When will we know permit numbers?

[schoolhousegrizz]

I know the application period has been pushed back about a month and a half. Have they said when will know the amount of permits for the different units and species?

 

[elkhunterUT]

Application period for 2023 will be March 23-April 27. I believe the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings will follow the historical timing and finish up with final approved tag #’s by early April. So even if you apply before the permit #’s are finalized, you can edit your application up until the final day of the application period.

So glad they finally made this change-should have done this from the beginning but at least it is happening now. This is a big deal for everyone but especially Non-residents when the difference between 1 tag and 2 tags for a given unit makes all the difference for someone trying to draw a bonus point tag.

 

[elkhunterUT]

After typing this, I went to the DWR site and looked at the meeting calendar for 2023 at this link: https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/pdf/2023_schedule.pdf

If these dates are correct it looks like we will be applying blind on permit #’s once again as the WB meeting is not scheduled to happen until May 4th. That is pretty messed up-I hope the DWR will address this and get those dates aligned with the application period so hunters can make application decisions based on finalized permit #’s.

 

[tallelkchaser]

If I remember right, the numbers may not be finalized but the proposed numbers will be available so you should have a good idea while applying.

 

[elkhunterUT]

If I remember right, the numbers may not be finalized but the proposed numbers will be available so you should have a good idea while applying.

Yes, good point. The proposed #’s will be available and will have been reviewed by all of the RAC’s before the deadline. Having said that, the WB could always change something last minute after the application period has closed, but hopefully that would be rare.

 

[JakeH]

Yes, good point. The proposed #’s will be available and will have been reviewed by all of the RAC’s before the deadline. Having said that, the WB could always change something last minute after the application period has closed, but hopefully that would be rare.

While that is true they could change them, it is unlikely. The DWR usually has a pretty good idea of what the board will approve before they submit the numbers. I haven't followed those meetings alot but I can't remember them ever changing the proposed numbers. At least not in recent years.

And they have always said that it would be the proposed numbers available and that the final approval would be after the deadline.

 

[Vanilla]

It doesn’t happen often that they deviate from recommended tag numbers in significant ways, but it has happened.

I still think it’s asinine they do it this way, but it will be better than it’s been going forward with the delayed app period. We haven’t even known proposed numbers previously.

 

[lostinOregon]

If everyone knows the tag allocations won’t it change people’s applications and cause point creep?

 

[sticksender]

If everyone knows the tag allocations won’t it change people’s applications and cause point creep?

Agree, in that sense it takes away the potential benefit of the "lucky guess" factor. But I think overall in the grand scheme it is probably better to know, than not.

 

[jims]

It’s a giant improvement, especially for nonres where the difference between 1 or 2 tags issued carries such major consequences in drawing or not drawing a bonus pt tag. I’m sure I’m like other nonres that have guessed wrong and have applied for years and years in units that offered 0 bonus pt tags.

 

[Vanilla]

If everyone knows the tag allocations won’t it change people’s applications and cause point creep?

No

 

[elkantlers]

I could care less about the application deadline. I just want the results ASAP. And, ASAP does not mean May 31st.

 

[lostinOregon]

So if there are more tags for a certain hunt, and everyone knows it, people won’t change their application plans?

 

[BrowningRage]

So if there are more tags for a certain hunt, and everyone knows it, people won’t change their application plans?

I think it would all end up a wash. You will get some who decide to apply based on the numbers, but we are just as likely to see others NOT put in because of the numbers, in fact, because people with fewer BPs far outnumber those with more, maybe it helps point creep for some hunts as people choose to buy a point rather than put in.

 

[JakeH]

I think it would all end up a wash. You will get some who decide to apply based on the numbers, but we are just as likely to see others NOT put in because of the numbers, in fact, because people with fewer BPs far outnumber those with more, maybe it helps point creep for some hunts as people choose to buy a point rather than put in.

I guess I don't see the logic in that. Why would someone not put in? Technically, they have a better shot than everyone else. If you're going to put in, you're going to put in, or should anyways your not out anything.

This change is most beneficial to Nonresidents with a lot of points. And probably to a few once-in-a-lifetime hunts for residents.

Other then that you should have a pretty good idea of what the tag numbers are going to be based off the year before.

There could be a few exceptions to that as happened this year when the dwr decided to pull a bunch of archery and muzzloader tags from the Wasatch unit and a few others I think and move them to the mid, and late rifle elk seasons. This cost my dad a tag that he would have drawn had they used the numbers from the year before. If we had known they was going to do this we would have chose a different season or unit.

 

[Vanilla]

Jake, did they really pull tags from archery and muzzy to do mid-rifle and late rifle tags? That doesn’t sound right. I thought the archery/muzzy/rifle distribution remained the same.

Another topic- Seeing tag numbers before applying isn’t going to all the sudden make more people apply. You might see a small number of people jump around pools, but that is already happening now and if it makes one hunt harder to draw, it will make another one easier. This will not impact point creep.

 

[JakeH]

Jake, did they really pull tags from archery and muzzy to do mid-rifle and late rifle tags? That doesn’t sound right. I thought the archery/muzzy/rifle distribution remained the same.

Another topic- Seeing tag numbers before applying isn’t going to all the sudden make more people apply. You might see a small number of people jump around pools, but that is already happening now and if it makes one hunt harder to draw, it will make another one easier. This will not impact point creep.

It absolutely did happen on the Wasatch as well as a couple other units to a lesser extent. Around 40 tags pulled from muzzloader and another 40 or so pulled from archery. Most of those went to the mid season hunt, with a few going to the late hunt. Their reasoning was to "get the tag allocation % back in check" they had scewed the % numbers in recent years by giving more of the extra tags to those lower success hunts in an effort to reduce harvest and they felt they could give those tags back to the rifle hunts and not effect the numbers.
But I still feel it was wrong to do it this year especially knowing that next year they would be able to put the numbers out beforehand and it wouldn't come as a surprise for so many people that were counting on the numbers not changing so drastically.

Probably going to work out for the better for umy dad anyway as we are probably going to be able to draw a better hunt for us this year.

 

[Vanilla]

Gotcha. A fixing of their prior acts of messing up allocation percentages. Makes sense why they would look in line with what you’d expect.

 

[JakeH]

Gotcha. A fixing of their prior acts of messing up allocation percentages. Makes sense why they would look in line with what you’d expect.

Don't know that I would call it messing up, just trying something different to see how it worked. Nothing wrong with that.

Still could have waited another year when they could have given people a warning.

 

[Vanilla]

Don't know that I would call it messing up, just trying something different to see how it worked. Nothing wrong with that.

Still could have waited another year when they could have given people a warning.

Did they give the rifle hunters an extra year of notice before removing the tags and putting them in the archery and muzzy pools? I'm not sure I'm seeing the difference in 'just trying something different' by moving tags or moving them back to 'stick to the plan.' If there was nothing wrong with one, there should be nothing wrong with the other.

Either way, the largest point for me is that these types of situations should be reduced with them pushing back the application deadline, and that is a good thing.

 

[JakeH]

Did they give the rifle hunters an extra year of notice before removing the tags and putting them in the archery and muzzy pools? I'm not sure I'm seeing the difference in 'just trying something different' by moving tags or moving them back to 'stick to the plan.' If there was nothing wrong with one, there should be nothing wrong with the other.

Either way, the largest point for me is that these types of situations should be reduced with them pushing back the application deadline, and that is a good thing.

They didn't take tags from rifle hunters, they just added more to the archery and muzzy hunts when they had extra tags to give. It's not the same.

I know how you feel about us greedy archery hunters so I'm not going to argue with you about this, but the tag allocation % is stupid, they need to offer what the resource can handle and right now they could double the archery tags and not effect herd quality or heath.

 

[Vanilla]

My point is much less about tag allocation and much more about getting the permit numbers out before people apply.

But on the other topic, if they dropped the permit allocations below what is intended for each weapon, then they did in fact "take" from one weapon type. I'd be fine doubling the archery tags if the resource can take it, but don't take opportunities away from others to do so. That is just plain selfish to suggest otherwise. Not everyone should need to become a bow hunter to be able to get a tag to hunt, especially when the VAST MAJORITY of hunters in our state are not bow hunters.

The bow hunters that annoy me are very much a very small minority, they just are loud enough you hear them and they won't shut up. Almost all bow hunters are just like me: They want to go hunt and enjoy themselves hunting and want others to be able to do so as well. But there is really loud group of small people that will never be satiated until they get what they want and screw everyone else in the process...and they just so happen to be bow hunters. Go figure!

 

[scopenstalk]

My point is much less about tag allocation and much more about getting the permit numbers out before people apply.

But on the other topic, if they dropped the permit allocations below what is intended for each weapon, then they did in fact "take" from one weapon type. I'd be fine doubling the archery tags if the resource can take it, but don't take opportunities away from others to do so. That is just plain selfish to suggest otherwise. Not everyone should need to become a bow hunter to be able to get a tag to hunt, especially when the VAST MAJORITY of hunters in our state are not bow hunters.

The bow hunters that annoy me are very much a very small minority, they just are loud enough you hear them and they won't shut up. Almost all bow hunters are just like me: They want to go hunt and enjoy themselves hunting and want others to be able to do so as well. But there is really loud group of small people that will never be satiated until they get what they want and screw everyone else in the process...and they just so happen to be bow hunters. Go figure!

I’m curious what the percentage of bow vs rifle actually is. I figured most hunters nowadays hunt with all 3…… but I don’t know the numbers

 

[Vanilla]

Nope. Rifle hunters would outnumber all other types of hunters combined in Utah.

That is why most tags go to (and should continue to go to) rifle hunts.

 

[scopenstalk]

Nope. Rifle hunters would outnumber all other types of hunters combined in Utah.

That is why most tags go to (and should continue to go to) rifle hunts.

……I’m not doubting you. But is this conjecture or have you seen data supporting it?

 

[middlefork]

I believe the split is 20% archery, 20% muzzle loader and 60% any weapon. That has been the Utah split for quite awhile.

Feel free to get into the weeds with applications by weapon type. That would be the most accurate indicator of demand. The data is available on the DWR website.

Now archery hunters may switch weapons more readily than maybe other weapon types but I would be hard pressed to believe that the highest percentage of hunters in Utah would pick up a bow as the first weapon of choice for any hunt.

I would say that many hunters are willing to look at different weapon types to increase their odds of drawing a tag and have more opportunity to hunt. If that is their decision more power to them.

 

[deadibob]

Nope. Rifle hunters would outnumber all other types of hunters combined in Utah.

That is why most tags go to (and should continue to go to) rifle hunts.

I disagree. Most tags should go to lower success type of hunts. More tags could be given out with similar harvest numbers and that is the simplest way to reduce point creep.

I also believe that rifle ONLY hunters aren't as committed to Hunting as those who will hunt with harder and less successful methods so long as they can just have the opportunity to hunt and the less dedicated should go to the back of the line.

We should also make some serious weapon technology restrictions across the board whether it be archery, muzzy or any weapon hunts.

 

[Vanilla]

What type of a test should we use to see who is the “most dedicated” and gets to the front of the line?

Number of MTN Ops drinks consumed? Hits on our vlogs?

 

[elkhunterUT]

No test needed-simply give a lot more archery tags (or less successful methods) and those who want to hunt bad enough will jump in. It really is the best way to address point creep if we want to get serious about that issue.

No reason to cater to the lazy or less committed and hold everyone back just because there are “more of them”.

 

[Vanilla]

Man, if I could only be as hard core as you all!

#hunttolive #followmyvlog #firebull

 

[elkhunterUT]

Man, if I could only be as hard core as you all!

#hunttolive #followmyvlog #firebull

Give us the link to your vlog and we can at least SMASH ?the like button and subscribe to boost your following-isn’t the # of followers you have the determining factor for how cool (or hard core) you are?

Help me help you ??

 

[elkantlers]

No test needed-simply give a lot more archery tags (or less successful methods) and those who want to hunt bad enough will jump in. It really is the best way to address point creep if we want to get serious about that issue.

No reason to cater to the lazy or less committed and hold everyone back just because there are “more of them”.

What does this mean?

 

[elkhunterUT]

What does this mean?

It is addressing the point made by some that we should continue to give the bulk of tags to rifle hunters simply because rifle ONLY hunters make up the vast majority of the population (this results in very low supply of tags due to high success, while demand is ever increasing)

If we really want to address point creep, the “pie” or supply has to be increased in some way. The best way to currently do that is to increase tags for methods that are less successful (archery, HAMS, etc.). If people really want to hunt, they will adapt to whatever method is needed to participate (most guys on this site fall in that bucket). If they are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt, they can continue to put in for special very limited high success rifle hunts that may take 30-40 years to draw. We shouldn’t hold back on addressing this issue just because the majority may not like it.

 

[Elkslayer2015]

It is addressing the point made by some that we should continue to give the bulk of tags to rifle hunters simply because rifle ONLY hunters make up the vast majority of the population (this results in very low supply of tags due to high success, while demand is ever increasing)

If we really want to address point creep, the “pie” or supply has to be increased in some way. The best way to currently do that is to increase tags for methods that are less successful (archery, HAMS, etc.). If people really want to hunt, they will adapt to whatever method is needed to participate (most guys on this site fall in that bucket). If they are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt, they can continue to put in for special very limited high success rifle hunts that may take 30-40 years to draw. We shouldn’t hold back on addressing this issue just because the majority may not like it.

Well said.

 

[gundog2]

It is addressing the point made by some that we should continue to give the bulk of tags to rifle hunters simply because rifle ONLY hunters make up the vast majority of the population (this results in very low supply of tags due to high success, while demand is ever increasing)

If we really want to address point creep, the “pie” or supply has to be increased in some way. The best way to currently do that is to increase tags for methods that are less successful (archery, HAMS, etc.). If people really want to hunt, they will adapt to whatever method is needed to participate (most guys on this site fall in that bucket). If they are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt, they can continue to put in for special very limited high success rifle hunts that may take 30-40 years to draw. We shouldn’t hold back on addressing this issue just because the majority may not like it.

There really are many other ways that Utah could address point creep without making derogatory comments toward the majority of hunters in the state. I think the best way to address point creep would be put ALL deer and elk tags, including the so-called general tags and antlerless tags, in the same draw pool, but I know that is not what the majority of hunters want. The majority of hunters want to hunt deer and/or elk every year and have a chance to draw an awesome limited entry hunt. We like to have our cake and eat it too. I enjoy archery as much as anyone, but it does not make me better or more deserving than anyone else. If the majority of hunters are content to wait for a rifle tag, then that is by their own choice. Nobody has to wait 30 or 40 years to draw an elk tag if they don’t want to. One could argue that the “point creep problem” is being overplayed.

 

[elkhunterUT]

The problem with this conversation is some get defensive way too easily. I am not trying to be derogatory, offensive, or elitist (at the end of the day, I am a hunter not a bow hunter, muzzy, or rifle hunter)

The major problem we face in the west is that demand to hunt has FAR outpaced supply. There are not a lot of viable solutions to increase the overall pie (especially because we can’t always control many of the factors that limit herd #’s).

One way to increase the pie is to simply give more tags to less successful weapons. This isn’t about weapon types and one group trying to get one over on another, it is about making the pie bigger

Really sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings-it shouldn’t be that controversial. ??‍

 

[elkantlers]

The problem with this conversation is some get defensive way too easily. I am not trying to be derogatory, offensive, or elitist (at the end of the day, I am a hunter not a bow hunter, muzzy, or rifle hunter)

The major problem we face in the west is that demand to hunt has FAR outpaced supply. There are not a lot of viable solutions to increase the overall pie (especially because we can’t always control many of the factors that limit herd #’s).

One way to increase the pie is to simply give more tags to less successful weapons. This isn’t about weapon types and one group trying to get one over on another, it is about making the pie bigger

Really sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings-it shouldn’t be that controversial. ??‍

Calling rifle hunters lazy or less committed is kind of offensive, and it sounds very Elitist. lol.

So, I have a question for you, hypothetical of course, If a person draws a permit that they can use any weapon and they choose to use a rifle are the Lazy or less motivated or both?

 

[elkhunterUT]

Calling rifle hunters lazy or less committed is kind of offensive, and it sounds very Elitist. lol.

So, I have a question for you, hypothetical of course, If a person draws a permit that they can use any weapon and they choose to use a rifle are the Lazy or less motivated or both?

Read my post again-I did not call ALL rifle hunters lazy or less committed (I use a rifle on many hunts). I said we should not cater the entire system to those who are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt to changes involving weapon types because they represent a majority.

You can still give them the option for their special rifle hunt with the result of hunting far less, or they can take up a less successful weapon and get more opportunity to hunt more often (something for everyone). It is not complicated, but people get too caught up in weapon type and “fairness”.

 

[elkantlers]

Read my post again-I did not call ALL rifle hunters lazy or less committed (I use a rifle on many hunts). I said we should not cater the entire system to those who are too lazy or not committed enough to adapt to changes involving weapon types because they represent a majority.

You can still give them the option for their special rifle hunt with the result of hunting far less, or they can take up a less successful weapon and get more opportunity to hunt more often (something for everyone). It is not complicated, but people get too caught up in weapon type and “fairness”.

Oh, not all people that hunt with a rifle are too lazy and not committed, Just the majority of them. Gottcha.

 

[elkhunterUT]

Oh, not all people that hunt with a rifle are too lazy and not committed, Just the majority of them. Gottcha.

Yep, you got me. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

Let’s hear your solution to increasing the pie and minimizing point creep.

 

[elkantlers]

Yep, you got me. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

Let’s hear your solution to increasing the pie and minimizing point creep.

Thank you.

Even if every tag was archery and the DWR tripled the permits there would still be point creep. There were more applicants this year than last and there will be more next year than this. And each successive point group has more than the one above it. Sometimes by an exponential amount. Point creep is here to stay unless you have 10,000 bucks and bulls in your back pocket.

You and others only want more archery permits because you think someone else will be unsuccessful.

If you think that giving out double or even triple the amount of archery permits is going to allow a person to draw a LE elk or Deer permit every 6 or 8 years, you are up in the night. Not going to happen.

The pie is only so big, and the eaters are increasing at an unprecedented rate. No matter how you slice the pie, someone isn't going to get a piece.

And, calling a majority of hunters too lazy and not committed doesn't grow more critters. It just hardens their stance against archery elitists.

 

[elkhunterUT]

Thank you.

Even if every tag was archery and the DWR tripled the permits there would still be point creep. There were more applicants this year than last and there will be more next year than this. And each successive point group has more than the one above it. Sometimes by an exponential amount. Point creep is here to stay unless you have 10,000 bucks and bulls in your back pocket.

You and others only want more archery permits because you think someone else will be unsuccessful.

If you think that giving out double or even triple the amount of archery permits is going to allow a person to draw a LE elk or Deer permit every 6 or 8 years, you are up in the night. Not going to happen.

The pie is only so big, and the eaters are increasing at an unprecedented rate. No matter how you slice the pie, someone isn't going to get a piece.

And, calling a majority of hunters too lazy and not committed doesn't grow more critters. It just hardens their stance against archery elitists.

Again… what is your solution or approach to lessen the bleeding? I don’t need you to rehash the issue and I never said we could solve all point creep-that is not possible.

There are ways to lessen point creep by giving more tags to less successful weapons (not just archery by the way, HAMS is another approach)

 

[elkantlers]

There isn't anything that will even slightly help point creep. Increasing archery permits won't even stabilize point creep.

A couple that may move the needle but would not make too many happy would be to make people choose between applying for a LE deer or elk permit, or a General deer or elk permit.

If you draw a LE permit you can start applying for a permit after the 5 year waiting period but you can't accrue points for that species again.

No points, No points creep. See how that works.

 

[Deerlove]

There's no money in that the state wants application fees for multiple species not going to happen

 

[Vanilla]

ElkhunterUT, you’re full of crap. You take specific shots at people and then try to say you’re aren’t trying to be derogatory. Throw haymakers, then play the victim. There are lots of terms for that, but I’ll just say full of crap.

You say our problem is point creep, and I think our problem is removing existing opportunities for hunters. We live in a democratic republic. Majorities guide. Keep telling rifle hunters how lazy and uncommitted they are. Maybe you’ll get them fired up enough to show up to the public process in droves and we’ll see how that goes for your plans to make archery hunting more easy at the expense of other groups.

This is what kills me. I literally never see rifle hunters asking to take opportunities away from others. I’m all for increased archery opportunities. I think they can be done without screwing other groups, but it seems you are hell bent on doing so. Declare war, see how that goes for you.

 

[elkhunterUT]

ElkhunterUT, you’re full of crap. You take specific shots at people and then try to say you’re aren’t trying to be derogatory. Throw haymakers, then play the victim. There are lots of terms for that, but I’ll just say full of crap.

You say our problem is point creep, and I think our problem is removing existing opportunities for hunters. We live in a democratic republic. Majorities guide. Keep telling rifle hunters how lazy and uncommitted they are. Maybe you’ll get them fired up enough to show up to the public process in droves and we’ll see how that goes for your plans to make archery hunting more easy at the expense of other groups.

This is what kills me. I literally never see rifle hunters asking to take opportunities away from others. I’m all for increased archery opportunities. I think they can be done without screwing other groups, but it seems you are hell bent on doing so. Declare war, see how that goes for you.

That’s funny coming from the guy that takes an instant shot at anyone who suggests using primitive weapons to increase opportunity. You view that approach as removing opportunity from a rifle hunter and I view it as providing more choices and opportunity to everyone.

We obviously won’t agree here and that is ok. Your approach offers “Vanilla” and mine offers Neapolitan ?

 

[Vanilla]

Another falsehood. I’m fine adding archery permits. I would 100% stand up for more archery opportunities. But if you take them from other hunt pools, you are, in fact, removing opportunities from people to do so. That’s simply selfish.

You can say it isn’t, but it’s a simple fact. What you’re asking me to do here is look at something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but you want me to call it a lion.

You can keep up with your faux war. You’ll lose. Then you can come on here and whine about point creep, try to make fun of 65% of the hunters in Utah then pretend you didn’t, and make more crap up that didn’t happen.

I just want to go hunting, and I want you to be able to as well. That’s the difference between the two of us.

 

[Shiras]

I literally never see rifle hunters asking to take opportunities away from others. I’m all for increased archery opportunities.

They don’t have to when they have the majority of the tags, some of the better seasons and until recently, the most hunts set aside for them. Pretty hard to ask for more, when you have the most to begin with.

 

[Vanilla]

“They” ?

Those other guys are so evil and you’re so picked on!

 

[middlefork]

My guess is there are very, very few archery hunters applying with anywhere close to max points for elk. Why? Because the demand for them is not as big as for rifle or muzzy.

 

[elkhunterUT]

Another falsehood. I’m fine adding archery permits. I would 100% stand up for more archery opportunities. But if you take them from other hunt pools, you are, in fact, removing opportunities from people to do so. That’s simply selfish.

You can say it isn’t, but it’s a simple fact. What you’re asking me to do here is look at something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but you want me to call it a lion.

You can keep up with your faux war. You’ll lose. Then you can come on here and whine about point creep, try to make fun of 65% of the hunters in Utah then pretend you didn’t, and make more crap up that didn’t happen.

I just want to go hunting, and I want you to be able to as well. That’s the difference between the two of us.

No war here (I am a hunter & use all weapon types) and even if there were, I would actually be winning. I don’t need to convince you of anything.

The people that really matter (decision makers like the wildlife board, DWR, and elk committee) already see the value in less successful weapon types and season dates. In 2023 there will be less rifle elk hunts in the rut and more tags for mid-season, late archery, HAMS, etc. Kudos to the DWR for doing the right thing for hunters and the resource!????

 

[Vanilla]

We can agree that the DWR is trying to do things to address point creep, but let’s not kid ourselves that the rifle elk hunt has hurt the resource. There are very few units in the state that strictly biologically speaking, those professionals paid to make decisions wouldn’t say need more bulls killed every year. If you need more bulls killed to help the resource, you don’t increase tags in the least effective means of killing them to do that.

I’m fine with the new elk plan. While it does reduce the early rifle hunt and early rifle hunt numbers, it shouldn’t result in less rifle tags over all so the small minority of whiny elitists can draw their preferred tags easier. And I’m certainly not here to cut opportunities so we can grow more 400” bulls to sell. (The EXACT reason SFW said they wanted the rifle elk hunt out of the rut in a public Wildlife Board meeting…on the record.)

I’ve said it probably close to a million times (okay, more like 100), I’m all for more opportunities for EVERYONE! Not just the selfish elitists looking to get hits on their vlogs so they can hashtag all their sponsors.

 

[elkhunterUT]

I am guessing you and I agree on more than we disagree-I am also for more opportunity for everyone (that does include rifle hunters believe it or not, of which I am one ?). More than anything, I am relieved to know you don’t think I am a whiny selfish elitist because I certainly don’t have a vlog or social media full of hashtags, and my brim is always curved ???

Happy 2023!

 

[scopenstalk]

Judist……….this thread snow balled.

 

[JakeH]

Another falsehood. I’m fine adding archery permits. I would 100% stand up for more archery opportunities. But if you take them from other hunt pools, you are, in fact, removing opportunities from people to do so. That’s simply selfish.

You can say it isn’t, but it’s a simple fact. What you’re asking me to do here is look at something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but you want me to call it a lion.

Vanilla, how do you propose adding more archery hunts without getting away from the set weapon percentage allocations?

You was just saying the other day when I brought up that they had added archery and muzzy tags on the Wasatch that was higher than the set allocation percentage that it was a screw up even when I pointed out they hadn't taken tags from rifle hunters they just added more to the archery and muzzy pool when they added more tags throughout the years, it was still a screw up that was taking tags from the rifle hunts because it was deviation from the set percentage allocation.

So, saying you are for added archery opportunity is a lie based off my conversation with you the other day.

You can't add archery opportunity with out giving out a higher percentage of tags to archery hunts, and you are against that.

In fact you was all for them taking tags from archery and muzzleloader to give to rifle hunts last year.

 

[JakeH]

Judist……….this thread snow balled.

 

[Vanilla]

In fact you was all for them taking tags from archery and muzzleloader to give to rifle hunts last year.

Not true. I have never advocated taking permits away from anyone. I would be the first person to stand up and defend archery hunters if there was a proposal to reduce their numbers, even if the percentage of tags allocated to archery hunters is already out of proportion to the number of hunters.

To answer the “how?” If you’re adding tags to the pot, add them wherever you want. I misunderstood your post if I those were added and not previously removed from other hunts.

Again, you will find me consistently saying I’m for more people hunting. All types of people! There will never be a post you see me asking for opportunities to be taken away. Now, if one day actual biologists (not internet biologists) came and said hunting is creating a limiting factor for our herds and we need to cut tags, I’d support that because biology should always trump sociology in these policy decisions. That’s actually one reason I’ve always opposed moving around hunt dates and weapon type allocations: biology doesn’t need it, only selfish elitists “need” it.

I’m excited to see more hunters in the field chasing elk over the next few years. I hope to be one of them!

 

[JakeH]

Not true. I have never advocated taking permits away from anyone. I would be the first person to stand up and defend archery hunters if there was a proposal to reduce their numbers, even if the percentage of tags allocated to archery hunters is already out of proportion to the number of hunters.

To answer the “how?” If you’re adding tags to the pot, add them wherever you want. I misunderstood your post if I those were added and not previously removed from other hunts.

Again, you will find me consistently saying I’m for more people hunting. All types of people! There will never be a post you see me asking for opportunities to be taken away. Now, if one day actual biologists (not internet biologists) came and said hunting is creating a limiting factor for our herds and we need to cut tags, I’d support that because biology should always trump sociology in these policy decisions. That’s actually one reason I’ve always opposed moving around hunt dates and weapon type allocations: biology doesn’t need it, only selfish elitists “need” it.

I’m excited to see more hunters in the field chasing elk over the next few years. I hope to be one of them!

OK, if that was a misunderstanding, then so be it.

They have added a bunch of tags to the Wasatch unit over the last 10+ years or so, they never actually took tags from the rifle season they just added more to the archery and muzzloader to see if it would be beneficial to maintain quality while adding opportunitie. They also added the mid season hunt and started pouring tags into that hunt.

They have said in the meetings that alot of the reason they have moved the elk plan to what it is now is directly the result of the research and test runs they have done with the Wasatch unit.

I think there is a lot more opportunity they could offer with archery permits but they can't do that with a set cap on the percentage of tags allowed to each weapon type.

 

[Shiras]

No war here (I am a hunter & use all weapon types) and even if there were, I would actually be winning. I don’t need to convince you of anything.

The people that really matter (decision makers like the wildlife board, DWR, and elk committee) already see the value in less successful weapon types and season dates. In 2023 there will be less rifle elk hunts in the rut and more tags for mid-season, late archery, HAMS, etc. Kudos to the DWR for doing the right thing for hunters and the resource!????

They are going the slaughter the elk on the mid rifle hunts with as late as the rut tends to be these days. Mid hunt needed to be a restricted weapon type hunt

 

[elkhunterUT]

They are going the slaughter the elk on the mid rifle hunts with as late as the rut tends to be these days. Mid hunt needed to be a restricted weapon type hunt

I don't disagree with that - headed in the right direction with the new elk plan but there are certainly some things that will need to be tweaked and changed or it could be a problem (mid-season rifle hunts being one of them for sure).

As JakeH mentioned earlier, the Wasatch has been sort of a proving grounds for different management approaches and the mid-season hunt hasn't had a drastic effect on the herd, but I don't know the #'s off the top of my head.

 

[Vanilla]

As JakeH mentioned earlier, the Wasatch has been sort of a proving grounds for different management approaches and the mid-season hunt hasn't had a drastic effect on the herd, but I don't know the #'s off the top of my head.

Guys, this is because hunting the bulls in our elk herd has NEVER been a limiting factor for the herd itself! It's why there is no biological reason to need to move "the most effective weapon out of the time the elk are the most vulnerable." There are many sociological reasons for that, some good, some complete garbage. But there is no biological reason for doing so.

As has been hammered out on many other threads and stated now by biologists in numerous public meetings: If we want better quality elk herds (not measured in inches upon harvest, but actual healthy herds), we need to kill more bulls. All across the state.

It's not rocket science, just biology.

 

[elkhunterUT]

No doubt that we can, and need to, kill more bulls. There is a tipping point though, but I agree that point should be determined by biology and not sociology.

 

[Vanilla]

No doubt that we can, and need to, kill more bulls. There is a tipping point though, but I agree that point should be determined by biology and not sociology.

Most definitely! The problem is that too many people in Utah would rather see inches than herd health. They'd rather see hunts restricted to increase value than more people hunting.

I'm not on board with either of those things, and never will be!

 

[vansterdam123]

I thought this thread was about when tag quotas post. Did Utah push back the app deadline so we would have good numbers prior to deadline?

I hate it when states don't keep their place in line. Changing dates for no reason.

 

[Vanilla]

Utah did push back their application period. It was not, however, for "no reason."

 

[JakeH]

I thought this thread was about when tag quotas post. Did Utah push back the app deadline so we would have good numbers prior to deadline?

I hate it when states don't keep their place in line. Changing dates for no reason.

They pushed back the application process to allow people to know the proposed tag allocation for the hunts. This has been asked for by the public for a long time. The results will still be posted at the same time as usual.

Not sure what you mean by keeping their place in line.

 

[Togwotee]

Age = Quality. if you think you need to make sure a bull doesn't make it past 4 years old or your herd isn't healthy that's telling me to burn my points this year.