in the greater Yellowstone area. If that ends up being the case, you might see the quota go away entirely, if not significantly increased. Then again, you might not. What we know for now is everyone that is privy to all the data believes that 20 trumps can get killed in Utah every year without any risk to the population overall, and therefore, they have made it LEGAL to kill up to 20 trumps each year in our state.

I don't think anyone is pretending they are hurting population numbers.

I'd suggest going back and reading Grizz's retort to me when he mistakenly thought he was fishing for an answer. I'll let you come to your own conclusion on what he's arguing, as he doesn't seem to want to answer my very simple question to his very zealous opinion on the intentional taking of a trumpeter needs to be a crime. There really is only one rational reason, and that's if we need to protect the species with strict enforcement. For a long time that was the case with trumpeters and other species like wolves and grizzlies. For sure with wolves and grizzlies that is no longer the case. Stay tuned on the trumps!
 
OK!

I Think The DWR Should Start Some PISSCUTTER Hunts In LE Units!

I'm Not Talking F'N Spike Hunts!

I'm Talking Medium Sized PISSCUTTERS!

And If You Accidentally Shoot a Trophy Bull Let's Treat It Like This Trumpeter Deal!

Just Count It as part of the QUOTA Because Accidents Do & Will Happen!

How Bout It Niller?
 
OK!

I Think The DWR Should Start Some PISSCUTTER Hunts In LE Units!

I'm Not Talking F'N Spike Hunts!

I'm Talking Medium Sized PISSCUTTERS!

And If You Accidentally Shoot a Trophy Bull Let's Treat It Like This Trumpeter Deal!

Just Count It as part of the QUOTA Because Accidents Do & Will Happen!

How Bout It Niller?

I just learned about this swan thing as well.....I had no clue how many feelings were involved. This-sub-quota is a huge grey area. Crazy.....

Maybe people who shoot forkys on the deer hunt should sit the next 5 out for ruining the herds for the rest of us. ? I bet as many people sit down to a swan steak about as often as they do a mule deer steak.....not very often.
 
There is a large study going on right now to see if these birds being killed in Utah are even from the Yellowstone group or not. Many people think these birds are coming from Alaska/Canada, and are not even part of the protected numbers in the greater Yellowstone area. If that ends up being the case, you might see the quota go away entirely, if not significantly increased. Then again, you might not. What we know for now is everyone that is privy to all the data believes that 20 trumps can get killed in Utah every year without any risk to the population overall, and therefore, they have made it LEGAL to kill up to 20 trumps each year in our state.



I'd suggest going back and reading Grizz's retort to me when he mistakenly thought he was fishing for an answer. I'll let you come to your own conclusion on what he's arguing, as he doesn't seem to want to answer my very simple question to his very zealous opinion on the intentional taking of a trumpeter needs to be a crime. There really is only one rational reason, and that's if we need to protect the species with strict enforcement. For a long time that was the case with trumpeters and other species like wolves and grizzlies. For sure with wolves and grizzlies that is no longer the case. Stay tuned on the trumps!

I agree with you. But, as has been stated, notice the Trib headline isn't about the great work done by waterfowl biologists in growing populations and expanding their territory.

We as sportsmen shouldn't be about the bare minimum all the time, and should pull our heads out of our asses and not write the bad PR we get, along with multiple pics to go with it.

Almost as bad as the OP pic, and hero narrative, is the 150 likes he got.

But no, it shouldn't be a crime. Public shaming should happen, let's see a yearly list published of Trump shooters on top of the 5 year hit
 
I agree with you. But, as has been stated, notice the Trib headline isn't about the great work done by waterfowl biologists in growing populations and expanding their territory.

We as sportsmen shouldn't be about the bare minimum all the time, and should pull our heads out of our asses and not write the bad PR we get, along with multiple pics to go with it.

Almost as bad as the OP pic, and hero narrative, is the 150 likes he got.

But no, it shouldn't be a crime. Public shaming should happen, let's see a yearly list published of Trump shooters on top of the 5 year hit
I WISH they would publish a list of Trump shooters, then I would know who not to share my blind lunch with.
 
I agree with you. But, as has been stated, notice the Trib headline isn't about the great work done by waterfowl biologists in growing populations and expanding their territory.

We as sportsmen shouldn't be about the bare minimum all the time, and should pull our heads out of our asses and not write the bad PR we get, along with multiple pics to go with it.

Almost as bad as the OP pic, and hero narrative, is the 150 likes he got.

But no, it shouldn't be a crime. Public shaming should happen, let's see a yearly list published of Trump shooters on top of the 5 year hit
Public Shaming. LOL Maybe they should be Flogged also.

2022-11-22.png
 
I can't read it as I'm not a subscriber to the Trib, but I can say that I would never expect a hunter friendly article to come from that quack of a paper.

I get what you are saying on not writing the stories for them, and I agree. I'm also not at all concerned about what antis have to say, and I'm not interested in discussing the issue with them. The Trib is not our friend.
 
What's the difference in a quota for Trumpeter Swans and a quota for say lions or bears?
Arizona just implemented a quota for deer on some units.
Seems to me it's working the way it's supposed to work. Just because some people didn't get swans doesn't mean they didn't have plenty of opportunity to get out if they really wanted to. Same as any other hunt that has a quota.
 
What's the difference in a quota for Trumpeter Swans and a quota for say lions or bears?
Arizona just implemented a quota for deer on some units.
Seems to me it's working the way it's supposed to work. Just because some people didn't get swans doesn't mean they didn't have plenty of opportunity to get out if they really wanted to. Same as any other hunt that has a quota.
I think the difference is the quota for Swan's is a safe guard to keep from to many Trumps being killed while also allowing the hunting of tundra's. They don't want any Trumps to be killed, but due to the nature of difficulties associated with telling the two apart the quota was put in place to allow swan hunting.

When they put quotas on lions and bears they are intending on only killing that many lions or bears. With swans as many tundra can be killed as there are tags for, but they still want to protect the Trumps. It's kinda like saying you can kill as many black bears as you want. But as soon as a grizzly gets killed the season is over. (This is a general over simplification obviously)

How many Trumps have you killed elkantlers? You seem to be awfully defensive of the guys targeting them.
 
I can't read it as I'm not a subscriber to the Trib, but I can say that I would never expect a hunter friendly article to come from that quack of a paper.

I get what you are saying on not writing the stories for them, and I agree. I'm also not at all concerned about what antis have to say, and I'm not interested in discussing the issue with them. The Trib is not our friend.


Waterfowl is managed through agreements with Canada and Mexico. Not as easy as blowing off the trib.

Btw, the trib isn't the only media source publicizing how hunters are full of chit when they talk about conservation, or sportsmanship.

We seem to care only about exploiting a grey area(no, the DWR IS NOT ASKING FOR 20 TRUMPS TO BE KILLED) to gain Utard cred and win IG for the day.

The same type guys shoot town deer, then break out a tape measure to show it's 1 inch past legal boundaries.

I'm not Grizz, I'm not saying it's illegal, or should be. I am saying we are Utards to the rest of the states around us, because this crap is what WE(yup, every waterfowler gets lumped in) showcase.

On a year that should have been a celebration of the DWR and what an amazing job they did keeping the swamp with water, and maintaining a 3.5 month season, despite severe drought, once again, it's a handful of dudes who have decided that THEY should be the focus.

Same dudes rolled coal for years because "it wasn't illegal", until it was, and screwed all the diesel owners.
 
Last edited:
I think the difference is the quota for Swan's is a safe guard to keep from to many Trumps being killed while also allowing the hunting of tundra's. They don't want any Trumps to be killed, but due to the nature of difficulties associated with telling the two apart the quota was put in place to allow swan hunting.

When they put quotas on lions and bears they are intending on only killing that many lions or bears. With swans as many tundra can be killed as there are tags for, but they still want to protect the Trumps. It's kinda like saying you can kill as many black bears as you want. But as soon as a grizzly gets killed the season is over. (This is a general over simplification obviously)

How many Trumps have you killed elkantlers? You seem to be awfully defensive of the guys targeting them.
Zero trumpeters and only 2 tundra.
I've already said I don't agree with the people that target them specifically. I also said it would be pretty tough to pass one up.

I just think some of you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Trumpeters are in no way endangered. The quota could be 10x what it is and it wouldn't hurt their population.
The DWR already addressed this and put a 5-year waiting period on them. So, these 20 people that shot Trumpeters will in all likely hood not be hunting swans for 8 to 10 years.
That's more time than people that shoot a elk or deer illegally usually get.

Also, Usually, but not always, quotas on lions and bears have a set number of bears or a set number of females killed. If they hit either of those numbers, the hunt is ended and whoever hasn't filled their tags is SOL. Same as Swans. If you want a swan next year, you best not procrastinate. The way Trumpeters numbers are growing, I don't see this hunt going past the middle of November any time soon. Hopefully they just increase the quota to match the population.
 
Zero trumpeters and only 2 tundra.
I've already said I don't agree with the people that target them specifically. I also said it would be pretty tough to pass one up.

I just think some of you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Trumpeters are in no way endangered. The quota could be 10x what it is and it wouldn't hurt their population.
The DWR already addressed this and put a 5-year waiting period on them. So, these 20 people that shot Trumpeters will in all likely hood not be hunting swans for 8 to 10 years.
That's more time than people that shoot a elk or deer illegally usually get.

Also, Usually, but not always, quotas on lions and bears have a set number of bears or a set number of females killed. If they hit either of those numbers, the hunt is ended and whoever hasn't filled their tags is SOL. Same as Swans. If you want a swan next year, you best not procrastinate. The way Trumpeters numbers are growing, I don't see this hunt going past the middle of November any time soon. Hopefully they just increase the quota to match the population.


Better hurry and shoot that spike suckling off that doe, cuz otherwise you won't get your IG likes
 
I feel ya Hoss, I’m just not writing waterfowl hunters obituary because people did something legal that was anticipated in the regulations. And I’m certainly not fretting a salt lake tribune article.

And I’m not buying that the DWR doesn’t want trumps killed because they opened in 2019, and keep open, the unit where the vast majority of them are killed. This is common knowledge and well-known. You want a trump? Head to PSG for a swan hunt. Otherwise, your chances are drastically reduced.

I know they have to say publicly “We strong discourage this!,” but do they really if they leave PSG open in the swan unit? Does anyone really want this shooting of trumps to stop if they are okay with PSG being open to swan hunting? Even accidental take is going to increase on this factor alone.

It’s unfortunate the season got shut down. I’d be upset if I had a swan tag this year and hadn’t made it out yet, but I can’t get myself too outraged with guys doing something 100% legal and allowed. It does bug me that people are specifically targeting them, but my outrage isn’t to your level.
 
Last edited:
Zero trumpeters and only 2 tundra.
I've already said I don't agree with the people that target them specifically. I also said it would be pretty tough to pass one up.

I just think some of you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Trumpeters are in no way endangered. The quota could be 10x what it is and it wouldn't hurt their population.
The DWR already addressed this and put a 5-year waiting period on them. So, these 20 people that shot Trumpeters will in all likely hood not be hunting swans for 8 to 10 years.
That's more time than people that shoot a elk or deer illegally usually get.

Also, Usually, but not always, quotas on lions and bears have a set number of bears or a set number of females killed. If they hit either of those numbers, the hunt is ended and whoever hasn't filled their tags is SOL. Same as Swans. If you want a swan next year, you best not procrastinate. The way Trumpeters numbers are growing, I don't see this hunt going past the middle of November any time soon. Hopefully they just increase the quota to match the population.
You know how pissed off the rest of the bear hunters get when the female quotas was met? They aren't happy about it I can guarantee that.

As I said earlier I'm not a waterfowl guy, only reason I have a shotgun is for coyote's. It's no sweat off my back how this turns out. But if I was and it took 2-3 years to draw a tag and dudes are out targeting them especially early in the season it's a d!ck move. If the season is getting close to ending that's one thing, but early in the season just sucks.
 
You know how pissed off the rest of the bear hunters get when the female quotas was met? They aren't happy about it I can guarantee that.

As I said earlier I'm not a waterfowl guy, only reason I have a shotgun is for coyote's. It's no sweat off my back how this turns out. But if I was and it took 2-3 years to draw a tag and dudes are out targeting them especially early in the season it's a d!ck move. If the season is getting close to ending that's one thing, but early in the season just sucks.
They can be happy, sad, mad or whatever. No concern of mine. The law is the law and shooting Trumpeters is legal in Utah. I guarantee that very few hunters are going to pass up a trumpeter given the opportunity.

This is directly from the DWR News release.
"Utah's swan hunt requires a permit, which is only available through a hunt drawing, and 2,750 permits were offered this year. Hunters with a permit can legally take one trumpeter or tundra swan".


If the powers that be really want to put a stop to this, they need to add a monetary fine to the 5-year waiting period. $500 if you shoot a trumpeter might discourage a few more people.
 
Zero trumpeters and only 2 tundra.
I've already said I don't agree with the people that target them specifically. I also said it would be pretty tough to pass one up.

I just think some of you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. Trumpeters are in no way endangered. The quota could be 10x what it is and it wouldn't hurt their population.
The DWR already addressed this and put a 5-year waiting period on them. So, these 20 people that shot Trumpeters will in all likely hood not be hunting swans for 8 to 10 years.
That's more time than people that shoot a elk or deer illegally usually get.

Also, Usually, but not always, quotas on lions and bears have a set number of bears or a set number of females killed. If they hit either of those numbers, the hunt is ended and whoever hasn't filled their tags is SOL. Same as Swans. If you want a swan next year, you best not procrastinate. The way Trumpeters numbers are growing, I don't see this hunt going past the middle of November any time soon. Hopefully they just increase the quota to match the population.
Hopefully the UDWR makes it a Tundra only hunt.
 
They can be happy, sad, mad or whatever. No concern of mine. The law is the law and shooting Trumpeters is legal in Utah. I guarantee that very few hunters are going to pass up a trumpeter given the opportunity.

This is directly from the DWR News release.
"Utah's swan hunt requires a permit, which is only available through a hunt drawing, and 2,750 permits were offered this year. Hunters with a permit can legally take one trumpeter or tundra swan".


If the powers that be really want to put a stop to this, they need to add a monetary fine to the 5-year waiting period. $500 if you shoot a trumpeter might discourage a few more people.
Only for the guys that target them. ?
 
I feel ya Hoss, I’m just not writing waterfowl hunters obituary because people did something legal that was anticipated in the regulations. And I’m certainly not fretting a salt lake tribune article.

And I’m not buying that the DWR doesn’t want trumps killed because they opened in 2019, and keep open, the unit where the vast majority of them are killed. This is common knowledge and well-known. You want a trump? Head to PSG for a swan hunt. Otherwise, your chances are drastically reduced.

I know they have to say publicly “We strong discourage this!,” but do they really if they leave PSG open in the swan unit? Does anyone really want this shooting of trumps to stop if they are okay with PSG being open to swan hunting? Even accidental take is going to increase on this factor alone.

It’s unfortunate the season got shut down. I’d be upset if I had a swan tag this year and hadn’t made it out yet, but I can’t get myself too outraged with guys doing something 100% legal and allowed. It does bug me that people are specifically targeting them, but my outrage isn’t to your level.


18 swans down.

I obviously look forward to this hunt.

But I'll live.

The little dudes I saw out in Howard's Slough, got screwed.

The little dudes I saw at Ogden Bay, screwed.

The local guides that hunt south of Brigham, screwed.


But unlike you. I'm pretty sure WHO got PSG opened. If your not sure look at who got their own goose unit, without a split because booking days are $$$.

Big swans pay.
 
But unlike you. I'm pretty sure WHO got PSG opened. If your not sure look at who got their own goose unit, without a split because booking days are $$$.

Big swans pay.

Like I said, I’m not convinced the DWR sees this as a problem. There has never been a problem when catering to big $ in wildlife.
 
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