Utah permit recommendations now online

[Amy]

We just posted the big game and antlerless permit recommendations for the 2013 season. Please attend your local RAC meetings to share your input on the proposals. Meetings will be held as follows:

Southern Region
April 9, 5 p.m.
Beaver High School
195 E Center ST, Beaver

Southeastern Region
April 10, 6:30 p.m.
John Wesley Powell Museum
1765 E Main ST, Green River

Northeastern Region
April 11, 5 p.m.
DWR Northeastern Region Office
318 N Vernal Ave, Vernal

Central Region
April 16, 6:30 p.m.
Springville Public Library Meeting Room
45 S Main Street, Springville

Northern Region
April 18, 6 p.m.
Brigham City Community Center
24 N 300 W, Brigham City

 

[PleaseDear]

Thanks Amy!

Good to know stuff right there.

Robb

 

[Abiggerfish2fry]

Holy Crop! Amy sure cut a lot of tags this year!



Don't drink and call your Girlfriend at night!!!!!!

 

[elkassassin]

I'd like somebody to show me 700 head of Elk on Anthro!

Let alone let 700 Permitee's try & kill 700 Antlerless Elk on the Unit!

JUDAS!



The Dew I had for Breakfast wasn't Bad so I had one more for Dessert!

 

[ELKOHOLIC]

A miracle must have happened on the Plateau with the Antelope. We turned a tag in 2 years ago because the Antelope numbers were the worst I have ever seen them. The DWR even recognized the unit was in trouble. Now it's round two of the slaughter? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Makes me wonder if the ranchers are running the show down there....

 

[Mutley]

I'll second that Elkoholic!!!

My wife and I hunted that unit in about??? 2005ish. One of the funnest hunts I've ever been on. Went back down Turkey hunting in 2010. I couldn't believe the lack of Lopes. Can't imagine it improved that much.

Mutley

 

[Robiland]

It did not improve that much. It must be the cattle ranchers. I used to hunt the plateau back in the 90's for elk before they made the boulder a limited entry. I never had seen so many lopes as I did then. Everywhere I went, LOPES! I sat water a few days and lopes galore come in all day long. Now, Nothing it seems like. I am very surprised by the #'s they have.

 

[why]

+1

 

[DESERTBULL]

I see they took some more Mnt Goat tags for that stupid convention BS. Bastards. I had a 50% chance (per last years draw) to get a tag this year. Now less tags in my unit means I probably won't draw s***.

AGAIN.

 

[tstewy]

Like the tag reduction in vernal south slope I think they need to reduce the
Tag numbers more or switch the tags to lower success weapon hunts
9.8 bucks per 100 does pretty sad

 

[desertcathunter]

They want the elk herd to stay at 1500 on the Boulder and they say it is now 1600 so they are going to issue 700 cow tags are you frickin kidding. The bulls will be gay or breeding livestock. Come on Dale Lafevre and you other SOB's. Greedy bast&^%$

 

[desertcathunter]

If any of you are putting in for LE Boulder Bulls and you are not at the RAC in Beaver April 9th at Beaver High 5pm throwing a fit like I will be over their proposed slaughter of 700 cow elk and four new cow hunts on the Boulder Mountain...nearly half their total herd numbers, then don't set a foot on my mountain. Me and the Woolsey boys will run you off.

With their own numbers they are at 1600 total elk and offering 700 cow tags. I have supported the cattlemen my whole life but this is multiple use land and their must be 25,000 cattle on the Boulder.

Rick Crawford

 

[ARROWHNTR]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-13 AT 08:18AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-08-13 AT 08:13?AM (MST)

I think the bigger problem is not the 700 tags it is the overall number of elk allowed in the state.

Using your figures 1600 elk on the unit that will increase around 1/3 when they calve in a couple months making it 2133, say the cow hunts are really successful and hit 80% thats -560 making the total 1573 than take out some bulls and archery cows and you are going to be around 1500 which is the unit objective if the cow harvest is high, if its more inline with other antlerless success rates the number will be higher and still over objective.

I wish we could get the overall state objective raised, like you mentioned on the boulder 20K plus cattle and 1500 elk doesnt seem vary fair.

 

[bragabit]

Sadly, this is the story for a lot of Utah. I wonder if it would be realistic for the big conservation groups to buy up some of the grazing rights on the LE Elk units.

 

[desertcathunter]

I spent two hours last night reading the whole proposed harvest and tag numbers for 2013 and everything in the whole document seemed actually quite objective...except the Plateau Pronghorn and Boulder cow elk permit issue. I have lived in Escalante for over 35 years and I know what is going on in Garfield County politics. This is nothing more than the Fish and Game cowering to pressure from the cattlemen's association. I am not against a man making an honest living and I come from a long line of farmers and ranchers, but I make my living as a guide and outfitter on the mountain too. My clients have spent how much money and time trying to draw a Boulder LE Permit only to have the herd destroyed by a cow hunt. What other occupation is subsidized for losses, gets to utilize unlimited public land as their own for pennies per year while making a lot of money. Many cattlemen will argue they don't make any money, but they drive nicer vehicles than anyone else in the county and have the most property and largest homes. Who is getting robbed?

 

[ARROWHNTR]

"Try swallowing for the 3rd year running, 4500 cow permits on the wasatch....."

Yet the heard numbers continue to grow on the wasatch every year to the point where they are now 64% over the unit objective. Im surprised they didnt ask for 6000K tags

 

[hogg_65]

Desertcathunter give em hell. They have been killing a lot of cows for a few years down there. I think they split the unit up to spread hunters out more. It seems to me guys kill a lot of cows off the highway on the east end. I agree with the split, but not the number tags allowed. Way too many. Their heads are up their asses this year with the antelope tags and the buck to doe deer ratios as well.

 

[nebo12000]

I think its important to understand that the management objectives on each unit came as a result of collaboration between a number of entities-- eg-- Cattlemen, woolgrowers, BLM, FS, other state agencies as well as the DWR. The DWR must, by law, do whatever is necessary to keep the elk numbers on each unit at the objective numbers on a post season basis. Much of the problem lies in the DWR having to count elk that reside on private lands that are unhuntable by public hunters. The Wasatch units are a good example of that problem. When the DWR issues antlerless tags that seem way too high, sometimes its is because the only way that they can obey the law and keep herds numbers at objective is too kill most of the animals on the public areas. Animals on the private areas sometimes account for an inordinate percentage of the allowed number of elk on any one unit. In my opinion the state needs to give the DWR some latitude in their elk counts. If there are 200 elk on private lands that are not available for public hunting on any one particular unit-- those animals should not be counted in the objective numbers population. If the private landowners want animals removed then they should allow tagholders to access their properties. For the most part though, it seems that most private land owners like the elk being on their property and are able to derive some income(trespass fee etc) and/or if a family member or friend draws an LE tag they essentially enjoy a private hunt. I personally don't have any problem with private landowners doing what they want to do on their own land but I don't think that the animals that reside there should be included in the population /objective management numbers. The best way to help some of theses units out is to get your legislator to get the laws changed in regards to this.
For example, on some units, when you put into draw out for a tag, instead of drawing out to hunt a population of 2000 elk, you are really only able to hunt 1700. I think the law should change...and only count public land animals.

 

[huntinfanatic]

desertcat, how did the rac go?

 

[Zeke]

>I think its important to understand
>that the management objectives on
>each unit came as a
>result of collaboration between a
>number of entities-- eg-- Cattlemen,
>woolgrowers, BLM, FS, other state
>agencies as well as the
>DWR. The DWR must, by
>law, do whatever is necessary
>to keep the elk numbers
>on each unit at the
>objective numbers on a post
>season basis. Much of the
>problem lies in the DWR
>having to count elk that
>reside on private lands that
>are unhuntable by public hunters.
>The Wasatch units are a
>good example of that problem.
>When the DWR issues antlerless
>tags that seem way too
>high, sometimes its is because
>the only way that they
>can obey the law and
>keep herds numbers at objective
>is too kill most of
>the animals on the public
>areas. Animals on the private
>areas sometimes account for an
>inordinate percentage of the allowed
>number of elk on any
>one unit. In my opinion
>the state needs to give
>the DWR some latitude in
>their elk counts. If there
>are 200 elk on private
>lands that are not available
>for public hunting on any
>one particular unit-- those animals
>should not be counted in
>the objective numbers population. If
>the private landowners want animals
>removed then they should allow
>tagholders to access their properties.
>For the most part though,
>it seems that most private
>land owners like the elk
>being on their property and
>are able to derive some
>income(trespass fee etc) and/or if
>a family member or friend
>draws an LE tag they
>essentially enjoy a private hunt.
>I personally don't have any
>problem with private landowners doing
>what they want to do
>on their own land but
>I don't think that the
>animals that reside there should
>be included in the population
>/objective management numbers. The best
>way to help some of
>theses units out is to
>get your legislator to get
>the laws changed in regards
>to this.
>For example, on some units, when
>you put into draw out
>for a tag, instead of
>drawing out to hunt a
>population of 2000 elk, you
>are really only able to
>hunt 1700. I think the
>law should change...and only count
>public land animals.

+1
This is a good idea and I like your valid point.
Zeke

 

[30plus]

Nebo you are right on the private/public elk. The counts on the southern end of the Wasatch (diamond fork Hobble creek sheep creek) were very low yet the division still has the late hunts there. Those hunts should be closed and the tags moved to the Heber valley area where the counts are sky high due to the private lands. You have the power to do this sitting on the RAC.
The elk herd is way down on the south end of the unit and the division will admit to it. Lets get the RAC to shut down those late hunts. Force the division to find a way to get to those elk on the private.

 

[nebo12000]

I'm trying to but I always get hit with the same roadblock--according to the DWR folks they can't do anything about it-- state government doesn't differentiate between private/public land in regards to elk numbers. You are right about the Wasatch and this has been discussed in the RAC but nothing gets changed. The RAC members from the Heber Valley could probably get something going-- maybe you could call them.

 

[sgs357max]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-10-13 AT 08:01PM (MST)[p]The State Of Utah Is in The Obama Plan If There Are No animals To hunt you Dont Need A gun Pretty Simple To me LMFAO

 

[why]

+1