# November RACs



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Tonight marks the last of the November RAC meetings. I am somewhat surprised/amazed that no one has commented on two of the informational items presented by Anis Aoude at these RAC meetings (the statewide spike elk hunt and the statewide unit-by-unit deer hunts). Did no one attend the RAC meetings? Or, what?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Proutdoors, Wapiti67, CalloftheWild and I went to the Central Region RAC. One DWR was sleeping during the meeting. He must have had a long day. The RAC members dont listen to public input because they also have their own agenda. Pro told them to wait until next year to talk about micromanaging units because that is when they decide the deer plan. They proposed 19,000 spike tags which will cause them to issue less mature bull tags. The Drawloc was voted on and past so the Coyoteslayer can shoot a 450 bull next year with a bow


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Tonight marks the last of the November RAC meetings. I am somewhat surprised/amazed that no one has commented on two of the informational items presented by Anis Aoude at these RAC meetings (the statewide spike elk hunt and the statewide unit-by-unit deer hunts). Did no one attend the RAC meetings? Or, what?


I went to the Central and will be going tonight as well. Since I am so ticked about the statewide spike hunt topic, I have refrained from going off on this idiotic plan. I WILL be doing everything I can over the course of the next several months to prevent it. I on the other hand like the deer plan, I believe the mule deer committee will be able to fine tune it and make it workable.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Since I am so ticked about the statewide spike hunt topic, I have refrained from going off on this idiotic plan.


Oh come on PRO what is the plan and why do you not like it?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Too much work today to get going on this. My list of 'issues' I have with this is loooooooooooooooooong. I will weigh in more after tonights meeting. Are you up for a road trip, I can fill you in on the way up?

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> what is the plan and why do you not like it?


The plan is to make all LE units open to spike hunting and to increase spike hunting opportunity back to 19,000 tags. Pro is ticked because if this plan is instituted, future LE hunting will be limited and increases in LE tags will only be slight.

The plan is being kicked around for a couple of reasons: 1) The public--imagine that--asked for it 2) it is a way of increasing elk hunting opportunity without hurting quality 3) it will help reduce bull/cow ratios on units where it is too high and maintain lower bull/cow ratios on units where it is ok.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

This would obviously make I400 a no go.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Are you up for a road trip, I can fill you in on the way up?


Yes told the boss I could not work late tonight.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> The plan is to make all LE units open to spike hunting and to increase spike hunting opportunity back to 19,000 tags


WOW I am a spike hunter as we all know yet I do not like the sound of that.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Tonight marks the last of the November RAC meetings. I am somewhat surprised/amazed that no one has commented on two of the informational items presented by Anis Aoude at these RAC meetings (the statewide spike elk hunt and the statewide unit-by-unit deer hunts). Did no one attend the RAC meetings? Or, what?


I was thinking the same thing. it will be interesing to sit in and listen to the comments at tonights meeting. I don't like the spike thing and I can't find the proposal for the unit by unit anywhere. I can see it on the aggenda but not he proposal. Is it online somwhere?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I think some of you are misunderstanding what is going on at these RACs. The two "plans" that I mentioned are NOT proposals...nor is the DWR planning on doing these things. These are simply informational items that the public, the RACs, and the Wildlife Board asked the DWR to do. Both of these informational items were given to show the pros and cons of moving the management plans in the respective directions. The very first of each informational presentation begins with the statement: "Through the public process hunters indicated to the RACs and the Wildlife board that they would like us to look at the pros and cons of managing..." This information has been given to inform hunters as to what these options would do and mean to hunters...

I have both presentations and could possible post them here later...I don't have time now.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Sorry, I made it sound that way. I was just looking to for the information. NOT PROPOSALS


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Pro is ticked because if this plan is instituted, future LE hunting will be limited and increases in LE tags will only be slight.


You have a hard enough time explaining *your* positions, don't try and explain mine! :roll:

I will be at the Northern RAC tonight and will be asking a few questions, then I will post my views on this. In the meantime, ANY comments as to where I stand is childish.

PRO


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

I don't like the idea of state wide spike tags either. :evil: I don't like the idea of state wide anything. It should be unit by unit managment, spike tags,managment tags, cow tags,or more LE tags as needed. 

Allen


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You have a hard enough time explaining *your* positions, don't try and explain mine! :roll:


Oh please...spare me! You and I both know that you were "ticked" because any mention of statewide spike hunting goes against every bit of "trophy" hunting blood you've got. And, it would rip apart your stupid "idiotic" I400!

As for any comments on where you stand being "childlish"...well let's say that your own "idiotic" words earlier in this thread, then, must have been "childlish"! :roll: :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Oh please...spare me!





> As for any comments on where you stand being "childlish"...well let's say that your own "idiotic" words earlier in this thread, then, must have been "childlish"!


Are you 14? This two 'brilliant' comments sound like something an 8th grader would say. Oh please...spare me, what a great line, I haven't heard that since Jr High School, thanks for bringing it 'back'.

Like I said, after tonight I will share where/why I stand on this issue. I can't believe someone feels the need to tell how I feel, as if I am shy in sharing my opinion. :roll:

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Like I said, after tonight I will share where/why I stand on this issue.


Why bother? I don't think anyone doesn't already know where you stand... :roll:

Like I said earlier...the idea of making all LE units open to spike hunting scares you to death because it would mean that LE tags couldn't be increased as much as you would want. :lol:


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

It should scare everyone who has ever wanted to hunt a LE bull in Utah. 

Why manage the herd with spike tags when we can do it through LE tags? 
Why increase tag limits to 19,000 when the DWR can just barely sale the 11,000 tags now?
The DWR had it at 19,000 tags for years and they have never sold out until just the past couple of years, and they don't even sell out until the last week before the hunt. Thus proving that this is not a HIGH DEMAND hunt. 

There are other idea's that can help thin out some bulls without having to go with this stupid plan. This totally goes against the mission statement/plan of the Elk Management Plan.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> It should scare everyone who has ever wanted to hunt a LE bull in Utah.
> 
> Why manage the herd with spike tags when we can do it through LE tags?
> Why increase tag limits to 19,000 when the DWR can just barely sale the 11,000 tags now?
> ...


1) Question: Why manage the herd with spike tags when we can do it through LE tags? Answer: In order to increase total hunting opportunity.
2) Question: Why increase tag limits to 19,000 when the DWR can just barely sale the 11,000 tags now? Answer: Elk hunting is becoming more and more popular. If spike tags were increased and hunters were allowed to hunt any LE unit, more tags would be sold. Many hunters choose not to hunt spikes just because there unit of choice is not a spike unit...this would change that. Regardless of how many tags would be sold, hunter opportunity is there. If hunters chose not to utilize all 19,000 tags, the numbers of spikes killed would be fewer and the number of LE tags available would increase...it doesn't matter how high the demand is; we know that the demand is higher than the number of tags available.
3) I don't see it as being against the elk management plan at all...I see it as a realistic and easy way of bringing our elk herds back into line. I see it as a way of increasing hunter opportunity without decreasing quality.
4) Like it or not, it was the public--through the RAC process--that asked the DWR to do this!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I haven't looked much into the statewide spike elk hunt, but IMO there couldn't be anything good come out of it. Have you gone out on a spike elk hunt before? You better be the quickest shot, because it is a slaughter house, way to many hunters already.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

There is no reason to give out 19,000 spike tags. It maybe give people opportunity to hunt spikes, but it takes away opportunity to hunt LE bulls. I 400 is a much better plan and more people will see our plan 10 times better now that this has been presented. Utah is a spike hunting state apparently and yes we have big bulls, but we dont allow many people to hunt them. Other states dont hunt spikes and they give people more opportunity to hunt big bulls. We have fanastic bulls but this doesnt benefit a lot of people because many people here wont even draw a tag in their lifetime and forget about the youth. They dont have a chance in hell to draw a tag. It sounds like pretty poor management. We have to many bulls, but yet we dont issue out many tags. We need trophy units and lesser trophy units that give people more opportunity to hunt big bulls other than a spike tag.

The spike tag is worthless in my mind as far as a hunting opportunity is concerned and Wyo2ut complained about places will be overcrowded on the favorite spike places well now you will have 8,000 more hunters and it will be more crowded.


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

It's not just the spike units that are over crowded. 
The any bull units are a joke as well.
Too many hunters with very little public land to hunt.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Spike hunts on the rise? Not even close. I have posted these number a few times, but since you keep claiming these tags are in such high demand, I guess I will post them again. Before 2005 the DWR offered 19,000 spike tags. In 2005, the DWR reduced those tag number to 11,000 so that they could give out more LE tags
Here is the number of general season hunter. 
34928 1995
34207 1996
33696 1997
33014 1998
36725 1999
34347 2000
31195 2001
29822 2002
31496 2003
31624 2004
29751 2005 Of the 29,751 hunters for 2005, 12,335 where any bull hunter's for rifle and muzzleloader. Also included in that number is archery hunters. 

I see a slight reduction in hunter's and this is before the DWR reduced tag numbers. These tags are not high demand. If anything these tags have remain consistent throughout the year's. 

The any bull tags are the ones on the rise, people are getting tired of shooting spikes. These tags use to never sell out. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe these tags sold out before the spike tags this year. 

The biggest raise we see is the amount of people who put in for LE elk tags each year. That number increases 5% each year. You say these 19,000 elk tags are going to increase hunter opportunity. I don't, I see it as loosing opportunity. You complained about I400, saying that it will take away hunter opportunity, Yet here you are supporting an idea that would be taking away hunter opportunity for 45,000+ people who would like to hunt LE elk. 

This is taken directly out of the ELk Managment Plan. 

C. Recreation Management Goal: Provide a diversity of high-quality hunting and
viewing opportunities for elk throughout the state.
Recreation Objective 1: Maintain a diverse hunting program for elk that allows for both
general season and limited entry hunting opportunities.
Implications: Utah currently has a diverse elk hunting program that provides for a variety of
hunting interests.
Strategies:
a. Continue to recommend “spike only” and “any bull” general seasons as well as limited
entry elk hunting opportunities.
b. Provide varied levels of quality by maintaining three categories of age class harvest
objectives.
c. Continue to support the cooperative wildlife management unit and landowner permit
programs that provides incentives for private landowners to manage for elk and their
habitat.
Recreation Objective 2: Increase opportunities for hunting of mature bulls on units with
limited entry permits without greatly reducing quality.
Implications: Implementation of the strategies listed below will result in increased hunting
opportunity without greatly reducing quality.
Strategies:
a. Reduce the cap on spike bull units and consider reducing season length to allow more
yearling bulls to advance to older age classes.
b. Maintain three categories of age class objectives and reduce the age class objective on the
middle and highest categories.
c. Provide a late season rifle elk hunting opportunity away from the rut that will reduce
harvest rates and thereby increase future hunting opportunity.
d. Continue to encourage primitive weapon opportunities that provide hunting opportunity
with reduced harvest rates.
12
e. Provide a premium limited entry hunting opportunity that would allow a specified percent
of the limited entry rifle hunters to hunt all seasons for a premium fee.
f. Seek opportunities to expand youth hunting opportunities on any bull units.

There is not enough demand to fill these 19,000 spike tags. Lets add more LE tags to the hunter pool if a herd is in need of thinning out.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Recreation Objective 2: Increase opportunities for hunting of mature bulls on units with
> limited entry permits without greatly reducing quality.
> Implications: Implementation of the strategies listed below will result in increased hunting
> opportunity without greatly reducing quality.
> ...


The DWR doesnt even follow the elk plan. WHY even have a plan if its not going to be followed. The plan says to *reduce* NOT increase spike tags.

WYO2ut you went on and on about I400 not following the plan which is does better than even the DWR follows it because apparently the DWR doesnt follow the plan of the elk commitee. Will the deer plan be followed when they write it next year. I highly doubt it because they are doing just the opposite of the elk plan.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Why I do NOT like this:

1)It goes contrary to the current Elk Management Plan as pointed out by utfireman and others.

2)This would completely HOSE the LE elk hunters;
a)LE archery hunters would be competing with spike hunters for their 'hunt of a lifetime'.
b)LE any-weapon hunters will now have more hunters pushing/bumping mature bulls right before their hunt, minimizing the effectiveness of pre-season scouting.
c)LE archery deer huunters would have spike hunters to contend with on units like the Book Cliffs and San Juan LE deer units.
3)This will SEVERELY limit the number of mature bulls available for the LE hunters to hunt, and more importantly, this WOULD limit the number of mature bull tags that SHOULD be issued.
4)This is a LOSS of opportunity for those who wish to hunt mature bulls on ALL 28 LE units, I seriously doubt the majority of elk hunters (60% of those who apply for a LE tag never buy a general elk tag each year) 'prefer' hunting spikes OVER mature bulls, which is exactly what this 'idea' would do.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

SO how did the meeting go? 

Like I have said I am a spike hunter yet do not like this idea nor would I support it. I would support I 400 over this idea. :shock: If they try and pass that idea plan or what ever it is, that sure will make I 400 a great plan.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Weatherby I thought you were going to the meeting? The DWR claims that more people want spike tags, but I don't see/hear of a lot of hunters wanting spike tags. Utah isnt even heading in the right direction if only 2,200 people get to hunt big bulls with the amount of bulls we have out there. 

What is happening....... is they are saying here is your spike tag so go camping with family and friends and be happy so go hunting or shut up.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I thought the meeting could have been much better. NO offense to Anis, He is probably a good guy. But, he fumbled for answers that he should have known. He would have done better just to read the text off his presentations and then shut up. I was not impressed with his representation of the DWR. 

I can't decide if the UBA proposal was accepted or not. The motion to reccomend that the UBA proposal be submitted to the boards for review, was accepted but one member said it doesn't matter because they had already voted on that part. I was confused a little.

I liked the BOA proposal for the archery hunts on WMA but well see how that pans out in the future. Seems they needed to make sure it was communicated a little better.

I like what I saw on the information for the Unit by unit deer managment. I think this is a good direction to go. I hope it goes further, after they address the concerns of the general public.

I do not like the Spike hunting state wide Idea. It seems they were just doing this because it was the easiest political way to take more bulls units. THere were far more cons to this than pros. They even said this in there own presentation. One graph showing the amount of tags currently being issued on LE units and what there potential is. The potential for more LE tags was fairly large. I don't see why they cant just adjust the tag allotments to this potential to take some more bulls off the units.

I believe the southern season dates, changing to a nine day season motion passed. I was day dreaming while they bickered over that one.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

:roll: ...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You guys are forgetting one thing: THE PUBLIC ASKED THE DWR FOR THIS!


I would have to disagree with you on this. Of course that is what they are saying, but what constitutes "public". Was it a small group of hunters, was it thousands, was it one powerful person? They are saying it was brought up by the public, but I rarely hear the "public" saying they want more spike tags; at least, the people I talk to and most of them are average joe hunters.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wynut, you believe everything that comes out of the mouth of the DWR. So they probably had two people asking for spike tags because they procrastinated and waited until the last minute. You show me where there has been a great outcry about people wanting more spike tags???? The RACs and DWR already knew the outcome of the meeting way before the meeting started. They have an agenda. In the central RAC, the RAC members couldnt wait to vote on something before the public voiced their opinion and they didnt even listen to the public a whole a lot. 

They claim the public asked for it but where is the proof???????


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Weatherby I thought you were going to the meeting?


I was.  Would have been nice to meet Bart and Tye and others. But from what I have been told how the meetings went I might have to start supporting I400. :shock:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

truemule said:


> I thought the meeting could have been much better. NO offense to Anis, He is probably a good guy. But, he fumbled for answers that he should have known. He would have done better just to read the text off his presentations and then shut up. I was not impressed with his representation of the DWR.
> 
> I can't decide if the UBA proposal was accepted or not. The motion to reccomend that the UBA proposal be submitted to the boards for review, was accepted but one member said it doesn't matter because they had already voted on that part. I was confused a little.
> 
> ...


I thought that was you. When you came outside those few times I kept looking and saying to myself "What would that guy look like with a mullet?". I even made comment to Bart.

There's some goofy stuff going on within the ranks of the RAC boys. I too was very unimpressed with Anise's lack of knowledge or misinformation. He at one point stated that LE archery success is around 80%????WTF??? :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: The Spike/archery proposal was almost dead in the water and set aside but was given CPR by Ryan Foutz at the last minute. A bunch of them were dismissing it on what I thought was laziness to even look into the actual proposal, similar to the statewide spike proposal. They seem to be taking the easy way out AGAIN.

When confronted by the FACT that the statewide spike proposal went against the elk management plan specifically and the spirit of Utah elk management for the last fifteen years, he replied that it did not go against the plan. Everyone in attendance, including some board members would have gone away from the meeting believing this if someone hadn't stood up and reiterated(Bart) the FACT that it goes aginst the outline of the plan, to which he finally conceded.

Good meeting overall, attendance was close to sad. Where are all of you opinionated ****ers at when these things roll around?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

I went to the central RAC with PRO and coyoteslayer and everyone else that was there, and I have to agree with what has been said about the meeting. There was a few pretty hot issues that the public spoke about, but it was pretty rediculous how the board didn't really listen to our ideas, and didn't really want to understand what we wanted. It was like they let us talk because that is what they were supposed to do, but our voices didn't hold much merit. It was pretty frustrating. There was one gentleman on the board that understood the UBA proposal and voiced his acceptance for it, and he motioned to accept it but couldn't get anyone to second his motion. So they voted on part of it. It was pretty bad. Some of the board members were asking some questions that were pretty sad. They were questions that were really obvious in the answers and were things that if you had any knowledge about even the basics of hunting and management, you would have known them. We all just looked at each other in amazement. With all that being said, there wasn't as big a showing of the public that there needs to be. If we had a lot more people show up and voice there opinion, then with that many more people speeking out , the board would have to listen. I was really disappointed with how many people were dedicated enough to show up. There definately needs to be A LOT more people to show up. Everyone here is pretty vocal about hunting, its time that we start letting the board know we are serious and show up next time.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah Suave300. It was also funny that one RAC member didnt even know that hunters are required to buy a hunting license this year before they apply. Where has he been all this time. You think being a RAC board member then he would have this knowledge. The guy next to him had to explain a lot to him. Maybe after the meeting was over then he took him out to the woodshed and schooled the boy.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Someone like that needs to be removed.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

I couldn't agree more Treehug!! I couldn't agree more.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I thought that was you. When you came outside those few times I kept looking and saying to myself "What would that guy look like with a mullet?". I even made comment to Bart.


Yeah that was me, I kept having to call the wife on the breaks. She wanted me to come home. My boy smashed his finger and she thought the world was ending.

This was only my second RAC and I may speak out in the future but for now I am just gaining knowledge. Thats my weak spot is the knowledge of the history and rules of engagement. When Bart stood up to clarify the propsed date changes and why they were changed in the past. I had no Idea that had even happened and Anis didn't seem to care. Thats what I need to work on.

Like Suave said we need to have more people show up for these meetings. Did you notice how scarce it got when all the dedicated hunters were aloud leave. I wonder if they realize the impact the things decided in these meetings are going to have on there three season hunt. I have nothing against dedicated hunters (I am one) but they were just there becasue they needed it to get there pass and that bugs me.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

> Did you notice how scarce it got when all the dedicated hunters were aloud leave.


You should see the RAC's right before the season starts. You can't park for 2 blocks at the community center at the start. As soon as they take role, 90% of them clear out. Most truely are dedicated hunters, dedicated to pleasing themselves and no one else.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Trulemule, treehugnhntr guessed who you were, thanks for SHOWING UP! The UBA proposal was passed in part, they amended it, same as the othe RAC's to move the archery elk hunt to open the same day as the deer on the LE units and end five days earlier, giving the LE archery bull elk hunters 5 days to hunt w/o competing with spike hunters. The BOU proposal was voted down, but I believe they knew going in it needed work and they were getting it out there and start the debate/work on getting it thru in the future.

I want to publically thank John Bair at the Central RAC and Ryan Foutz at the Northern RAC for being stand-up RAC board members. These two men were the only ones that even acknowledged the proposals and comments from the public, and last night Ryan had to take on the rest of the board just to get a vote one way or the other on several items. Ironically, both of these men are 'power brokers' with SFW, the group constantly accused of ignoring the general public and only worrying about their own 'agendas', which as I have found out by seeing them in action and thru conversations with them, is to make hunting better for ALL hunters. There was only two or three RAC members last night and only ONE RAC member at the Central that seemed to give even the slightest interest in what the general public had to say on ANY subject(s). The others seemed irrated by people 'wasting' their time, when their stance was already set in stone regardless of public input/new info was offered.

PRO


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

PRO, or anyone else for that matter, do you guys go to any other RAC's besides the November meeting. After going to this one, I now realize how bad we as the public need to voice our opinion at these, if we want anything to go our way. Maybe we could all hook up at more of these meetings, to let the RAC's know how serious the public is about our resources? What do you all think?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I usually hit 3 or 4 a year and I am coninually amazed at the lack of participation.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I usually hit 3 or 4 a year and I am coninually amazed at the lack of participation.


+1

Good idea suave300. We should plan on it! Are we as sportsmen/women willing to walk the walk or just talk? Stand up and demand to be heard!

PRO


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I plan on making it to a few more per year. I feel if I don't I am going to lose privelidges or be blindsided when a new proclomation comes out. I hate finding out second hand and like PRo saids "show up or shutup". That have been a little miss quoted but I think it gets the point across.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I am sitting here laughing my a$$ off because you guys are all up in arms over an informational item. This is NOT a proposal...the funny thing is that I went back and read the minutes on previous RAC meetings and Board meetings and I was able to find exactly when and why this informational was presented.

During this past year, the DWR has been giving other informational presentations to RACs about why and how deer and elk are managed in the state of Utah (I have posted both of these informational presentations numerous times in various threads and at various times) In response to these informational items, two concerns revolving around Utah's elk hunts came up: 1) the need to lower bull/cow ratios and 2) the reduced reproductive capability of unit herds that have inflated bull/cow ratios that subsequently reduces hunter opportunity.

On August 8 of this year, Keele Johnson--a Board member from Blanding--in addressing "the number one topic of concern at the WAFWA conference" (retention and recruitment of hunters) and the current two major problems our elk herds face asked for a "study item on the action log which would be a statewide spike only on elk and get rid of all open bull unit." It was the feeling of the Board that "this would increase opportunity and start addressing recruitment and retention of hunters." It was also mentioned that "This would be one system and less confusing." Because of this discussion the motion was made by Keeele Johnson, seconded by Lee Howard, and passed unanimously, the motion states: "I move that the DWR do a model scenario of statewide spike only hunts with the limited entry portion being determined by age structure on the different units, and we continue to include some management bull harvest."

Because this motion was made and passed, the DWR was forced to give an informational item to the RACs and Board that showed how such a plan would affect elk hunting. You guys should relax and not get so bent out of shape...this isn't the plan and it hasn't been proposed.

With that being said, though, I gained a strong sense that future elk hunting regulations will focus on these specific goals: 1) increase overall hunting opportunity in order to recruit and retain future hunters 2) decrease bull/cow ratios without hurting quality 3) simplify regulations in order to make hunting rules easier to understand for the general public (through public input, the DWR believes that many hunters and fishermen are afraid of the increasingly complicated rules and regulations governing hunting and fishing and are, therefore, choosing not to participate in these sports). Any future changes in our elk hunting regulations will undoubtedly, in my mind, have to fit the above goals or the Board will not pass the proposal.

A couple of other things of note that I believe some of you are missing: 1) RAC members are NOT necessarily hunters...some, in fact, may be against hunting. Each RAC is made up of 12-15 members who represent different interest groups. A RAC member may not know anything about hunting because they are representing an interest group that doesn't hunt. 2) The RAC meetings and Board meetings is the public process for input in Utah...council members and Board members are NOT DWR employees and Board members are NOT appointed by the DWR. 3) If you want your voice heard, you must take an active approach and let your voice heard through RAC meetings...not just a meeting here or there. Agendas for these meetings and the minutes of these meetings or open to the public. The reason we have these meetings is to discuss and examine what is best for Utah's wildlife...in accordance to a wide variety of interests. 4) Just because you voice your opinion does NOT mean that the RACs or the Board should do what YOU want. Again, RAC members represent certain interests and they must look out for those interests.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Are you 14? This two 'brilliant' comments sound like something an 8th grader would say. Oh please...spare me, what a great line, I haven't heard that since Jr High School, thanks for bringing it 'back'.


Pro, remeber when you were talking about the age of a bull and ole wynut said that many people think hes 15 years old. Clueless and Idiotic are Monroe words. They are like fighting word there boy. When you hear someone call another person clueless you better head to the flagpole after school because there is going to be a fight.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am sitting here laughing my **** off because you guys are all up in arms over an informational item. This is NOT a proposal...the funny thing is that I went back and read the minutes on previous RAC meetings and Board meetings and I was able to find exactly when and why this informational was presented.
> 
> 3) If you want your voice heard, you must take an active approach and let your voice heard through RAC meetings...not just a meeting here or there. Agendas for these meetings and the minutes of these meetings or open to the public. The reason we have these meetings is to discuss and examine what is best for Utah's wildlife...in accordance to a wide variety of interests. 4) Just because you voice your opinion does NOT mean that the RACs or the Board should do what YOU want. Again, RAC members represent certain interests and they must look out for those interests.


Wyoming,

A tree is seed before it is ever a tree. Just as proposal are information before they are ever a proposal. You water a seed to make it a tree. We are just watching and talking about the information so when the time comes we can effect the proposal for the positive or negative. Whatever the case may be.

You laugh at us for being up in arms over information, but then you say we must take an active approach in order to make our voices heard. What do you think we are doing at these RAC's when they show us this information? We are making our voices heard about inforamtion that has the potential to be proposal. You cantradict yourself.


----------



## legacy (Sep 30, 2007)

"Thought's lead to action's."


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Truemule, one thing you need to realize is that Wyoming2utah is three people in one body. Sometimes hes wyo2ut, sometimes hes wynut and other times hes wyoming2utah. He fights himself on ever post because sometimes wynut wants to share something, but wyo2ut wont let me so that is why he talks in circles. He has 3 personalities locked up inside and all of them want to talk at the same time. This is considered rare and it might be curable


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Wyo2ut, My comments were not necessarily for or against this particular information. My comments were more along the general lines of how everyone needs to start being more proactive with our RAC meetings and start getting involved. I dont care if your for or aginst certain information, I am just saying lets start getting involved and let our voices be heard at the meetings.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Truemule, my point was that your lack of participation in the past caused you to miss the boat on this one...not only has this stuff been coming for several months, but it has been discussed for the past year. If you don't want to be blindsided, keep involved. Why weren't you up in arms when the Board motioned for the DWR to do this informational presentation? Why weren't you up in arms when this stuff was discussed earlier in the year?

What really causes me to laugh my ace off, though, is that the very hunters who have kept the DWR from managing elk the way they should have been managed are the ones forcing the DWR at looking at other options. Had the DWR been able to give out the LE tag numbers that they had wanted in the past, our bull/cow ratios would probably not be as bad as they are. It looks to me as though the trophy hunters may have shot themselves in the foot...if the DWR decides to actually propose this as a plan and the plan is implemented, those poor trophy hunters have no one but themselves to blame!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Sucked into the vortex once again. It is very interesting how two people can sit in a meeting and come out with differing viewpoints of what really happened. Public apathy has been created by the RAC process, when public over whelming public sentiment has been disregarded.

The DWR have had their hands tied in the bull hunting arena. Most times they have tried to get more bull tags on most units and are shot down thru the public process. They are trying to get a handle on the excess bull populations thru a spike hunt. When the March RACs come around, show up and ask for more Mature bull tags and there will be NO need for a spike hunt. In the end more bulls must be killed off these units.

The Archery proposals were accepted at the Central RAC, except for extending the archery hunt by 1 week into the Youth Elk Hunt. That was a no-brainer for the RAC to reject that, putting 1,000s of archers in the field with hundreds of gun toting youth hunters. I imagine the Board will vote the same way.

Coyote- I thought the RAC member was asking the question of how the DWR was going to deal with the need for having a license to apply AND to have on your person while hunting. The license is a 365 day license from the date of purchase. So the hunter needs to have a license to apply AND a current license to carry in the field. Many people bought their licenses AFTER the draw occurred last year so their license is valid now (for the draw) but will expire BEFORE the hunts start in the Fall. He was given an answer that the DWR will let people know their license has expired.

I found it interesting at the Central RAC that the UBA reps stated that there are only 16,000 possible archers. Many RAC members (including the one UBA reps ridiculed publicly) know there are 16,000 archers, 10,000 dedicated hunters, and 15,000+ youth hunters who may be out hitting the archery hunt. That could be 40,000 archers. There are less than 70,000 rifle hunters. It is easy to get the RAC on your side, but is is even easier to push them away with misinformation.

In the end, the Board is where the decisions will be made. The RACs get a little done, gather public sentiment, but the Board makes the decisions.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You guys are forgetting one thing: *THE PUBLIC ASKED THE DWR FOR THIS!*





wyoming2utah said:


> On August 8 of this year, Keele Johnson--*a Board member from Blanding-*-in addressing "the number one topic of concern at the WAFWA conference" (retention and recruitment of hunters) and the current two major problems our elk herds face asked for a "study item on the action log which would be a statewide spike only on elk and get rid of all open bull unit." *It was the feeling of the Board that "this would increase opportunity and start addressing recruitment and retention of hunters."* It was also mentioned that "This would be one system and less confusing." Because of this discussion the motion was made by Keeele Johnson, seconded by Lee Howard, and passed unanimously, the motion states: "I move that the DWR do a model scenario of statewide spike only hunts with the limited entry portion being determined by age structure on the different units, and we continue to include some management bull harvest."
> 
> Because this motion was made and passed, the DWR was forced to give an informational item to the RACs and Board that showed how such a plan would affect elk hunting. You guys should relax and not get so bent out of shape...this isn't the plan and it hasn't been proposed.


Your contradicting yourself. :? You say it was brought on by the public, but then you mention it was proposed by the board to recruit more hunters, which is it?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> Your contradicting yourself. :? You say it was brought on by the public, but then you mention it was proposed by the board to recruit more hunters, which is it?


NO...this is the public process through which Utah operates. One board member motioned it and it was approved unanimously...and, no public attendees voiced concerns about it. The Public proposed this....a member of the Public motioned for it and members of the Public approved it!

So, just like the presentations at the RAC stated, "Through the public process hunters indicated to the RACs and the Wildlife Board that they would like [the DWR] to look at the pros andd cons of managing" elk this way.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I found it interesting at the Central RAC that the UBA reps stated that there are only 16,000 possible archers. Many RAC members (including the one UBA reps ridiculed publicly) know there are 16,000 archers, 10,000 dedicated hunters, and 15,000+ youth hunters who may be out hitting the archery hunt. That could be 40,000 archers. There are less than 70,000 rifle hunters. It is easy to get the RAC on your side, but is is even easier to push them away with misinformation.


I find it interesting *you* choose to pass on 'mis-information' while accusing others of the same! :? First, NO ONE from UBA "ridiculed publicly" any of the RAC memebers, even though it may have been warranted. Second, if you believe there is EVER 40,000 archers on the mountain on any ONE given day, you need professional help. But, just for kicks and giggles, that is STILL only 40,000 vs 70,000, how does that compute into the archery hunt being MORE crowded than the rifle season? Your math is as fuzzy as wyo2ut's 'logic'. Third, it is NOT "easy to get the RAC on your side" if they won't even acknowledge you or your proposal. I have no problem with what was passed at the Central RAC and the Northern RAC, what I take issue with is the complete lack of interest in HEARING what the public says or wants. I am not so arrogant to believe if I propose something it should be passed, but it should be HEARD and atleast ACKNOWLEDGED. 11 people sat on their collectives a$$es last night and said/asked NOTHING, ONE RAC member had to call out his fellow RAC members to ACT on the proposals, just to get an up or down vote was like pulling teeth, it was like it wasn't even worth their time to discuss/vote on the proposals made by MANY different sources. You and wyo2ut say people should voice thier opinions and wishes, yet when people do, this is how you respond, NICE. :roll:

Wyo2ut, you are correct, it was informational, thanks Captain Obvious. The DWR said it was introduced to GET PUBLIC INPUT, so we are giving public input, as I did last night, and the best you can do is laugh your *** off? What a well-thought out reaction.

PRO


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Your contradicting yourself. :? You say it was brought on by the public, but then you mention it was proposed by the board to recruit more hunters, which is it?
> ...


Ok I get it, 4 people liked it so that is good for the whole "public." :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> thanks Captain Obvious


Gosh dang it!!! I thought I had all of wyo2ut personalities nailed down and Pro sees other personality. I guess Pro is right, once you hit 40 then you are wiser.

Captain Obvious what color is your cape?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Ok I get it, 4 people liked it so that is good for the whole "public."


And now you understand how wyo2ut 'spins' things to look a certain way when in truth it is something quite different. he says the 'public' requested it, now we see it was the Wildlife Board, and then he says WB members are part of 'public'. Hell isn't EVERY citizen part of the 'public'?

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

You know, I used to think wyo2ut was a fairly informed, sensible person. Then, I started paying more attention to his posts. I have now derived the opinion that he may be just mad at the world and a hyper-contrarian with his heels dug in. I am unsure of the reason why people continue to acknowledge his piss and vinegar filled ramblings.

In the name of :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: , Amen.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> Ok I get it, 4 people liked it so that is good for the whole "public." :roll:


4 people? What the F? It was everyone in the meeting (well over 50 people)...and the entire hunting public was invited! So, the public that was there and showed interested go their chance to have a say... Because no negative comments or resistance was met and the motion was unanimously voted upon by the entire Board, it was approved.

I noticed you weren't at these meetings, PRo...isn't it you that says "show up or shut up"? Sounds to me like you should follow your own logic!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> What the F


That wouldnt be nice if you finished that word.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I noticed you weren't at these meetings, PRo...isn't it you that says "show up or shut up"? Sounds to me like you should follow your own logic!


I will admit I do NOT attend EVERY WB or RAC meeting in the State, just as many as I can. I'll put up my attendance record against yours anyday of the week. The WB has their meetings during the WEEK when most adults have JOBS. I only get so many days off in a year, so I only attend certain ones. I DO attend more RAC meetings than I miss, WB meetings are difficult, but I WILL be to the one on November 29th, will you be there? 

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

First of all, I am not the one bitching about the process and being heard. I am not worried about being heard. Second of all, I have read through the minutes of almost every single RAC meeting and Board meeting since about 2004...I choose to keep myself informed even when I do not attend. And, as I have always done, I contact both DWR officials and Board and RAC members when I have something to say. Nope, I won't be at the meeting on the 29th...but, I don't have anything I feel needs saying either. I have read the agenda, I understand what issues will be discussed and have voiced my opinions prior to both the RAC meetings and the Board meetings. I have no need to be there.

You, on the other hand, bitch and moan about and informational item that is presented even though you missed the opportunity to speak up about it...how "contradictory" it is of you to exclaim we need to "show up or shut up"...yet, when you didn't "show up" you have done nothing but speak up when what occurred goes against your thinking.

I am laughing my arse off because I have been waiting for this to come out...I knew it was coming. Did you?


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks to those who went. Reading this makes me feel like a loser for not going more than when I do ded requirements. The last meeting I went to got me really disillusioned in the process for some of the same reasons I am reading here. Would a forum like this be considered any basis for a group that could nominate a board member?

The statewide elk suggestion or whatever it is sounds like it would only work if it was spike everywhere plus added limited any bull, but I think I would prefer an I 400 type solution as well. Let more people at the mature bulls and keep fewer areas on constant ice.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

As a totally uninformed, (because I choose to be mostly), hunter I have no idea how the process you're all so nicely and sweetly talking about works. I know there are RAC meetings with board members, who apparently make suggestions to THE board members from the DWR. What I don't understand is WHO are these board members from the RAC? How do they get to be there, and who places them there? Is it an appointment or and election? How long is the term? I would also like to know how the board for the DWR is created and the terms and conditions of their appointment/election. Also, who does the DWR report to, if anybody. Mostly, how do all these rules and regulations really get passed?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

J-bass said:


> As a totally uninformed, (because I choose to be mostly), hunter I have no idea how the process you're all so nicely and sweetly talking about works. I know there are RAC meetings with board members, who apparently make suggestions to THE board members from the DWR. What I don't understand is WHO are these board members from the RAC? How do they get to be there, and who places them there? Is it an appointment or and election? How long is the term? I would also like to know how the board for the DWR is created and the terms and conditions of their appointment/election. Also, who does the DWR report to, if anybody. Mostly, how do all these rules and regulations really get passed?


Read the information on this site:
http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... volved.php


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I am laughing my arse off because I have been waiting for this to come out...I knew it was coming. Did you?


Funny chit right there. Here is where it becomes a real knee slapper. In October, UBA invited the *BIG GAME COORDINATOR* himself to attend, which he did. I myself, point blanked asked him about it and he said he KNEW nothing about it and NEVER made ANY mention of it. Isn't that freakin funny?



> You, on the other hand, **** and moan about and informational item that is presented even though you missed the opportunity to speak up about it...how "contradictory" it is of you to exclaim we need to "show up or shut up"...yet, when you didn't "show up" you have done nothing but speak up when what occurred goes against your thinking.


I didn't know making comments was considering "**** and moaning", thanks for the 'education'. I thought Anis ASKED for feedback, so I offered it to him at the RAC and I am offering it here. You say the public should get involved, yet you belittle and put down anyone who dares question something you have drank the kool-aid of. I recall when I400 first got going how you and your brother made a huge deal over not everybody knowing about it, specially in 'rural' Utah, yet you seem to dismiss the VERY same thing on this topic. So, I ask you, WTF?

I HAVE attended 7 different RAC meetings in the last 12 months, I consider that plenty of SHOWING UP! I HAVE made proposals, asked questions, corresponded with RAC members over the phone and thru e-mail, talked directly to RAC/WB members, had MANY conversations with the DWR mamangement all the way to the top (Jim Kiaporwitz), so I ask you oh wise one, what more should I do to be 'involved'?

PRO


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Oh thanks, that pretty much clears it up. 
It seems to me that the RAC's in effect act as a buffer for the Wildlife Board from direct conact with the public. It makes sense really, so they can do whatever the hell they want to. While the RAC's make "suggestions" to the almighty board, they don't have to follow it at all, and are only required to send the RAC's a letter that explains, or least gives a good sounding argument, as to why they didn't follow the RAC's, i.e. the publics, recomendation. Also, it is worth noting that the DWR has no direct impact on the wildlife board. The Pres. acts only as the secratary, and has no voting power, which I find very odd. Also, nearly two thirds of the 7 member group have to be experts in private land and anther an expert in economics. Seems a bit of a conflict of interest, but who am I to say? Isn't also great the Gov Hunstman, gets to decide who these members are? Wow, just be lucky we can hunt at all with the F'ed up way this all gets done. To be honest, I think it's mere coincedence that our elk herds turned out so well. People give credit to this and that, I just say pure luck. What a flawed system!!! Argue till your face turns blue, it won't do much.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Another question for Mr Chuck and Duck, er I mean Packout, on the 'over-crowding' during archery season you say 40,000 'could' be on the mountain at the same time, and you seem to be like wyo2ut and assume the DWR is NEVER wrong right? So, when the DWR at this same RAC in 2006 showed numbers SAYING there is NO over-crowding during the archery season, what do you say to that? 

Correct me if I am wrong on one other thing, didn't we go to picking a region for rifle/muzzy deer hunters to prevernt OVER-HARVEST not OVER-CROWDING? Are we trying to apply DIFFERENT rules to different weapon types? I suppose you have no problems with LE archers competing with spike hunters, curious would you like to see rifle spike tags and muzzy spike tags issued during the LE hunt dates? If not, why?

PRO


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Truemule, my point was that your lack of participation in the past caused you to miss the boat on this one...not only has this stuff been coming for several months, but it has been discussed for the past year. If you don't want to be blindsided, keep involved. Why weren't you up in arms when the Board motioned for the DWR to do this informational presentation? Why weren't you up in arms when this stuff was discussed earlier in the year?
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO it was good to shoot the breeze with ya last night. 

The BOU proposal to control the deer herds on some of the northern WMA's was a very last 
minute type of deal. We were asked to provide an option, which we did, and the lack of communication was totally my fault. Never take anything for granted. This as well as a once in a lifetime opportunity will be worked on and presented at next years go around. The UBA proposal made sense and was presented very well by Bart.

Back on the old DWR Board a public opinion survey was run for several month's concerning the RAC process. At that time I urged all to voice their opinion either favorably or un-favorably. I have been asking since April to view the results of this survey ( which should be available to the general public ) without success.

I would urge all of you to become more involved in this process, contact these people via e mail or other correspondence and hold them accountable. Ask them why they voted the way they did, find out the thought process in how they come to their decisions and most of all remember that these people are just like you and me HUMAN


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

> I find it interesting you choose to pass on 'mis-information' while accusing others of the same! :? First, NO ONE from UBA "ridiculed publicly" any of the RAC memebers, even though it may have been warranted. Second, if you believe there is EVER 40,000 archers on the mountain on any ONE given day, you need professional help. But, just for kicks and giggles, that is STILL only 40,000 vs 70,000, how does that compute into the archery hunt being MORE crowded than the rifle season? Your math is as fuzzy as wyo2ut's 'logic'. Third, it is NOT "easy to get the RAC on your side" if they won't even acknowledge you or your proposal. I have no problem with what was passed at the Central RAC and the Northern RAC, what I take issue with is the complete lack of interest in HEARING what the public says or wants. I am not so arrogant to believe if I propose something it should be passed, but it should be HEARD and atleast ACKNOWLEDGED. 11 people sat on their collectives **** last night and said/asked NOTHING, ONE RAC member had to call out his fellow RAC members to ACT on the proposals, just to get an up or down vote was like pulling teeth, it was like it wasn't even worth their time to discuss/vote on the proposals made by MANY different sources. You and wyo2ut say people should voice thier opinions and wishes, yet when people do, this is how you respond, NICE.


I knew better than to post on this site, but I did it anyway. Only myself to blame as I knew how the response would be worded and that things would be taken out of context. If people read my post they will see the words POSSIBLE, MAY, COULD. I guess these common English words were lost on some. I never said it is more crowded than the rifle hunt, but it MAY< COULD< IS POSSIBLE that the archery hunt in some areas have more than the density portrayed by the Bowmen reps. (And yelling from the audience, giggling like boys looking at a Huster, etc.. is ridicule. I know that the RAC members didn't appreciate it. Jerry not included of course, as he was very professional as usual.)

Anyway, best of luck on your hunts and this forum. Now you can get back to your childish bickering among each other --- (to those which it may apply). I'll leave it to you guys.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks Gordy, it was good talking with you as well. I think your proposal is a good idea, one that I may even get behind if needed/wanted.

One thing we need to remember is that this is politics, and not everyone can/will play the game the same way. But, in order to as an indivual, make a difference, one MUST get involved in some way, even if it is simply joining a conservation/special interest group and 'letting' them speak for you. I also believe it is very niave to believe something introduced as 'information' is info only. It shows where the mindset of the DWR is on elk/deer management, and I see funneling the MAJORITY of elk hunters into the spike pool and LIMITING, even more than now, the mature tag possibilities, which I do NOT like. I see this as a "lazy" way to manage both the elk and the elk hunters, while doing little to 'satisfy' the MAJORITY of elk hunters wishes.

PRO


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> I never said it is more crowded than the rifle hunt, but it MAY< COULD< IS POSSIBLE that the archery hunt in some areas have more than the density portrayed by the Bowmen reps. (And yelling from the audience, giggling like boys looking at a Huster, etc.. is ridicule. I know that the RAC members didn't appreciate it. Jerry not included of course, as he was very professional as usual.)


I dont remeber this incedence. Is he talking about whne the AGRI guy made a comment and everyone laughed. I didn't catch what he sadi maybe thats why i'm in the dark on this.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout, you come on here and call me and others out and expect what? A kiss on the cheek? Yeah right! :roll:



> I never said it is more crowded than the rifle hunt, but it MAY< COULD< IS POSSIBLE that the archery hunt in some areas have more than the density portrayed by the Bowmen reps. (And yelling from the audience, giggling like boys looking at a Huster, etc.. is ridicule. I know that the RAC members didn't appreciate it. Jerry not included of course, as he was very professional as usual.)


Maybe so, but the RAC member *you* were/are defending DID say it, he did NOT say "MAY<COULD<IS POSSIBLE" he said it *IS*. I merely pointed out VERY politely why that statement was NOT true.

As for the alledged "ridicule", I never "yelled", nor did I "giggle", I leave that for people who can't/won't stay and justify their weak, unfounded comments. Now run away and hide AGAIN.

Wrong RAC truemule, PAckout is referring to the Central RAC.

PRO


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Oh, thanks for the INFORMATION.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

There are some real sharp members of the board as well. One of them, in the Central RAC, asked Anis why they dont just issue more LE bull tags to help the herds. Anis said that they had some people from the public that didn't like the idea. So, I guess that is our invitation to attend March's RAC meeting and voice our opinion on the tag alotments. Those who are now fired up aboout going, lests rally together and at least attend March's RAC. What say ye? :!:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

truemule said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > I never said it is more crowded than the rifle hunt, but it MAY< COULD< IS POSSIBLE that the archery hunt in some areas have more than the density portrayed by the Bowmen reps. (And yelling from the audience, giggling like boys looking at a Huster, etc.. is ridicule. I know that the RAC members didn't appreciate it. Jerry not included of course, as he was very professional as usual.)
> ...


I assume central RAC.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Senor chuck and duck, that's funny and seemingly appropriate.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

We need to get about 30 guys together and go to the Wildlife Board meeting and address our points even further.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

suave300 said:


> There are some real sharp members of the board as well. One of them, in the Central RAC, asked Anis why they dont just issue more LE bull tags to help the herds. Anis said that they had some people from the public that didn't like the idea. So, I guess that is our invitation to attend March's RAC meeting and voice our opinion on the tag alotments. Those who are now fired up aboout going, lests rally together and at least attend March's RAC. What say ye? :!:


I say I be there.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

truemule said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Truemule, my point was that your lack of participation in the past caused you to miss the boat on this one...not only has this stuff been coming for several months, but it has been discussed for the past year. If you don't want to be blindsided, keep involved. Why weren't you up in arms when the Board motioned for the DWR to do this informational presentation? Why weren't you up in arms when this stuff was discussed earlier in the year?
> ...


Where did I pass judgement on you? I simply stated that your lack of involvement in the past kept you uninformed.

I am involved...I have been involved my entire life. I don't go to all the meetings...like many or most of you, I can't. But, I don't sit idly by and just wait until the next meeting to find out what happened. I keep in touch with what is going on through correspondence with the DWR, through paying attention to RAC agendas, Board agendas, and through the minutes of public meetings. I am sorry to tell you that I have attended more RAC meetings in my life than what will be held in the next 12 months. What I have found out is that I don't need to attend to be involved. Unlike many of the other people on this site, I don't complain about not being heard...What irritates me is that people complain about what has happened when they weren't involved when the decisions were being made. I don't fault anyone--yourself, Pro, Coyote, nobody--for getting involved and voicing an opinion.

The Wildlife Board forced the DWR to do this information presentation...this is how the public process works. Anyone could have stood and voiced an opinion against this information during the Board meeting; no one did. I doubt very strongly that this information would have ever been presented had the Board not motioned for it. This wasn't a DWR idea...

Again, I believe the DWR has been forced by the hunting public through the RAC process to find alternatives in lowering the bull/cow ratios, this plan is an alternative--like it or not. The Board asked the DWR to show how such a plan would affect hunters and tags. I find it exceptionally ironic and funny that the very people who shut the DWR down when the DWR tried to get more LE tags are the same people that this plan would hurt the most.

I think this plan could accomplish or overcome the very things the DWR and the Board have identified as significant problems. It would allow for more hunter opportunity which could help with the recruitment of new hunters, it would help alleviate the problems with bull/cow ratios, and it would help simplify regulations.



suave300 said:


> There are some real sharp members of the board as well. One of them, in the Central RAC, asked Anis why they dont just issue more LE bull tags to help the herds. Anis said that they had some people from the public that didn't like the idea.


Exactly...this is what the Public has communicated to the DWR and to the Board...so what were they supposed to do? They are looking at an alternative plan at lowering bull/cow ratios that will NOT hurt quality...just like the public has asked them.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Exactly...this is what the Public has communicated to the DWR and to the Board...so what were they supposed to do? They are looking at an alternative plan at lowering bull/cow ratios that will NOT hurt quality...just like the public has asked them.


Wynut, dont you think more people are asking for more big bull tags to be issued, but yet it never happens and even the DWR showed they could issue a lot for tags. Why dont they listen when the public says we want more big bull tags if the data shows they can issue more tags without affecting quality????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Exactly...this is what the Public has communicated to the DWR and to the Board...so what were they supposed to do? They are looking at an alternative plan at lowering bull/cow ratios that will NOT hurt quality...just like the public has asked them.


FALSE! As pointed out by a BIOLOGIST to me, if we issue spike tags on the Pahvant, you will remove a good percentage of the bulls in that future mature bull age class, so while quality won't be affected that year, it WILL down the road and many bulls are missing from that age class core. If this is done on a regular basis, the quality WILL suffer if the same number of LE tags are issued as now. To assert otherwise is not true. If you "thin the carrots" as you like to say, there will be FEWER carrots in the future, so one of three things must occur, either the number of mature tags MUST be REDUCED, or quality WILL decrease, or BOTH. The quailty is NOT as high on the Manti/Wasatch/Fish Lake as it is on the San Juan/Pahvant/SW Desert, the primary difference is spike tags, since the harvest age averages are fairly close.

I don't recall the 'public' asking for an increase in spike tags, you have NO proof to support such a claim.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

+1 Anis said that by issue spike tags then they wont be able to issue as many LE tags in the future.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> +1 Anis said that by issue spike tags then they wont be able to issue as many LE tags in the future.


He did say that indeed. That is really what put the nail in the coffin for me last night. He also said they may have to reduce them if the elk numbers on the unit do not support LE stats. Dsiclaimer:This is not a direct word for word quote. That went more like.

Well umm yeah if you were to issue more spikes tags then ahhh um it could possibly umm effect . yes we would not be able to issue as many.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I just wish I had more elk points because once they start reducing the LE tags then my chances of drawing with be next to nothing (Its not like I have a chance now).

One thing about it though. More people will support I400 because it gives MORE people opportunity than REDUCING opportunity. 

Gosh I can still hear the Colorado guys laughing that we shoot spikes.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

I thought it was interesting that Anis was not about to address or talk about the managment hunts nor what they were seeing as results of this hunt. 

As I remember, the reason the spike hunts were started was because (on the hardware particularly) the herd was missing a specific age class of bulls (read mature). The spike hunt did a great job getting the herd back to a healthy balance, and is now swinging the other direction.

IMO the spike deal state wide is the wrong direction. In the areas where the Bull Cow Ratios are out of wack it makes more sense to more drastically thin the big bulls (managment hunt), then work on the herd numbers from there through good biologic data.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> I thought it was interesting that Anis was not about to address or talk about the managment hunts nor what they were seeing as results of this hunt.
> 
> As I remember, the reason the spike hunts were started was because (on the hardware particularly) the herd was missing a specific age class of bulls (read mature). The spike hunt did a great job getting the herd back to a healthy balance, and is now swinging the other direction.
> 
> IMO the spike deal state wide is the wrong direction. In the areas where the Bull Cow Ratios are out of wack it makes more sense to more drastically thin the big bulls (managment hunt), then work on the herd numbers from there through good biologic data.


Why didn't you stick around last night? Were you that pissed at what was going on?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

There is no doubt that if more spike tags are issued that the number of LE tags would be limited; however, as Anis said..."there will be some loss of LE hunting opportunity; however, we are not harvesting to the potential of those units now and the overall number of LE permists may even increase from current numbers."

Here is where you lost me though...giving out more spike tags will hurt quality but giving out more LE tags won't? HUH? We have to lower the bull/cow ratios...our herds need this, don't you agree? If we lower the bull/cow ratios and bring them in line where they should be--like the LE hunts with spike tags--this will lower the quality regardless of which bulls will be shot, will it not? So, which is going to hurt quality more? Shooting more mature bulls...or shooting spikes?

The public has asked for an evaluation of what a statewide spike elk plan would do...I also don't see the public asking for more LE tags. In fact, I have seen the public getting upset when the DWR tries to issue more Le tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> There is no doubt that if more spike tags are issued that the number of LE tags would be limited; however, as Anis said..."there will be some loss of LE hunting opportunity; however, we are not harvesting to the potential of those units now and the overall number of LE permists may even increase from current numbers."
> 
> Here is where you lost me though...giving out more spike tags will hurt quality but giving out more LE tags won't? HUH? We have to lower the bull/cow ratios...our herds need this, don't you agree? If we lower the bull/cow ratios and bring them in line where they should be--like the LE hunts with spike tags--this will lower the quality regardless of which bulls will be shot, will it not? So, which is going to hurt quality more? Shooting more mature bulls...or shooting spikes?
> 
> The public has asked for an evaluation of what a statewide spike elk plan would do...I also don't see the public asking for more LE tags. In fact, I have seen the public getting upset when the DWR tries to issue more Le tags.


1)Anis also said tag numbers *may* decrease on some LE units, I guess that part was left out by you purely by chance.

2)You have a knack of over stating things. I say quality will suffer/decrease under either scenerio, but one allows for more mature bulls to be harvested, the other will in the end harvest the SAME number of bulls, just that MOST will be yearlings when they are harvested. I go back to *BALANCE*, killing MORE spikes than mature bulls is NOT *BALANCE *, nor is it considered 'opportunity' by MANY elk hunters. 11,000 spike tags didn't sell out until mere days before the rifle season started, yet 50,000 applied for LE tags, so where does the 'wishes' of the public show to be the greatest?

3)You keep referring to the WB and a handful of people who attended the WB meeting as "the public", 50-60 people is NOT "the public", it is a VERY small number of the public, everyone on here voicing their views is PART of the public, yet you want to dismiss their wishes. I go back to I400 AGAIN, you griped on and on about the 'general public' that doesn't visit this and other sites, don't attend RAC/WB meetings were not being heard and asked for their preferences, yet here you are completely dismissing them NOW. What gives? Why the change of 'heart'? I say the 50,000+ who apply for LE tags, apply for Convention tags SHOULD speak volumes as to what type of tags the "public" wants/prefers. To imply "the public" wants an increase in spike tags of 8,000 with little no increases in LE tags is ridiculous and nonsensical.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

HAHA Pro when Sean Hannity retires then you will be a good canidate to replace him. You sure do make Wyonut look silly all the time.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Can the public speak and comment at the wildlife board meetings?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

suave300 said:


> Can the public speak and comment at the wildlife board meetings?


Yes!

PRO


----------



## callofthewild (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> suave300 said:
> 
> 
> > Can the public speak and comment at the wildlife board meetings?
> ...


the question is do they hear you when you do speak?


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Why not just increase the number of LE elk tags by a certain percentage every year until the bull/cow ratio comes into balance. At that time the tags can be leveled off and adjusted year to year to maintain the bull/cow ratios. Keep the spike hunting and any bull units just as they are today. This would mean that the LE permits wouldn't go up as dramatically on the spike units as they would on the other LE units. But, it would still give those that want to hunt male elk every year an opportunity to do so. This seems pretty simple to me and the least painful to everyone.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Now there is a great idea.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> HAHA Pro when Sean Hannity retires then you will be a good canidate to replace him. You sure do make Wyonut look silly all the time.


Hey, Bart's a good feller, why throw insults like that his way?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> Why not just increase the number of LE elk tags by a certain percentage every year until the bull/cow ratio comes into balance. At that time the tags can be leveled off and adjusted year to year to maintain the bull/cow ratios. Keep the spike hunting and any bull units just as they are today. This would mean that the LE permits wouldn't go up as dramatically on the spike units as they would on the other LE units. But, it would still give those that want to hunt male elk every year an opportunity to do so. This seems pretty simple to me and the least painful to everyone.


I agree with the first sentence. To me, That seems to be the most sound/safe way to do things. I also agree with some I400 basics.

Bart and I were discussing this last night. If 30% of the hunting population prefers to wait and shoot a trophy bull every 15-20 years, whay noy have 30% of the tags/units managed for them? Same goes with opportunity guys and the folks in between.

I would probably fall into the "in between" crowd. I would rather hunt elk that have lost their milk teeth and with nuts that have dropped every 4-8 years, than hunt spikes every year or a monster once or twice in my life. Why blanket manage the state? This may be an extreme analogy, but it rings a bit of communism/socialism relative to management.

What I don't understand, and I have hunted them, is why a spike is more appealing than a cow, or a calf for that matter.

I would not support this idea if it was an inches issue. I400 would hurt me as far as quality goes, but it will benefit many people I know as well as my kids.

Are there people such as wyo2ut that would prefer to keep spike units around so they can hunt them every year? ABSOLUTELY! But not everyone feels the same way.

Split that sucker up. Colorado has all of these things. If you think all that is coming from Colorado is rag horns, think again. There are units in Colorado that spit out 370-400 class bulls every year. The difference is that it is not 90% of their units. Why? Because 90% of the peopl don't want to wait that long, it's not a priority. Getting out with the whole family and hanging *an* elk is. to others, it's shooting that raghorn every once in a while while having the chance at a bigger animal. It keeps the mystique of the hunt there.

There are a whole bunch of factors to elk management, and for the most part, they do a bang up job. It's hunter management that needs some work.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I'm a moron because I don't know how to put someone else quote in my post but, I would like to see the average elk taken on _*ALL*_ units be 5 to 6 years old. Sure you would have some guys killing more mature 7 year old bulls and older. But you would also have some guys killing 3 and 4 year olds. My biggest complaint with I400 is that is was only on 5 units. Why not increase the tags on every unit and increase the opportunity for everone. There would be a decrease in the trophy quality but the possibility for a trophy elk would still be available to everyone. Those individuals that put in the most work would reap the benefits more than the guy that would just be happy with any branch antlered bull. 
As far as inches go, I don't like the expectations that a lot of hunters have put on our elk herds. If anyone draws a quality LE elk permit everyone tells them not to shoot anything under 370. These expectations need to be changed. There have been so many 370 plus bulls killed in this state that now they are no longer special. We need to get back to where a 350 bull is very special and a 310 is a great bull again. By increasing the elk tags on all units we will eliminate the "I/you have to shoot a 370 bull or I/you suck attitude".


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> My biggest complaint with I400 is that is was only on 5 units.


I400 is just a start of better balanced management, not the ending. Change is best/easiest in smaller increments.

PRO


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I agree that change is easiest/best in smaller increments. This is why I suggested a small percentage increase of the elk tags on all units. These increases would take place every year until the bull/cow ratio came into balance.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> What I don't understand, and I have hunted them, is why a spike is more appealing than a cow, or a calf for that matter.


For me spikes are not more appealing then anything. I would frist want to take a big bull then something else. What is appealing to me is being able to hunt evey year. I would take a cow tag every if that is what it would take to hunt each year.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I, as well as my entire family hunt spikes every year. This is the only way to hunt elk for us. We as a family don't hunt antlerless animals; never have never will. I'm not saying it is wrong, just that we choose not to hunt cows. I hunt big bulls every year with my binoculars and camera and enjoy it very much. I don't have to kill a big bull to enjoy hunting them. Just smelling, hearing and seeing them is exciting to me. I then get my hunting with a weapon fix by chasing spikes a few weeks later.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> We as a family don't hunt antlerless animals; never have never will.


I find this confusing, can you please explain why you are willing to shoot a YEARLING male animal over an anterless animal? I don't get it. How is a spike more of a worthy prey than that spikes mother who actually has a clue of what is going on, as opposed to the spike who is the most clueless animal in the hills? These are honest questions, not an attack on your preferred animal to hunt.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Pro 

I am not him but I can tell you why I do not like hunting cows. It is really simple for me. Taking a cow is very easy. Spikes are more of a challenge. But now that I bow hunt I will take a cow later in the hunt.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Hey do you guys want to know something really interesting??? In 2005 it was estimated that over 15,000 children between ages 9-12 were sold AS SLAVES to plantation owners of cocoa and coffee. Do you know how much, on average, these child slaves cost? $30. How much is LE tag these days? Like ten times that right? Cool.

Oh, another cool fact. There's a huge sex slave trade in India. Ya, they lie to the parents and children of extremely impoverished families and then when the get to the cities, the girls, some of them as young AS 6 YEARS OLD, are imprisoned and immediately forced to sleep with 20 guys a day, sometimes more. Also, the Indian people have a belief that if you sleep with a young girl or a virgin without a condom, then you'll be purified or something, so they never use protection. That means that the vast majority of these girls die before they reach their mid-twenties from a variety of STD's, the most prevalent of course being AIDS.

Here's another tidbit. The US had sent over 400,000 manufacturing and textile jobs to China alone. Sounds like a bum deal for us right? Well it is. But at least the poor folk in China are getting some good jobs right? Not at all. Once again, the extremely impoverished rural children are sent to the city to try and rescue the family left on the farm. they are locked in the factory for six days a week and are let out for only short respites on Sundays, if at all. They are forced to work 16 hours a day, six days a week, and during peak times like right before Christmas, it's seven days a week. So brutal and inhumane are the conditions that the Chinese have come up with a word for when someone literally drops dead from overwork and exhaustion!!!

Then of course there's the slave labor from both Africa and India in the Slave trade, the Genocide throughout Africa, the wage slaves in South America and Asia, the massive oppression of women in the Middle East, the trampling of our constitution by outsourcing and ridiculous "free trade" agreements with countless countries and throughout NAFTA and the SPP, (I'm sure none of you even know what the SPP is. You should look it up.)

Why am I writing all of this? Because if you guys had even an eighth of the passion for PEOPLE that you do for a bunch of stupid animals, then maybe this world wouldn't be such a sh**hole!!! If I could literally wipe out every deer, elk, and moose from this state and save just ONE group of slaves in the Ivory Coast, or ONE group of sex slaves in India, or ONE factory of slaves in China, I would do it. We're talking about animals guys. You're so proud of yourselves for being up to date on the regulations for animals!!! Do you ever contact you senators or congressman? Do you call or email the president? Do you let anyone know that these atrocities can not, must not, will not continue on your watch? That's what you should be doing. Forget about RAC's, start thinking about people.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

J-bass,

I have traveled to china for work, I am in manufacturing and I have seen forst hand the stuff you mention in china. I had to install machine in one of these facilities and teach them how to operate and maintain this equipment. It is by far the most humbling experince I have ever had in my life. So I understand why you say this and that your heart is in the right place. 

However, I also met with many of the management individuals of these companies that are run by the government of china. I can say without any doubt in my mind that nothing the US or any other country is going to change this without the help of the government or the people of the country involved in slavery, sex trade, or any other atrocities. There may be somethings we can do. Give to charities that help these people, talk to our senators and president. These types of changes are going to decades to affect. Money can only do so much, not even the US giant trillion dollar economy can change and help every person in the world in a bad situation. We CANNOT take in every person into our borders and care for them. We do not have the physical or monetary capacity to support that type of action.
These problems are not as simple as attending a RAC or WB meeting to change the number of permits. 

All I'm saying is that most of us are aware of these problems in other countries. Most people feel they will only be able to affect so many things in their life and many can only effect there own lives because they cannot or will not go beyond themselves. By being involved in our democratic process in any arena and effecting local change we help insure our future and the future of our children. This in turn makes our country stronger and our children smarter. There will always be evil in this world. All we can do is try to effect and change what we feel we can, and keep this evil corralled within our own lives and those close to us and hope that our values have an effect on the global atmosphere.

That being said, I believe hunting teaches the very core values that keep evil from our lives. We may bicker about oppurtunity, size of animals, tag limits, and other things. But in the end we are all after the same thing, a quality experince for ourselves and family members can enjoy and grow with.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Truemule, 
Thank you for your comments. I also have seen such atrocities first hand in Brazil and my wife spent six months in China. My sister spent 4 months in India, and I read about this stuff all the time, so it is quite personal.

The thing that we can do is stop enabaling these activities with our foreign policies. We give companies HUGE tax breaks, as well as allow them to circumnavigate all the labor and wage laws we have fought so hard for in this country through our "collective bargaining" with these countries. China would be forced to clean up it's act a whole lot more if we refused to accept goods from factories using child labor, and who paid the 33 cent an hour minimum wage to its employees. If we forced Coporations to pay their foreign employees the same as their employees here, or at least close to it, that would mean less jobs leaving the US and more benefits for the foreign workers. THAT is what we can do. Stop being enablers, and start demanding justice. It's the same with the cocoa plantations in the Ivory Coast. Who do think buys that stuff? American chocolate companies like Mars and Hershey. Or the Diamond trade? That's huge corporations, most of which are based here in the US. So we can and we should do more about these big problems. Also, most people DON'T know about these things, so I figure I ought to fill them in.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> That being said, I believe hunting teaches the very core values that keep evil from our lives. We may bicker about oppurtunity, size of animals, tag limits, and other things. But in the end we are all after the same thing, a quality experince for ourselves and family members can enjoy and grow with.


+1000!

J-bass, I am atleast as active in politics as I am this hunting stuff. But, I can, and IMHO SHOULD be involved in BOTH. To neglect one would 'take away' part of who I am, why would I want to do that? If I thought I could end slavery in ALL parts of the world, I WOULD, who wouldn't from this site? But, to lambast us for our passions and things we ENJOY, hell some of are obsessed with them, because of the plight of others is silly. Should I not enjoy my plasma TV or other 'luxuries' as long as others can't enjoy the same? If I skip a meal, does a 'starving kid in Africa' somehow get a full meal? If I stop hunting and making efforts to improve hunting for future generations, does a sex slave in India get to go home to her parents? Should/could I do more to help the horrific things happening in the world? YES! But, I also notice you made no mention of the children abused EVERY day here, in AMERICA, I say we take care of our own yard before worrying about the 'neighbors'.

PRO


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

JBass, this is a wildlife forum so we do a crazy thing and talk about wildlife and wildlife issues on the wildlife forum. There are plenty of other sites where one can discuss the trials of our times and the in humane things that we as humans do to each other. I am not making lite of the grave situations in other parts of our world, just stating a fact that this is what people do on wildlife forums. On NFL forums people actually talk about, of all things, football.

Pro, weatherby stated it about right. I think spikes are a lot harder to come by than a cow. There are cows in about every herd but not spikes. There are more cows than spikes which makes them easier prey in my book. Plus, it really has nothing to do with which type of elk is easier, I was raised to hunt male animals only and I continue to do that with my kids. No one in my family has ever killed a female big game animal and I bet there are more families out there like mine. And one more thing, a spike isn't my _preferred_ animal to kill. It is my only option to hunt male elk in this state every year. Your I400 proposal would eliminate my yearly family spike elk hunt which is why I oppose it.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

Well Pro, you are right and you are wrong. I thank you for your efforts in the political scene, but I was not trying to tell anybody not to persue their passions of hunting or fishing. I love to do both. It's just that you hunting guys get way out of hand with it all and I just felt a little perspective was necessary. And I didn't mention a whole lot of things that are happening everyday to children everywhere. Sure we need to help our own, but we need to help everyone and we can and should do that. Not so much directly as indirectly, at first, through our foreign polocies that enable it all. And I don't believe that any of us is doing enough. You know what, I've made a goal to STOP buying useless unecessary crap like plasma TV's and donating to causes that support the abolishment of these horrific injustices. So for me, yes, I will stop enjoying some of these "luxuries" that enable and add to the suffering of so many. Plus, my comments were general and not specific, but I said to myself, "Pro's going to take this one personally and assure us that he's a political patriot as much as a patriot of animals." You proved me right. Look Pro, you're a guy who means well and you seem pretty "pro"active, but most aren't, so take a chill pill on this one and let the message sink in to those who need it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Your I400 proposal would eliminate my yearly family spike elk hunt which is why I oppose it.


Why would your yearly family spike elk hunt stop if there will still be areas open to spike hunting? I400 isnt eliminating spike tags. I wish people would get that through their heads. We have to constantly repeat that phase.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> JBass, this is a wildlife forum so we do a crazy thing and talk about wildlife and wildlife issues on the wildlife forum. There are plenty of other sites where one can discuss the trials of our times and the in humane things that we as humans do to each other. I am not making lite of the grave situations in other parts of our world, just stating a fact that this is what people do on wildlife forums. On NFL forums people actually talk about, of all things, football.


Oh I'm fully aware of what kind of forum this is as I participate in it often. But like I said to Pro, you hunting boys get out of hand and need some in-your-face perspective. Nice way of avoiding the big issues though.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

It is on the only two units I have ever hunted elk on. Yah, I know just move to another area. You spend 20 years figuring out how to hunt a certain area and then all of your efforts are now worthless.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Your I400 proposal would eliminate my yearly family spike elk hunt which is why I oppose it.


You may want to 'educate' yourself better on I400, since it will NOT reduce a single spike tag. This "informational item" presented by the DWR will indeed REDUCE your odds of ever getting a chance at a mature bull.



> J-bass wrote: I said to myself, "Pro's going to take this one personally and assure us that he's a political patriot as much as a patriot of animals." You proved me right. Look Pro, you're a guy who means well and you seem pretty "pro"active, but most aren't, so take a chill pill on this one and let the message sink in to those who need it


.

I didn't 'prove' you right, since I took no offense nor did I take it 'personally'. 8) Dang, I don't even know what being a "patriot of animals" is. :? No need for a chill pill, I see your point, just thought your choice of words were a little strong, and over the top. Carry on.

PRO


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

[/quote]
Oh I'm fully aware of what kind of forum this is as I participate in it often. But like I said to Pro, you hunting boys get out of hand and need some in-your-face perspective. Nice way of avoiding the big issues though.[/quote]

JBass, not trying to avoid the serious issues in any way. I could tell you how compassionate I am towards others and how I donate a lot of my time to the youth of my area trying to make them the best people that they can be. But you don't want to hear me blow my own horn, I am assuming. I admire people like you who are willing to go the extra mile to help others and to get behind a cause. Good for you and for those you help.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Pro, I know I400 better than you think I do. Your proposal would eliminate spike hunting on Wasatch and Nebo; correct?


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> [
> I didn't 'prove' you right, since I took no offense nor did I take it 'personally'. 8) Dand, I don't even know what being a "patriot of animals" is. :? No need for a chill pill, I see your point, just thought your choice of words were a little strong, and over the top. Carry on.
> PRO


I meant that as a bit of a compliment Pro. I meant that you look out for animals, that's all. And ya, I was over the top, but that's kind of my style.


sfelk34 said:


> > Oh I'm fully aware of what kind of forum this is as I participate in it often. But like I said to Pro, you hunting boys get out of hand and need some in-your-face perspective. Nice way of avoiding the big issues though.
> 
> 
> JBass, not trying to avoid the serious issues in any way. I could tell you how compassionate I am towards others and how I donate a lot of my time to the youth of my area trying to make them the best people that they can be. But you don't want to hear me blow my own horn, I am assuming. I admire people like you who are willing to go the extra mile to help others and to get behind a cause. Good for you and for those you help.


Alright, it was dumb of me to assume you don't do your part. The whole point was, like I said, to bring some perspective to this whole thing. It seemed there was a lot of unneccesary name calling and some personal attacks, and as I tried to show, there's a whole lot bigger issues we could, and maybe should, be talking about. I'm mostly a part of the fishing forum, and the guys there just try to help each other out and give advice on how to be more succesful fisherman. But here, you guys just constantly divide yourselves over one issue after another. It's just elk. There'll be plenty in five, ten and twenty years down the road. Plus, we should be concentrating our efforts on improving the retarded way in which these decisions are ultimately made. I don't dig this wildlife board/RAC thing. Too many conflict of interests by board members.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> Pro, I know I400 better than you think I do. Your proposal would eliminate spike hunting on Wasatch and Nebo; correct?


Actually, we are now leaning toward a 'rotation' of spike tags on the pilot units with neighboring units. So, spike tags would be issued on these two units every other year. This would minimize the 'lose' of spike hunting on certain units, and allow for MORE bulls to reach maturity, which would allow for MORE bulls to be hunted each year. Under the 'info' item from the DWR, spike tags would be issued on EVERY LE unit, which would REDUCE the number of mature bulls reaching maturity, which would REDUCE the number of bulls to be hunted each year, which would result in LESS of a chance for you and your family to ever acquire a mature bull tag on these two units. One plan/idea is lazy and an 'easy' way out, the other is a way to *BALANCE* hunting options for ALL types of huntewrs and better balance for the elk herds. I400 would be able to lower bull/cow ratios as much as the DWR 'idea', while allowing for MORE hunters the OPPORTUNITY to hunt mature bulls, instead of hunting yearlings.

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

J-bass said:


> Hey do you guys want to know something really interesting??? In 2005 it was estimated that over 15,000 children between ages 9-12 were sold AS SLAVES to plantation owners of cocoa and coffee. Do you know how much, on average, these child slaves cost? $30. How much is LE tag these days? Like ten times that right? Cool.
> 
> Oh, another cool fact. There's a huge sex slave trade in India. Ya, they lie to the parents and children of extremely impoverished families and then when the get to the cities, the girls, some of them as young AS 6 YEARS OLD, are imprisoned and immediately forced to sleep with 20 guys a day, sometimes more. Also, the Indian people have a belief that if you sleep with a young girl or a virgin without a condom, then you'll be purified or something, so they never use protection. That means that the vast majority of these girls die before they reach their mid-twenties from a variety of STD's, the most prevalent of course being AIDS.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the PM. I don't see any problem.

Now my opinion. I personally have about as much compassion(It's probably more than the average guy, I like that space.) for animals that I do for humans. I don't see human beings as being any more valuable than any other creature. I don't buy the dominion over animals bit, I think we as humans justify a lot of what we do based on these types of rationals and superstitions. Assuming that none of us spend energy on figuring these types of things out is probably very far from the truth, but this is the Utah *Wildlife* Network forum, not the Utah Philanthropic Foundation or Hearts and Hands, so we talk about critters.

So, all of the atrocities you mentioned are just that, atrocious, but the mismanagement and the fleecing of the agency of any creature deserves the same amunt of attention in my book.

I guess what I am saying is when are they going to start issuing management tags for people? I need to start building points.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It is on the only two units I have ever hunted elk on. Yah, I know just move to another area. You spend 20 years figuring out how to hunt a certain area and then all of your efforts are now worthless.


Now your efforts arent worthless. I use to hike to the top of Nebo every year and also saw some really great bucks and then I had a car accident and I cant hike up there anymore. Do you see me complaining? I do have to hunt other areas and im totally fine with it because the new areas also hold great bucks. One thing about a good hunter is they learn to adjust to any given situation. You dont just simply quit hunting because you cant hunt that area. I would trade you places anyway of the week so that I can get out and hike.

You excuse is very weak because I deal with a lot more than that and I still shoot great bucks.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I don't have a problem with anything you said Jbass. There is no reason why we can't behave like the adults we claim to be. The only problem I have with you is your avatar. The entire time I'm typing I keep pictuing you in your sexy shirt; I can't help but laugh.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> The only problem I have with you is your avatar. The entire time I'm typing I keep pictuing you in your sexy shirt; I can't help but laugh.


Ya, he's my secret weapon in winning arguments. I mean, how can you argue with a guy like him? It's funny, cuz PRO sent me a PM and said the exact same thing!  
Look hunting guys, I don't have a problem with any of you, I just felt like throwing all that out there. I got my point across, now let the fight resume. Let's just try to keep it more civil and constructive. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> The only problem I have with you is your avatar. The entire time I'm typing I keep pictuing you in your sexy shirt; I can't help but laugh.


Now we are on the same page! Except I am trying to keep from hurling all over my laptop.

tree, are you saying the neighbors cat is as important in the grand scheme of things as Mother Teressa? If so, I am going to hell for what I did to it. :evil:

PRO


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > It is on the only two units I have ever hunted elk on. Yah, I know just move to another area. You spend 20 years figuring out how to hunt a certain area and then all of your efforts are now worthless.
> 
> 
> Now your efforts arent worthless. I use to hike to the top of Nebo every year and also saw some really great bucks and then I had a car accident and I cant hike up there anymore. Do you see me complaining? I do have to hunt other areas and im totally fine with it because the new areas also hold great bucks. One thing about a good hunter is they learn to adjust to any given situation. You dont just simply quit hunting because you cant hunt that area. I would trade you places anyway of the week so that I can get out and hike.
> ...


Please don't tell me how I should hunt and feel and think; that's not cool coyote. I have tried to be an adult on this topic and at times that is a struggle for me. But I don't like when someone tells me that my excuse is weak. I, like everyone else has reasons why the do the things they do. I hunt the area I do because this is the place my grandfather took me to hunt elk. He has since passed away and I honor him by continuing to hunt our _sacred _ground. Do want me to post my opinion or do you want me to follow like a little puppy dog?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Well I just get tired of people complaining just because they can hunt a certain areas then they talk about quiting. Lets just throw in the towel because I cant hunt my favorite spot. I guess I should throw in the towel because I cant hunt the top of nebo right? Coyoteslayer just threw in the towel unless I get to hike to the top of Nebo.

What is going to happen when they micro-manage our deer herds and you can't hunt your favorite spot? I guess a lot of people will just throw in the towel right?


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

"Coyoteslayer just threw in the towel unless I get to hike to the top of Nebo"

Did he just refer to himself in the third party? :shock: 
Kinda like Karl Malone


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Hahahah indeed I did :lol: :lol:


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

Silvertip thinks thats funny!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

now you are doing it!! stop it!!


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Well I just get tired of people complaining just because they can hunt a certain areas then they talk about quiting. Lets just throw in the towel because I cant hunt my favorite spot. I guess I should throw in the towel because I cant hunt the top of nebo right? Coyoteslayer just threw in the towel unless I get to hike to the top of Nebo.
> 
> What is going to happen when they micro-manage our deer herds and you can't hunt your favorite spot? I guess a lot of people will just throw in the towel right?


Do you want my hankie or my pity? You are just trying to make this get nasty aren't you? I happen to know a lot of people that stopped hunting when they couldn't buy a deer tag over the counter. Did I, apparently not. I guess you want more and more people to stop hunting. Is that your goal? I get tired of people like you telling others how they should feel and hunt.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah I need a huge hankie and maybe a few spankies, but not from you :lol: Yeah I know what you are saying but what are you going to do when you cant hunt your "sacred ground" for deer every year when they micro-manage the deer hunts?

I dont understand why hunters would put such limitations on themselves to just hunt ONE area and ONE area ONLY. I dont want you to stop hunting and I dont understand why people quit hunting just because they couldn't buy a deer tag OTC, but I guess that is what makes the world go round.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I don't have a special deer area, I hunt a lot of different areas for deer so that won't even be an issue.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34, I understand where you are coming from, I grew up in the Gunnison Valley where *three* of the deer regions come together, the Southern, Southeastern, and Central. When the state went pick your weapon and regions I was affected big time. I am NOT going to tell you to 'deal with it', but I will say EVERY hunter that has hunted more than 10 years has had to adjust his methods and places of hunting. I no longer hunt on the Manti unit for MANY reasons, the biggest is all the GD atv trails! :evil: I also could hunt 12 mile and shoot any bull I ran across, now if I chose to hunt there I would either have to shoot a spike or get lucky and draw a LE tag. I chose neither, and went to 'greener' pastures, I am NOT saying you should/must do the same, just pointing out how regualtion changes, and policy changes DO affect when/where/how we ALL hunt.

The stateside spike hunt would hose all those who have been applying for 10+ years for a Pahvant tag, and EVERY archer hoping to draw a LE archery bull tag. The DWR 'idea' will have a negative impact on MORE hunters than I400 could ever have. Any change from the current situation WILL affect a cedrtain percentage of hunters, question is why hunters get 'protected' and which ones get hosed. The deer 'idea' will 'displace' more deer hunters than I400 could ever do as well, yet if it helps the herds and is what the MAJORITY of deer hunters want, does it not make sense to implement?

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Ok so just have issues with elk and killing cow elk. Well It your choice to put limitations on yourself which is fine, but every proposal doesnt make everyone happy.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Pro, thank you for responding in a civil manner and not trying to insult my decisions and beliefs. I also live near where the same three deer regions come together, just on the north end. I know that the statewide spike hunt would "hose" the guys who have been applying for 10 years or more. I still don't know why we cant increase the # of mature bull tags on every unit in the state until each unit reaches their set bull/cow ratio. This would benefit everyone equally. All three weapon choices would have more opportunity to hunt LE elk because there would be more permits for everyone.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Ok so just have issues with elk and killing cow elk. Well It your choice to put limitations on yourself which is fine, but every proposal doesnt make everyone happy.


And if a certain proposal didn't make _you_ happy would you just sit and do nothing? No, you would voice your opinion much like you are doing now. I state a differing opinion than yours and you tell me my excuses are weak. Take a lesson from Pro, his response was very mature and thought out. I keep hearing from you and Pro to take initiatve and to speak up for things that you believe in and want to change. Well, I do that and Mr. coyote tells me I'm wrong and that my opinions and beliefs are weak. Again, I ask you coyote, do you want my opinion or do you want a puppy?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Actually, we are now leaning toward a 'rotation' of spike tags on the pilot units with neighboring units. So, spike tags would be issued on these two units every other year


Really explain more please. Have I missed this somewhere a long the lines?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> do you want my opinion or do you want a puppy?


I want BOTH! 8)

Where do you live? I thought Gunnison was the only place where all three come together, right where you can either head toward Fayette or Sterling.

I agree with voicing your views when you see something you like/dislike, I also believe one should be allowed a rebuttal to ones shared views. I have 'evolved', I hope, on these forums in how I respond to differing views. I am everybit as opinionated as ever, I just try and be more respectful of differing viewpoints, unless it is wyo2ut or Zim. :twisted:

I would love to see tag increases on all/most LE elk units, but the reality is every time it is proposed, the bulk of those who SHOW UP at the RAC's voice opposition to it. I also strongly believe as long as the rifle(any-weapon) hunt is in the heart of the rut, tag increases will be severely 'limited', needlessly I believe. Any time a hunt is at/near 90% yearly, is it really a 'hunt'? Or is it a 'shoot'? Make it a hunt, lower the success rates, and MANAGE the herds to the Elk MAnagement Plan(EMP)! This 'idea' does NOT comply with the EMP, and for someone to assert such is flawed.

sfelk34, I believe you and I agree one more issues than not, I offer an invite to my campfire anytime! Just not on myspace! :wink:

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Well, I do that and Mr. coyote tells me I'm wrong and that my opinions and beliefs are weak. Again, I ask you coyote, do you want my opinion or do you want a puppy?


easy there fellar I didnt tell you NOT to share your opinions and don't I have the right to comment against your opinion. OK Im sorry I was really rough on you and I must have offended you when I said your reason is weak.



> do you want a puppy?


If you have a black mouth cur dog then I might like a puppy since they make really good coyote decoys.

The only point I was trying to get across was WHY limit yourself to only ONE hunting area and you answered it and I can understand what you are saying.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > Actually, we are now leaning toward a 'rotation' of spike tags on the pilot units with neighboring units. So, spike tags would be issued on these two units every other year
> 
> 
> Really explain more please. Have I missed this somewhere a long the lines?


It is ANOTHER one of them **** compromises I keep making, even though I get told I never do. :wink:

In a nutshell, we would rotate spike tags from pilot units to whenever possible to neighboring units. I would like to see them issue spike tags based on it being 'needed', not as a permanent 'fix' to control bull/cow ratios. For example, year one spike tags would NOT be issued on the LaSals but would be issued on nearby San Juan, year two would see spike tags issued on LaSal but not on San Juan. Same for Fish Lake and say Monroe, Nebo and Pahvant, Wasatch and Book Cliffs, N Cache and S Cache. This would allow MORE bulls to reach maturity on the pilot units, and lower the bull/cow ratios GRADUALLY on the other units. As units get 'inline' with the EMP the units where spike tags are issued can CHANGE. Units like the Boulder and Dutton could rotate, Beaver and Panguitch Lake. This would make herds healthier on multiple units w/o hurting quality as much as the DWR 'idea' and would most certainly allow for MORE mature tags to be issued each fall.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> It is ANOTHER one of them **** compromises I keep making, even though I get told I never do.


I would never say that about you. :roll: I think that is a great idea actully. I could live with that as the spike hunter I am.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Pro I made a mistake about the deer regions, I didn't read your post close enough. I live close to the boundaries for NE (not southern), Central and SE, sorry. 

Pro I have noticed a change in you in the past few months. You seem to more open to talking with those who have a differing opinion than you do. And in return they feel more open to talk with you. I feel that you and I have a differing opinions on a few topics, but we have kept the lines of communication open. You have responded to my posts with tact and repsect and I hope I have done the same with you. This is what we need, everyones opinion but also to stay unified as a hunting population.

Pro you are probably right; we do have the same opinions on many issues. Mainly a passion for elk and elk hunting. I've had the elk bug since I was just a little kid and there weren't many elk back then. I don't know what the myspace reference means so you will have to forgive me for being a little slow.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Well stated sfelk34.

I am off my 'game' today, I hate when that happens, I had you mixed up with someone else for a moment, I had to do a 'background' check on you. Now I know who you are. So, ignore the myspace comment.  

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

sfelk34 Im just a dirty rotten apple and I should have used more nice words in my post.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

It's all good boys. I have tried to turn over another leaf and have tried to respond respectfully, but it doesn't always happen that way. Don't lose the passion guys, don't lose the passion.


----------

