Utah Big Game Permit Numbers

[Broadside_Shot]

2013 permit trends from 2012

General Buck Permits - Down
Premium Buck Permits - Same
Management Buck Permits - Down
Limited Entry Buck Permits - Down

Doe Deer Permits - Up


General Any Bull Elk Permits - Same
General Spike Only Permits - Same
Limited Entry Bull Elk Permits - Down

Cow Elk Permits - Up


Buck Pronghorn - Up
Doe Pronghorn - Up

What do you guys think these numbers are indicating?
This is a serious question from me. I would really like to know everyones opinion.

Thanks

 

[littlebighorn]

I had a visit with a DWR employee recently who told me they are frustrated too because they have to treat big game on private land the same as animals on public land. He said game counts are way up on private land, but low on public. But law requires them to issue permits based on total population.
So they lowered the LE permits hoping to ease pressure on good units and increased antlerless to control overall numbers.
That isn't the answer any of us want, but I believe that is what it all means.
Bottom line is if you want great hunting, get some private land...For what that is worth.

 

[tallbuck1]

LBH...

Wondering if that is because of pressure from public land hunters, or if the habitat is better on private land or both.

Tallbuck1

 

[alpinebowman]

habitat don't mean squat when you are just getting away from pressure. We all know critters like it quite and private is quite.

alpinebowman

>>>---shots that are true pass right through--->

 

[tallbuck1]

Aplinebowman,

Couldnt agree with you more! Private is Nice and quite.

The reason I asked about the habitat is there is a lot of private land that is now (or has been) updated with feeders, and habitat improvement, water holes, ect...



Tallbuck1

 

[Bill_in_MI]

Are the specific hunt tag numbers released yet?

Couldn't find the data on UDWR site.

Thx
Bill

 

[Robiland]

I like the numbers for the most part.

I think the Deer doe permits need and MUST go down. If the landowners start complaining of too many deer, then give them doe tags only, or let x amount of public tags hunt with permission on the property.

I think the elk tag #'s are trending good. Im on the fence with cow tags.

Lopes, there isnt that many. I think the buck tags stay the same or slight increase, and the doe tags cut.

Just my opinion.

 

[Bill_in_MI]

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-04_rac_packet.pdf

This is the proposal, has it been accepted or modified?

 

[bragabit]

Maybe if we took some of the Cattle off public land, and put them on the private land the wildlife would move off the private.

 

[Broadside_Shot]

Do you think they are trying to get the buck to doe ratio's at objective?

 

[littlebighorn]

Wildlife is a "cash cow" to landowners who know how to manage them.
The ironic thing is, landowners are also quick to complain to the DWR when wildlife don't leave their land after the hunts are over so they don't destroy their land.
We all want our cake and then we want to eat it too!

 

[highcountryfever]

Here is a news article from the DWR website:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/4...45-deer-hunting-permits-reduced-slightly.html

 

[huntinfanatic]

LAST EDITED ON May-07-13 AT 03:12PM (MST)[p]Bill,
They modified the wasatch for elk and henrys for deer. 131 muzzleloader elk tags for wasatch.

 

[Bill_in_MI]

Got an update from the UDWR via Facebook:

"Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 12:37pm May 7
Hi William,

Our biologists are working on gathering the data for those tables now. All of the big game hunt information should be published online by the end of this month. We'll send out updates via social media. Thanks for checking in! "

 

[desertpointbrian]

LAST EDITED ON May-07-13 AT 08:12PM (MST)[p]>2013 permit trends from 2012
>
>General Buck Permits - Down
>Premium Buck Permits - Same
>Management Buck Permits - Down
>Limited Entry Buck Permits - Down
>
>
>Doe Deer Permits - Up
>
>
>General Any Bull Elk Permits -
>Same
>General Spike Only Permits - Same
>
>Limited Entry Bull Elk Permits -
>Down
>
>Cow Elk Permits - Up
>
>
>Buck Pronghorn - Up
>Doe Pronghorn - Up
>
>What do you guys think these
>numbers are indicating?
>This is a serious question from
>me. I would really
>like to know everyones opinion.
>
>
>Thanks


well at first glance it would look like a state that is trying to manage for trophy animals. instead of shear number of animals. anterless tags up l/e tags down kind of saying we will have fewer animals state wide but the ones we do have we will get top dollar for.

 

[Silentstalker]

Looks to me like a state trying to make money with no thoughts towards increasing the deer herd. If does are a problem in certain areas, handle them on a case by case basis and let the kids with unused buck tags shoot them as depredation hunts.

Increasing cow tags is not increasing the elk herd either. Not too happy about that either.

 

[Tristate]

You can not decide anything from this data. Its like trying to guess what your wife is going to cook by seeing a pot on the stove. You need a lot more information.

Have any of yall asked people in the DWR there what the management goals and harvest goals are for the state over the next 5 years? 10 years? 25 Years?

 

[Robiland]

Trip-

They dont have any plan, thats the problem. The new mule deer plan that is already old and its only 2 yrs old and they are looking into a new plan.

 

[Birdman]

At the last Wild Life Board meeting it was stated that the doe tags are for problem deer only and that the elk numbers in the state have reached 79,000 elk and the state is only allowed to have 70,000 elk. The number of elk must be decreased.

 

[Packout]

Well, I guess since the UDWR must (by regulation) try to keep elk herds at or below their unit population objective, the purpose of antlerless tags is to prevent herd growth. Debate all we want on HOW they kill the cows, but the cows have to be killed to keep the herd within its population objective.

And one example to consider on elk--
A herd has a population objective of 1,000 animals.
It has an age objective of 6.5 for harvested bulls.
If a unit has 500 cows at a calving rate of 50%, that means there are 250 calves born each year.
Half the calves are bulls-- 125 new bulls each year.
Assume a 20% mortality and that give puts 100 new bulls into the herd each year.
With an age objective of 6.5, the unit must carry 100 bulls for an average of 6.5 years.
6.5 x 100 = It takes at least 650 bulls to meet the age objective.
650 bulls and 500 cows and 200 calves = a population of 1350.
The herd objective is 1000. 350 elk must be killed.
Hunters can only kill a maximum of 100 bulls to stay at the age objective. (the number is more likely 70 because we don't shoot just the 6.5 averages)
They still must kill at least 250 antlerless. Which is half of the mature cow herd.
To kill 250 antlerless, 500 permits with a 50% success rate must be issued.

So to raise a bull herd which averages 6.5 you have 2 choices:
1-Shoot cows, which at some point will mean a decrease in production. At some point there will almost be more bulls than cows.
2- Shoot spikes so you are carrying less bulls, which can lower antlerless tags for a time. This lowers the overall number of bulls in the unit.

Or we could get the legislature to remove population objectives.
Or we could do away with the extreme high age objectives which produce bulls scoring 20" more on average.

Run the same formula above using the highest age objective of 7.5 and see how that impacts an elk herd. Age objectives which are too high can destroy an elk herd over time.

 

[YELUM]

Oh sure Mike, try and make sense out ot this will just confuse us. lol

Yelum

Theres logic, and theres women. They don't go together.

 

[Broadside_Shot]

Packout. That is the "Best Post" I have seen on explaining the management.

You can't manage wildlife with so many differnt factors. All the different management practices produce different results, trying to blend them together just doesn't work.

 

[Gator]

Mike
Now that is about the clearest way of saying it,that I have heard.
Nicely put.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[MulePacker]

And there my friends is why having an extreme amount of conservation tags drives our management. You can't sell a lot of tags for a lot of dollars without old age class animals.

Limit conservation permits (1 per unit) = do away with age class = managing herds for balance. Some years in order to reduce herd numbers bull tags could be issued rather than cow tags. And maybe just maybe everyone would have a chance at drawing a branch antlered bull tag in their lifetime.


Thanks Packout for the math lesson!

 

[Hawkeye]

MulePacker said: "And there my friends is why having an extreme amount of conservation tags drives our management. You can't sell a lot of tags for a lot of dollars without old age class animals."

Amen Travis. Doyle Moss' comments at the Wildlife Board meeting are further evidence that this is the case. I want to hunt big bucks and bulls as much as the next guy but I could care less if some of his big money clients opted to purchase governor's tags in Arizona this year. If we manage for 400" bulls and 200" bucks then we might as well define deer and elk as OIL hunts. There needs to be some balance between quality and opportunity.

Unfortunately, in Utah, we have set up a system where the tail (conservation permits and the money generated) often wags the dog (wildlife management decisions).

Hawkeye

Browning A-Bolt 300 Win Mag
Bowtech Destroyer
Winchester Apex .50 Cal