# Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board will meet this morning at 9 a.m. Today's agenda covers a wide range of topics, including the 2019 big game and waterfowl hunts as well as the bighorn sheep and mountain goat management plans.

If you can't attend the meeting in person, we're broadcasting it live via YouTube.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Amy - thanks for the information and the link!

Very interesting presentation on the elk survey and the archery-only OIAL hunts . . .


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lots of public comment on things that are not on the agenda today. And it ticks me off. Next Wildlife Board meeting I'm going to be soliciting as many rifle hunters as possible that are willing to come and speak against these proposals on moving the elk calendar around. 

Stay tuned. I guess you can't just watch the agenda and go off the RAC packet proposals any more for what meetings you need to attend to speak about. It's time Utah hunters start speaking instead of just small minority special interest groups.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

They just said that nothing will really be done with what the public commenters said but only on what was approved and discussed in the RAC's. 

It is sad that they took up a lot of time that could of been better. 

Now saying that some of them made some good points on what is going on.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

How long does it take to give someone a definition of a primitive weapon?? 

Umm . . . . . . well . . . . . 

Muzzleloader: A weapon that the ignition is either flintlock or exposed percussion cap - loose powder, no sabots, no magnifying scopes - open sights or peep sights only. Done.

Bow: No compound, crossbow, or air rifle. Done.

Man, it doesn't have to be that hard to answer a question!!!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

CPAjeff said:


> How long does it take to give someone a definition of a primitive weapon??
> 
> Umm . . . . . . well . . . . .
> 
> ...


I was thinking the same thing.

I can't wait until the next meeting to actually hear what they come up with.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Here is one thing that drives me nuts about this: 

Chair Woodward states that the amended motion for the Barney Top archery only hunt was what came to them through the RAC process. SFW showing up at that RACs and proposing something that was NOT in the RAC packet does not constitute going through the RAC process. If it's not on an agenda ahead of time, nobody knows if they should come and speak for or against it. 

SFW is savvy enough to know exactly what they were doing here. I'm glad the Board did not fall for it. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that this crap is pulled. I hate having to think that regardless of what is in a packet or on an agenda, you have to be to the meeting just in case they decide to make a MAJOR change to Utah hunting on something out of left field.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The one thing that I often wonder about the board members is have any of them ever gone hunting in their lives? At times they ask the dumbest questions that any hunter would know. 

Such as what is a primitive weapon and how do you define it?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

And now the spike elk discussion on the Monroe unit. One person in a public comment makes and off-the-cuff comment about "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" and now Woodward is trying to force a motion.

After now asking 3 times for a motion, nobody has one, and he won't move on.

I'm beginning to think this is part of the larger scheme and smoke and mirrors. It sucks to be so distrustful of this group, but they've brought it on themselves.

Bringing the Monroe spike hunt back into the rifle hunt *WAS NOT* in the packet and has not gone through the public process. Yet it ends up in the meeting and passes unanimously. I'm all for the motion actually, and would support it, but they shouldn't have even discussed that today.

Just drives me nuts.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't think that Parliamentary procedure is their strong suit except for when it suits their needs.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Archery sheep!

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

What a grinder to watch

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

weaversamuel76 said:


> What a grinder to watch
> 
> Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


To be able to watch it you either need to be at work or watching it snow out your window like I am.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Chair Woodward states that the amended motion for the Barney Top archery only hunt ...


What? Is someone proposing a Barney Top archery only hunt?

Why would anyone push for this?


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Critter said:


> To be able to watch it you either need to be at work or watching it snow out your window like I am.


You have to watch it thought to know what extras everyone is throwing into 2019 big game hunting. Besides it's better than watching snow fall

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I just listen to it as I am doing other things. 

Multi tasking you could say with multiple screens open on my computer.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> What? Is someone proposing a Barney Top archery only hunt?
> 
> Why would anyone push for this?


SFW took this around to the RACs, and made the proposal again today. The proposal is creating a "primitive weapon" LE elk hunt on that is separated out on the Barney Top. Realizing we don't have a "primitive weapon" definition in the rules, they settled on archery only. (Bull crap, they are pushing an archery agenda big time, and that is why they "settled" on archery only hunt on a new unit.)

Even with the Division straight up telling the Board that it is outside of the elk plan that they had approved and had been vetted completely, it gathered support. Vote ultimately failed 2-4, but it has traction for the future.

Maddening to watch, and I don't even hunt down there.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Can you imagine how ticked off some will be if they come up with the definition of a primitive archery hunt is only using long bows or recurves and no compound bows?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Can you imagine how ticked 1-Eye is going to be when he sees that rifle spike hunting was just reinstated for the Monroe???


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

forget the weapon, why the Barney? If they really wanted a "primitive" hunt in a unique locale, why not go back to the Boulder Top?

I wonder what it is they are looking for with the Barney?


OK -- specifics of the request aren't important. It's really an issue of playing the game. Typical of SFW.


----------



## sheepassassin (Mar 23, 2018)

Critter said:


> The one thing that I often wonder about the board members is have any of them ever gone hunting in their lives? At times they ask the dumbest questions that any hunter would know.
> 
> Such as what is a primitive weapon and how do you define it?


That same question could be asked about 85% of the members on this forum...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

sheepassassin said:


> That same question could be asked about 85% of the members on this forum...


You would think that if they are sitting on a wildlife board that they might know something about wildlife.

But what can you expect from a appointee.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

These guys can't even add something up in their heads.:rotfl:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Can you imagine how ticked 1-Eye is going to be when he sees that rifle spike hunting was just reinstated for the Monroe???


You were correct. So they go through actual public meetings and actual data that shows much higher rates of spike success on Monroe and pass it a few years ago.....and now in a meeting without it on the agenda they re-instate it? Okay. I didn't watch the meeting how did this even get brought up?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Someone explain to me the reasoning why a 1777 Ferguson Black Powder Rifle should be illegal in the state of Utah for deer hunting. 

A gun made in 1777 is too technologically advanced I guess for 2019.


-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Could it be because it is loaded from the breech and not the muzzle?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You were correct. So they go through actual public meetings and actual data that shows much higher rates of spike success on Monroe and pass it a few years ago.....and now in a meeting without it on the agenda they re-instate it? Okay. I didn't watch the meeting how did this even get brought up?


John Bair got up in public comment and spoke in support of the spike hunts. Made a passing comment "By the way, I think you should reinstate the rifle hunt on the Monroe. What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

No motion from RAC, no actual discussion. But Woodard would not let it die without a motion on the spike hunts. Finally someone made motion to reinstate rifle on Monroe.

Passed unanimously.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You were correct. So they go through actual public meetings and actual data that shows much higher rates of spike success on Monroe and pass it a few years ago.....and now in a meeting without it on the agenda they re-instate it? Okay. I didn't watch the meeting how did this even get brought up?


I missed a lot of the meeting due to work, but here's what I recall:

A few board members expressed a distaste in the "not in my backyard" mentality that often comes up at the meetings. Like when people generally support the elk plan, but not on "their" unit, and ask for special favors. SFW came up with a few such proposals this year that were aimed at reducing harvest of big bulls on some of the late hunts (which, for the life of me, I don't understand - isn't that the point of the LE hunting season?).

The board is getting tired of people asking for special favors for specific units. They didn't want to hear it this time - they said that we have a statewide elk plan and they wanted to be consistent across the state.

Then, someone brought up the Monroe as an example of a case when the wildlife board had made a specific exception. I don't remember who brought it up or how. But after all their talk about not wanting to make special exceptions every time someone isn't quite happy with the management on one unit, I think the board realized it would be pretty hypocritical of them to talk like that and at the same time support a special management strategy on the Monroe. Hence, the change.

Prior to making the change, they asked some Division personnel if they had seen any impacts as a result of banning the rifle spike hunt, or if they anticipated any negative effects if the rifle spike hunt were reinstated. Division personnel didn't seem to think it would be an issue.

Hopefully that answers your question.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> Amy - thanks for the information and the link!
> 
> Very interesting presentation on the elk survey and the archery-only OIAL hunts . . .


Can someone please summarize the results of the surveys for me? When I try to go back and watch the meeting on YouTube, I can only see what happened after the lunch break.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Clarq said:


> Can someone please summarize the results of the surveys for me? When I try to go back and watch the meeting on YouTube, I can only see what happened after the lunch break.


I'm seeing the same issue from the original link. If you load it from the playlist, then it works. Try this: 




Amy, any chance you can fix the original link you posted so it shows the entire meeting, not just after lunch?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

That works, thanks.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I see a motion put forward by Byron Bateman involving lion hunting.

It will require GPS cords and field pictures of harvested lions at check in.
LONG OVER DUE!

I believe they should do the same requirements on bear hunts aswell.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Along with what goofy said, they need to have a MANDATORY harvest report for every big game animal, not only LE but any general season tag holder. Its not that hard. I filled one out for my Colorado deer hunt and tool 30-45 seconds. Maybe 4-5 questions was all. That way, we can have an actual correct harvest report. And maybe to get the people to stop calling me at the most inconvenient times. I dont mind answering those, but this would save them $$$ to not have to pay these people to call.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

With 90% of the hunters out there now having a cell phone that will take a picture with the GPS coordinates on it and the others owning a GPS there is no reason not to. 

They could even expand it to the LE elk, LE deer, and the OIL animals also since you need to report what drainage they were shot in. 

I may need to get a new phone. 


On a side note last Tuesday when I was headed home from Utah Valley I noticed some lion hunters checking out tracks in Spanish Fork Canyon around Tie Fork. Looked like they were about to have some fun.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

robiland said:


> Along with what goofy said, they need to have a MANDATORY harvest report for every big game animal, not only LE but any general season tag holder. Its not that hard. I filled one out for my Colorado deer hunt and tool 30-45 seconds. Maybe 4-5 questions was all. That way, we can have an actual correct harvest report. And maybe to get the people to stop calling me at the most inconvenient times. I dont mind answering those, but this would save them $$$ to not have to pay these people to call.


Why? Statistically it doesn't give us any better information and economically it will cost the state more money.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Interesting meeting. I thought the UDWR presented things very well. The Board, well I miss the Ernie Perkins and Brenda Bonds of the past who provided thoughtful input and analysis.

In the survey, it was disappointing to have such a low response. And 20% of the elk survey participants said they are "Archery Only", yet historically only 8-10% of elk LE applicants apply for le archery permits. Since archers are more prone to be dedicated to the sport, did archers respond at a higher percentage than other weapon type applicants? Which, if true, would skew the results toward that interest.

And to sound even more "anti-archery" (which I am not), I thought it was interesting that the Sheep Management Plan was changed to allow for possible increased harvest. Yet when they passed OIL Archery Sheep permits the Board expressed that those additional tags could be given as archery tags. 

It remains to be seen how these OIL archery hunts will play out, but if success rates are more than 50% then we are really just taking from one group and giving it to another. (Of which I am an "anti" )
..


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Packout said:


> Interesting meeting. I thought the UDWR presented things very well. The Board, well I miss the Ernie Perkins and Brenda Bonds of the past who provided thoughtful input and analysis.
> 
> In the survey, it was disappointing to have such a low response. And 20% of the elk survey participants said they are "Archery Only", yet historically only 8-10% of elk LE applicants apply for le archery permits. Since archers are more prone to be dedicated to the sport, did archers respond at a higher percentage than other weapon type applicants? Which, if true, would skew the results toward that interest.
> 
> ...


Can't wait for new board members. I found it interesting that some members of the board had zero comments in an meeting that was over 8 hours long. That's no engagement at all.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Also it wasn't an agenda item but dwr had a convenient slide show of "new" archery season dates for sheep. I need to start showing up to that coffee shop meeting on the weekend.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Wyomin2 Utah, 

How will it not give us any better info doing the survey? Do you really think that the people they call give 100% answers and What of they happen to call 60 of 100 who were successful but yet the next 100 they call wer 5 of 100? The better #'s we have will help know herd quality and and better understanding of over hunting or under hunting (tag #'s) for specific units. 

How would it cost more ? Maybe in the initial set up of the programming, but save money since they dont have to pay hundreds of hours of calling and survey people. I bet it would save money.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

brisket said:


> Amy, any chance you can fix the original link you posted so it shows the entire meeting, not just after lunch?


I think the whole meeting is there now, brisket. Thanks for following up!


----------

