# Would it really help point creep to take the early rifle out of the rut?



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Curious how all you guys feel about this. I drew my LE bull tag (early rifle) back in 2013 with 8 pts. S cache I took a nice five point on the forth morning. That experience was by far my favorite and most memorable I’ve had up to date and is one I would like to try to repeat some day... I’m now 42 and my waiting period is up and I can apply again next year. My strategy to draw again soon would be archery as the current system is now. Or maybe the late rifle hunt. It’s going to be at least 8-12 years before I’m in the bonus on either. On a LE draw tag I would prefer to use my rifle as it is my favorite weapon. But I know unless lightning strikes twice I’d probably be pushing 70 before I drew the early rifle hunt again. So all this talk has got me thinking what changes I would like to see and what I think could help point creep. Which we all know is a big problem. It’s hard enough for the ones invested in the system, never mind my 8 yr old boy. So here’s what I think could help... Get rid of the spike tags on a couple lower teir units and go to four point or better and raise tag numbers there. Say N.cache, paunsaguant, pilot mtn, deep creek etc. Keep muzzy the same and I know a lot of guys invested won’t like this but move the early rifle to the same dates as the general rifle. It’s still tail end of the rut and would give a longer LE season. Then put archery sept 1-23. I think this would move more hunters threw the system faster and I might even get another rifle big bull tag in my life time and my 8 yr old boy as well in his! I’d also take the archery hunt. I just believe there’s to much back log on the early rifle because it’s so enticing for everyone. We need to open things up and spread the wealth between all weapon types and look at all the pros and cons. What do you guys think?


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm in the same boat. I'm 53 and have two more years of waiting period before I can begin to apply. I'll never draw a tag again and I'm good with it. Just have to enjoy hunting outside the state of Utah.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

While moving the dates may or may not decrease interest in those hunts, it will not change the number of points people currently have nor the number of animals. I feel that people will continue to put in for the hunts they actually want to draw whether that’s decided by the weapon or the time of year.


----------



## Slayer (Feb 3, 2013)

I think rifle hunters will still put in for the rifle hunts. But guys like me that hunt all 3 weapons will look for the best opprtunity to draw during the rut. It might move some individuals through faster but I dont think the draw odds improve much.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It won't help a thing. If a person wants to hunt a LE unit be it deer or elk they are going to put in for the hunt and I don't think that being able to hunt bull elk on a LE unit with a rifle is that big of a deal one way or another. 

If anything it might increase the points needed for those that archery hunt if they want to hunt a LE unit during the rut if they place the archery hunt into that time frame.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

We cannot continue to manage for 90-100% success rates and expect to make any progress on the bonus point log jam. I would like to see the DWR to explore rearranging the season dates in an effort to lower the success rates so that we can issue more tags and move more folks through the system. Hunters are entitled to a quality hunt not a guaranteed kill. Many surrounding states are managing for 50-70 success rate on LE rifle elk hunts. We need to do something or our LE elk hunts will become OIL hunts for our children and grandchildren.

Hawkeye


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Wonder how many different threads we are going to have on this? 


The only way to move people through the system is more tags. You can disperse with different hunts and that might "appear" to help. More tags OR changing the system are the only things that will actually stop the path we are on.

One idea is that by moving seasons you potentially lower success rates, netting more tags. If you net more tags, yes you move people faster. (if a snail is fast)


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

I think they should also change 2 or so units to be managed for a much lower age class. Even if they (gasp) made some portion of what is currently OTC any bull into a new LE elk hunt but managed for 4-year-old bulls instead of 8. Give people a chance to hunt with lower pressure on branch antlered bulls. I for one would JUMP at the chance to let my kids hunt bulls every 10 years instead of 50.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> I think they should also change 2 or so units to be managed for a much lower age class. Even if they (gasp) made some portion of what is currently OTC any bull into a new LE elk hunt but managed for 4-year-old bulls instead of 8. Give people a chance to hunt with lower pressure on branch antlered bulls. I for one would JUMP at the chance to let my kids hunt bulls every 10 years instead of 50.


4 point or better units! That would be sweet


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've studied the point creep for quite some time now.
Changing season dates will not help the point creep one bit.
.
All you have to look at is the nunber of new applications each year 
And the number of hunters buying points only.

The NR guys are really screwed.
Last year there were 14,000+ that bought points only for LE elk.

There will be almost 800 NR elk guys with 19 plus points that can apply for LE elk permits in 2019.
With very few permits available.

Those that draw with less than 19 points will be ' winning the lottery'.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Random, I need to clarify one thing. The only way to move more people through the system is more tags, not changing the system. If you change the system, you still have the same amount of people and the same amount of tags, you just are moving them through a different system. So really the only way to move more people through this system or any other system that we might change to, is more tags.

Now, with that out of the way, I'll share my thoughts on if this will help with point creep. I definitely do not believe that simply shifting season dates will impact point creep in any way, shape, or form. If anything, it will have the exact opposite effect. There are multiple reasons why. I'll do my best to illustrate each of those. To do so, we have to make some general assumptions.

*A-* Archery hunt from Sept 1 to end of current any weapon hunt. Muzzy hunt remains the same dates. Any weapon moves to same time as general rifle elk hunt, and the new "middle" any weapon hunt on some of the units that now exists.

*B-* Archery permits during that September hunt can't increase without taking permits from other weapons and hunts.

So here is why I think this not only won't help point creep, but can't help point creep.

*1-* As stated above, rifle hunters are still going to apply for rifle hunts. I have never bow hunted, don't own a bow, and if this change takes place, do not plan on going out and buying a bow and all the equipment I need to hunt an archery hunt with my 21 points to chase the elk during the rut. There are many hunters that hunt all weapons, and those people could very much conceivably switch to archery as they have been in the rifle pool. But what does that do to archery odds? You have just increased the amount of hunters in the archery pool, without increasing the amount of archery tags. To do that, you have to take them away from the other weapons. When you take away from those other weapons, what have you now done to those point pools?

*2-* Why can't you simply add more archery permits now that they are in the rut? Because undoubtedly the harvest rate is going to go up from where it is today. People can't claim this is not going to happen, because they have beat the drum that we have to take the rifle out of the hand of hunters when the animals are "the most vulnerable" and "easiest to hunt." So it is disingenuous to then turn around and not acknowledge that the rates will go up for whatever weapon used that is currently not being used during that time. So now that archery harvest rates are going up, we need other weapons to go down, or else what will be the result? Reduced elk tags across the board.

*3-* We can look and think that this increase will be made up by the decrease in rifle harvest rates. That seems like a reasonable conclusion, but the available data simply does not support it. We have very little data available on what harvest rates on LE units would look like if the rifle hunt was moved to October, but we do have some. We can look at harvest rates for rifle hunts on any unit that currently has a LE hunt at that time. I posted these elsewhere, and are copied here to illustrate:

Manti:
early- 83.6%
middle- 77.6%
late- 84.6%

Paunsaugunt: 
early- 67.9%
middle- 85.7%
late- 60.0%

Fish Lake: 
early- 76.2%
middle- 71.4%
late- 71.4%

Wasatch: 
early- 76.0%
middle- 69.9%
late- 62.3%

Deep Creek: 
early- 80.0%
middle- 100%
late- 100%

You'll see that the "middle" rifle seasons are only slightly lower than the early rifle hunt. And this is under the current system when this middle hunt happens AFTER an early rifle hunt has already taken place. I think it's reasonable to assume that the small difference in harvest rates currently on a unit like the Manti or Wasatch would be made up by the fact that the early hunt is removed, there has been less pressure on the elk, and there are more elk available. And even if they remain static of where they are, the increase in the archery tag success almost assuredly more than makes up for slight decrease in early rifle tags.

Hawkeye and others have made the statement that we have to get the harvest rates down to 50-70%. How on earth are you going to do that? Maybe I'm just missing something, so I'm open to being educated on that. Just moving the hunt hasn't done that for those units, and again, that is AFTER an early hunt has already taken place. Simply moving the hunt to October is not going to, on its own, reduce the harvest rates below those numbers you see above. If anything, it seems like they'll go up from those numbers.

I had some other thoughts, but I'm watching the circus of a hearing happening on Capitol Hill right now and got distracted. I'll get back to them if they come back to me.

So if we move season dates, you very well might, and I predict will, increase point creep and negatively effect the elk pools, not help them. The only way to do that is give more tags. One idea already pitched by others on this forum is reduce age objectives. I would support that. One year reduction on every unit. Goofy will be really mad when it adds another 200 bull tags to the Wasatch, though!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ha,TS.
I haven't set foot on the Wasatch for a few years now.
Gave up on that fight.
They can make it GS at this point for all I care..


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> They can make it GS at this point for all I care..


I remember a proposition a couple years ago by someone about this very thing. Wasatch becomes a general season area, but with a 5 point or better requirement and if you get a tag, there is a 3 year wait period before you can obtain another general season tag. Interesting notion...I wonder how it would work?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

We should just go to a random draw with no points . . . op2:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> We should just go to a random draw with no points . . . op2:


I honestly don't like that kind of a system, but it may be the only way to go eventually. I don't disagree that Utah's system is broken, and is getting worse.

If they are going to go to a straight random draw, the best way to transition would be to cap the max points, and give a 5 year winding down period. That allows higher point holders a chance to decide if they want to cash out on a "lesser" unit, because that is the group that is going to get screwed by that switch. So throw them a bone, give them a chance to make an educated decision, with plenty of notice that a major change is coming. I wouldn't love that move, but I wouldn't oppose it strongly if they handled it right.

I suspect that how it actually would go would be a November wildlife board meeting votes to eliminate all points in all pools for the draw period the next year. That would just be a horrible thing, and one that might draw lawsuits, etc.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> We should just go to a random draw with no points . . .


This could happen,
25 years from now..LOL.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

CPAjeff said:


> We should just go to a random draw with no points . . . op2:


Not going to happen. Too much money in points.

You have to fund the wildlife somehow.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

This is a little long--

Honestly, I see minimal changes to overall odds by moving dates and offering more archery permits. I do see archery odds getting better with such a change (which benefits me personally, but not others in my family who do not chose or can not archery hunt).

-Archery success rates will go up with longer Sept hunts- diminishing the returns of "lower success weapon".
-Average age of bulls killed by less selective archery hunters can reduce the average age of bulls killed, which in turn could cut overall permits as the herd does not meet age objectives.

Archers make up 9% of LE Elk Applicants- 4400 last year. Early season Any Weapon makes up 50% of LE Elk Apps-- 25,000 last year. 
If we increase archery permits- it will take permits away from the other hunts (Early, Late, Mid, ML). How many of those 25,000 LE Early applicants will switch to archery? Enough to offset the loss of permits?

I think the actual effect will be to increase other weapon tag odds, decrease archery odds. Making "Point Creep" worse for 90% of the current LE Elk applicants.

The easiest way to increase tags AND better the drawing odds for ALL hunters is to reduce the age objectives on some/most/all units. The number of units reduced dictates the effect on odds. For example- On a unit I am familiar with the average age was increased by one year and permits were cut in half. Just moving this one unit back to the previous age objective would add over 50 permits per year. Under this premise (depending on the units), we could increase tags by 500-800 permits. 8000 additional hunters over the next decade. That is 17% more hunters going thru the system in a decade.



hawkeye said:


> We cannot continue to manage for 90-100% success rates and expect to make any progress on the bonus point log jam. I would like to see the DWR to explore rearranging the season dates in an effort to lower the success rates so that we can issue more tags and move more folks through the system. Hunters are entitled to a quality hunt not a guaranteed kill. Many surrounding states are managing for 50-70 success rate on LE rifle elk hunts. We need to do something or our LE elk hunts will become OIL hunts for our children and grandchildren.
> Hawkeye


Well- the Early Season LE elk hunt overall odds are 1 in 46 so it is already an "OIL" tag in drawing odds. If any proposed change makes the Any Weapon success rates go down to "50-70%" will people be content waiting 20+ years for a 50% chance at success? I doubt it. And under the current management, the hunts in Oct and Nov have success rates within 10% of the Sept hunts. So not a substantial statistical difference.
..


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Not going to happen. Too much money in points.
> 
> You have to fund the wildlife somehow.


I totally agree - my comment was made in jest - partially because I know Vanilla is sitting on a pile of points.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, kinda ironic.
In the WB meeting just now they were discussing the possibility of ending all spike hunting in Utah in order to increase LE permits.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

By increasing the competition among hunters through higher tag numbers I would imagine the added pressure on the elk would drive success rates down. Having hunted elk during LE seasons and during GS seasons for the same unit, in my experience, the behavior of the elk themselves is a night and day difference. When there are fewer people actively chasing them, the elk are easier to approach. 

Yes, the total number of harvests would increase necessitating a lower age objective, but I strongly believe the overall harvest rate would decrease if you doubled the number of tags for each season even leaving them all in their current slots. I even think if you doubled the tags that the increase in total harvest would be less than double, quite a bit less. 



Or we could remove public grazing AUMs for livestock and allocate those AUMs to population objectives, aggressively transplanting bison, elk, sheep, and pronghorn to their native ranges, allowing population numbers to skyrocket which in turn would allow tag numbers to increase....but that is just another pipe dream.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Even the thought of changing some any bull units to LE or eliminating spike tags on some LE units is enough to make me sick...the any bull units and spike tags are what is good about Utah's system, not what is bad.

If Utah wants to move more people through the LE system, the answer is not in eliminating spike tags or any bull tags. In my opinion, those two hunts actually help with point creep simply because some people buy any bull and spike tags without putting in for LE hunts or buying LE points. The beauty of spike hunts is that a ton of hunting opportunity can be given out without hurting the overall quality of an LE hunt. So, we can have hunting opportunity and hunting quality on the same unit.

The thing that worries me the most about the idea of eliminating spike tags as an answer to increase LE tags is that the same old arguments will still be made--some hunters and probably SFW will still argue that too many tags are being given out and we don't have enough trophies. 

It is a real no-brainer...the way to move more people through the system is to give out more tags. Not only that, but giving out more LE tags will also lower success rates because fewer bulls will be available to be shot and hunters will have to work harder.


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

Of course it would help point creep. Example: if we issue 1000 tags and have 80 percent success we killed 800 elk. Which is what the dwr is actually managing for.

So if we change the dates to our success goes down to 70 percent, then we can issue 1143 tags and still kill 800 elk. That just moved an extra 143 tags through our imaginary system.

I would love to see some season date rearranging.... but I also like to hunt elk with a bow


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Torowy, you are way oversimplifying the issue. The problem is that if you change the dates for one hunt, you will change the dates for other hunts as well. Moving the dates for one hunt may reduce success rates for one hunt but increase the rates for the other hunts. Those extra tags you gained in one hunt will be lost by increasing the success in the other hunts...

Also, changing the dates of the rifle hunts will not lower success rates very much or at all. Success rates will still be high for rifle hunters because shooting an elk with a rifle just isn't that hard when the units have so many bull elk to hunt.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

torowy said:


> Of course it would help point creep. Example: if we issue 1000 tags and have 80 percent success we killed 800 elk. Which is what the dwr is actually managing for.
> 
> So if we change the dates to our success goes down to 70 percent, then we can issue 1143 tags and still kill 800 elk. That just moved an extra 143 tags through our imaginary system.
> 
> I would love to see some season date rearranging.... but I also like to hunt elk with a bow


Does your "of course" include the increased harvest during archery hunts? I don't think you're accounting for the other side of the coin.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

This is a great discussion. I believe the DWR should consider a number of changes in order to manage hunts for lower success rates and move more sportsmen through the system. These changes include revised season dates, shortened seasons, increased tag numbers, prohibition of technology (LR rifles and MLs, scopes on MLs, trail cams), etc. I would also support changes to or elimination of our bonus point system and elimination of the mentor system. We are at a point now where we have to consider some significant changes if we want our children and grandchildren to have an opportunity to hunt elk in a LE unit.

Hawkeye


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

Forget four point and better units. Leave the big bulls with their superior genetics alone to breed and to put on a show you won't forget! 
I want to see four point and less units. Those little bulls getting the crap beaten out of them and then sneaking in quiet to 20 yards to investigate your cow call is one heck of a great time.
You know the bulls I'm talking about, those bulls you don't even know they are there until you hear a stick break and you look out the corner of your eye and their is a statue of a bull staring you down.
Ooh, gives me goose bumps just thinking of it! 
His eyes are burning a hole in you trying to figure out what is happening.
You count antler tips at the same time you can count eyelashes. 
While field dressing him that big bull is still screaming his ghostly scream through the timber making your skin crawl.
You are already planning next year's hunt in your mind as you pack that first quarter out.
Can you even imagine that scenario?
Any thoughts what units this would work out on where maybe we could move more tags through and hunters would rate their success off of memories gathered, not inches of antler on the ground?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

hawkeye said:


> This is a great discussion. I believe the DWR should consider a number of changes in order to manage hunts for lower success rates and move more sportsmen through the system. These changes include revised season dates, shortened seasons, increased tag numbers, prohibition of technology (LR rifles and MLs, scopes on MLs, trail cams), etc. I would also support changes to or elimination of our bonus point system and elimination of the mentor system. We are at a point now where we have to consider some significant changes if we want our children and grandchildren to have an opportunity to hunt elk in a LE unit.
> 
> Hawkeye


Very good points. Quick question, and I mean this sincerely, what is your proposal for a prohibition of technology? No more than a 4x scope on a rifle and open sights only on a ml?


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

I know a way to issue tons of tags, move lot's of folks through the system and maintain our 'trophy quality' standards:

No compounds during archery season--recurves and longbows only

No inline muzzle loaders, scopes, powerbelt ammo--flint locks and percussion caps only, open sites, patch and ball/maxi ball only

No Scopes on any weapon rifle hunts--all open sites

No trail cameras on public land from July 1st to December 31st

Hunters are not allowed to be in possession of range finders while hunting

There you go gentlemen--I have solved the problem for your antler fixation. If you did those things above you can keep all of your season dates and point systems and everything else. I'm guessing that you could issue at least twice as many tags and still have the same harvest--maybe three times as many tags :grin:

Nobody would do this because it would be hard and would be a complete paradigm shift from the past 50 years of hunting culture but by god it would work and I think it would be super awesome!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Could you imagine hunting the mighty wapiti with one of these bad boys??


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

Airborne, you can sign me up IF you also ban the use of cell phones and two way radios while in pursuit of big game.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

shaner said:


> Airborne, you can sign me up IF you also ban the use of cell phones and two way radios while in pursuit of big game.


Not to endorse Airborne's list as many of those restrictions I fear would lead to a greater increase in wounded, lost, and wasted animals.

But the use of communication devices to target a specific animal is something that I think should be prohibited--and many states already do. Alaska, for example, requires you to wait until after 3 am the following day to pursue an animal if you used a wireless communication device to identify/target a specific animal.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

shaner said:


> Airborne, you can sign me up IF you also ban the use of cell phones and two way radios while in pursuit of big game.


The only issues with banning cell phones is that they take cool pics and how else are we supposed to brag about the amount of inches that we killed. We already are having photo issues on the UWN--I would hate to exacerbate the problem!

And to be fair with my restrictions proposal--I promise to never hunt upland game birds with a scope mounted to my shotgun--see friends... equal application of the law! :grin:


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Not to endorse Airborne's list as many of those restrictions I fear would lead to a greater increase in wounded, lost, and wasted animals.


Your fear is unfounded.

Are there currently piles of wounded game during Idaho's muzzleloader season?

The compound bow didn't exist in great numbers before 1980, did stick flippers wound more critters in the 60's and 70's than they do now?

Scopes weren't readily available until the 1950's-1960's. Were our grandfathers and great grandfathers wounding animals at a greater rate than we are now.

I am not making a claim one way or the other but if you make a claim ya better back it up with some data

what's the saying...*What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence *

Of course that rule would pretty much kill this forum wouldn't it ;-):grin:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Airborne said:


> The only issues with banning cell phones is that they take cool pics and how else are we supposed to brag about the amount of inches that we killed. We already are having photo issues on the UWN--I would hate to exacerbate the problem!


Modern Cell phones should already be illegal under the "light amplification devices" section of the Regulations.

New apple phones will have FLIR capability and will be extremely illegal to have with you when hunting.










-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Airborne said:


> Your fear is unfounded.
> 
> Are there currently piles of wounded game during Idaho's muzzleloader season?
> 
> ...


I actually didn't make a claim either way. I did not represent that it would factually lead to higher wounding rates. I raised a fear or a concern, which could easily be refuted as unfounded with a showing of data if such is available. I also didn't state that ALL of your proposals would do that, just that I fear that many of them would do that. You made the factual claim that my fear was unfounded and then failed to provide support for that claim. Nonetheless, I'll change my position and state that I believe certain of your allegations would in fact lead to higher wounding and nonrecovery rates of game as compared to the status quo.

I think scopes on muzzleloaders are stupid (and I'd love to know if there is data on this as I suspect it could lead to HIGHER wounded/nonrecovered rates in the West), but I also think the distinction between inline/flintlocks is equally stupid as the inline muzzleloading rifle predates the flintlock. I don't think restricting the style of muzzleloader would make any tangible difference on wounding game.

Now, the maxi ball/patch, there's a different story. Here's a good discussion that includes this issue, finding that conical bullets have greater accuracy in trajectory, and a higher fragmentation rate than roundballs. The fragmentation rate is an interesting issue, as more fragmentation leads to more internal injury/bleeding higher likelihood of death/recovery but it also leads to a higher chance of ingesting lead fragments in your game meat. 
Dana M. Sanchez, Clinton W. Epps, and David S. Taylor (2016) Estimating Lead Fragmentation from Ammunition for Muzzleloading and Black Powder Cartridge Rifles. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management: December 2016, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 467-479.

Here are a pair of studies that might lend support to my fears in respect to your traditional archery equipment proposal:
http://wp.auburn.edu/deerlab/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/581998-SEAFWA.pdf (smaller sample size of only 22 deer shot out of 80 bucks collared with 11 unrecovered for 50% wounding rate with traditional archery equipment as the only hunting tools permitted)
http://www.seafwa.org/pdfs/articles/Pedersen-31-34.pdf (no difference in wounding/recovery metrics between compound and cross bows, 18% wounding rate with hunters failing to recover 162 of 908 deer hit sample size)

So is 18% wounding rate more or less than 50%? Seems like a credible fear to me, but I can recognize when I am wrong provided that there is proof to back up the assertion.

Scopes on rifles, I don't have data on hand, but I struggle to believe that putting scopes on rifles did anything but improve accuracy rates. The lethal ballistic capabilities of the average rifle are far greater than the average hunter 
is capable of even with a good scope--which is not the same for muzzleloaders in my opinion. But even ignoring that, if you and I both sit at a bench and we each shoot 3 rounds from the same rifle at 100, 200, 300, and 400 yards first with iron sights and then with a scope (or vice versa), which set of shots do you think are more likely to be 1) better grouped; and 2) better centered on the target? Not too hard to extrapolate from there.

Rangefinders, again I didn't bother to look if there is data on this one, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find that using a rangefinder worsens wounding rates. How is guessing or estimating target distance superior to knowing? If your intent was to restrict long range shooting, why not state "no shots over XXX yards" and mandate the use of a rangefinder? But that is a different story.

Trail cams, I don't care either way and don't think it has any effect on wounding/recovery rates.

So with data on archery and conical muzzleloading bullets plus unfounded with data but pretty solid common sense on accuracy and rifle scopes, I'm feeling pretty comfortable with my statement that many of your proposed restrictions I fear would lead to a greater increase in wounded, lost, and wasted animals.

But you do you, that's cool too.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

DallanC said:


> Modern Cell phones should already be illegal under the "light amplification devices" section of the Regulations.
> 
> New apple phones will have FLIR capability and will be extremely illegal to have with you when hunting.
> 
> ...


The light amplification/FLIR issue with cellphones from all the regs I've seen would only be illegal if you used said light or capability to try and locate/pursue/hunt/take game. That makes that function illegal, but not the cellphone itself as a device illegal.

Frankly, I love my new Cat s61 phone--and the FLIR camera is AWESOME!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

above and beyond there Johnny

Forest for the trees though---a little

The big picture argument I am trying to make is simply that less lethal weapon systems would likely lower success rates, meaning less elk killed.

It's probably more effective than moving seasons around.

It's something that should be looked at seriously but people can't because they spent soooo much **** money on that cool rifle/muzzleloader/bow. I know I did and I'm sitting on 13 elk points but I would gladly pick up a less lethal weapon to enable more folks to experience a hunt.

The fault in your argument is that you assume folks will take the same shots with less lethal weapons as they would with their hi tech weapon systems. I don't think they will be able to. Maybe you're right but the fact that no is even seriously considering less lethal weapon restrictions shows how in love we are with our possessions and technology and not the hunt itself


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I agree generally that taking tags from the any weapons season and placing them in the archery season would allow us to kill the same number of animals but issue more tags. Those margins get murkier if we also start to change season dates, but I think it would still result in a net tag increase if we remove the any weapon season from the rut and extended the archery season. 

But I don't think further restriction on the type of bow or type of muzzleloader would provide for more tags, and the increased wounding rates play into that.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Ban cars... they probably kill / waste more animals than hunters in any given year.




-DallanC


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Here's how I'd do it:

Archery - same season as now
Muzzleloader - same season as the existing general rifle elk hunts (early-mid October)
Rifle - November season(s) exclusively

Rearranging season dates won't do much IF there are still hunts going on during the rut. Might as well move them all out of it. I'd back that change 110%. Of course, that's coming from someone with 3 elk points, so I might be biased since I know there's almost no chance that I'll ever draw a September rifle tag anyway.

# TOTP


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I have never been able to understand why, with the exception of it all being money driven, Utah allows hunters to hunt bull elk when they are most vulnerable with the most effective weapon. 

With the exception of a handful of hunts, mule deer are not hunted in Utah during their most vulnerable time with the most effective weapon . . .

I know 'big brother' is monitoring these comments, so I don't really expect to draw a tag in Utah ever again. 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> I have never been able to understand why, with the exception of it all being money driven, Utah allows hunters to hunt bull elk when they are most vulnerable with the most effective weapon.


Oh come on...it has nothing to do with money. They get the same amount of money and possibly more if they move the rifle hunt from the rut.

We all know the reason the rifle hunters get most of the rut and it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with an attempt at appeasing the majority of the hunters. Let's face it, hunting elk during the rut is the huge appeal of elk hunting. Not allowing elk hunters that chance takes away from what elk hunting is all about...since the rifle hunters make up the majority, it makes sense to allow them that chance.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Shooting an elk in Oct or Nov (after the rut) is ok. But it is nothing like shooting one in the rut- within 100 yards, with any kind of weapon. One is shooting a piece of plywood across a canyon and the other is flittering the senses of sound, sight, and smell.

It is interesting that a lot of the guys wanting to change quotas and dates have already drawn an LE tag and are looking for any easier way to obtain another. **I have drawn an LE elk tag and want to draw another too, but not at the expense of those who haven't.

I do like the idea of lesser quality hunts to move those thru who want a LE tag. Unfortunately, the Wildlife Board is vocally calling for less General Season Permits to grow larger bulls on the same LE opportunity and not less General Season permits to grow smaller bulls for more LE opportunity.

..


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh come on...it has nothing to do with money. They get the same amount of money and possibly more if they move the rifle hunt from the rut.
> 
> We all know the reason the rifle hunters get most of the rut and it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with an attempt at appeasing the majority of the hunters. Let's face it, hunting elk during the rut is the huge appeal of elk hunting. Not allowing elk hunters that chance takes away from what elk hunting is all about...since the rifle hunters make up the majority, it makes sense to allow them that chance.


I disagree. The big the reason Utah auction tags sell for the amounts they do is for the unique experience of using your rifle in the rut along with extra high success rates on big bulls ensuring a true Facebook moment.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh come on...it has nothing to do with money. They get the same amount of money and possibly more if they move the rifle hunt from the rut.I tend to disagree with this statement. You'd pay the same amount for the SJ tag to hunt with a bow as you would a rifle during the rut? I highly doubt it.
> 
> We all know the reason the rifle hunters get most of the rut and it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with an attempt at appeasing the majority of the hunters. Let's face it, hunting elk during the rut is the huge appeal of elk hunting. I agree with hunting during the rut is an appeal, but not *the* appeal of elk hunting. Not allowing elk hunters that chance takes away from what elk hunting is all about...since the rifle hunters make up the majority, it makes sense to allow them that chance. This might be completely off topic, but according to the number of general season rifle elk tags left - which is zero (out of the allocated 15,000) and 106 spike tags left (out of the allocated 15,000), there are 29,894 people who don't seem to agree that hunting elk during the rut with a rifle is what elk hunting is 'all about.'


See my comments in red.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Packout said:


> Shooting an elk in Oct or Nov (after the rut) is ok. But it is nothing like shooting one in the rut- within 100 yards, with any kind of weapon. One is shooting a piece of plywood across a canyon and the other is flittering the senses of sound, sight, and smell.
> 
> It is interesting that a lot of the guys wanting to change quotas and dates have already drawn an LE tag and are looking for any easier way to obtain another. **I have drawn an LE elk tag and want to draw another too, but not at the expense of those who haven't.
> 
> ...


For what it's worth, I have advocated changing the system (even abandoning points entirely and going to a random draw) since before I drew my OIAL bison (10 points Henry's Cow, inaugural late December season) or my LE elk (14 points, Panguitch Late any weapon). But yeah, it is even easier after cashing out to support changes that benefit not only my kids but myself as well. I can admit that.

Still doesn't make me "wrong"


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> See my comments in red.


Hey Math Nerd (looking at you too Clarq). Out of curiousity, if we were to eliminate all any weapon early season elk tags (LE draw, conservation, expo, auction, etc) and just moved them into the existing non-rut any weapons seasons, what impact would that have on revenues? Here are a couple scenarios of how restructuring could try to recoup that money that I'm curious about:

1) The draw tags would theoretically be a financial wash (maybe some change in application/point funds, but hard to predict that). So then see if there is a difference in the auction prices. Compare auction prices on a unit basis between the rut hunt and the late/mid season any weapon hunts. With a few exceptions, I believe there will be a large disparity in those values, with the early rut hunts typically selling for much more than any other single-season tag in a given unit. I hypothesize that this will result in a deficit, which theoretically could be filled by increasing the number of tags auctioned

2) If we didn't increase the number of auction tags, and assuming that the late season tags hold their value even with an increase in supply, how many additional GS any bull/spike tags at $50 resident/$393 non resident would we need to replace those dollars? Let's assume 10% nonresident purchase rate for simplicity/optimism. This isn't to say that we would increase these tags (or could support that level of pressure) but is just a look at the theoretical cost.

I expect this analysis by COB today.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> Hey Math Nerd (looking at you too Clarq). Out of curiousity, if we were to eliminate all any weapon early season elk tags (LE draw, conservation, expo, auction, etc) and just moved them into the existing non-rut any weapons seasons, what impact would that have on revenues? Here are a couple scenarios of how restructuring could try to recoup that money that I'm curious about:
> 
> 1) The draw tags would theoretically be a financial wash (maybe some change in application/point funds, but hard to predict that). So then see if there is a difference in the auction prices. Compare auction prices on a unit basis between the rut hunt and the late/mid season any weapon hunts. With a few exceptions, I believe there will be a large disparity in those values, with the early rut hunts typically selling for much more than any other single-season tag in a given unit. I hypothesize that this will result in a deficit, which theoretically could be filled by increasing the number of tags auctioned
> 
> ...


https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_report_2017.pdf

See page 18. There is not a comprehensive list of each tag that was sold, and the price it sold for. However, there is a nice table, showing which organizations received tags, how many tags each organization received, and the total money generated from 2001-2017. In 2017, 314 tags brought a grand total of $4,150,440.00.

In response to your scenarios - option 1 would basically be a financial wash. Also, I agree with your hypothesis that the value of the tag would decrease, bringing in less revenue if it was moved out of the rut. Additionally, I agree that the increase in volume of tags would partially offset the decrease in tag prices. Another option would be to have 'governor's' tags for each unit. Potentially by setting aside two or three special tags for each unit - rut hunt with a rifle - to be auctioned off, the state may bring in more money. It's that darn supply and demand thingie.

Option 2 - I don't really know if we would need to raise the price of the resident/nonresident tag fees if the archery folks got the current archery season in addition to the early rifle dates. I would think that, assuming the ml regulations stay the same, the increase in archery tag prices and ml tag prices would substantially cover the money lost by moving the early rifle hunt out of the rut. With advances in the ml game, Mr. Rich, who flies in the day before the hunt, pulls out his Gunwerks ML, and is good to go out to 500 yards - will still pay a pretty penny to hunt elk in Utah.

I am pretty much just shooting from the hip - it's Friday and I've got to go get the hot wings and beverages for the massacre that'll take place when Bama crushes those Ragin' Cajuns tomorrow.

#bandwagoner

P.S. - https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_report_2018.pdf - - - - it's a pretty interesting read. Additionally, the table on page eight shows the following 314 approved permits for 2018:
Antlerless Elk 19
Bear 29
Bison 5
Buck	deer 47
Bull Elk 107
Bull Moose 3
Cougar 11
Desert Bighorn 6
Mtn. Goat 6
Pronghorn 37
Rocky Mtn. Bighorn 5
Wild	turkey 39


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Additionally, here are the number of tags given out at the hunt expo:

Buck Deer 45
Bull Elk 91
Buck Pronghorn 22
Bull Moose 2
Bison 4
Bear 11
Cougar 7
Desert Sheep 2
Rocky Mtn. Sheep 2
Mtn. Goat 4
Turkey 8


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Airborne said:


> I know I did and I'm sitting on 13 elk points but I would gladly pick up a less lethal weapon to enable more folks to experience a hunt.


Kudos to you for being so generous as to put in for a hunt with a more primitive weapon and not accumulate so many points, so that someone else can have a better chance at drawing a tag.

I have to ask though...what changed your mind now that didn't for the last 13 years?

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2018/18_big_game_odds_report.pdf

Not too many archery (primitive) hunts that require 12+ points to draw so apparently this notion of cashing in your points early so as to not contribute to the backlog problem is a new belief for you?

Prove it.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_report_2017.pdf
> 
> See page 18. There is not a comprehensive list of each tag that was sold, and the price it sold for. However, there is a nice table, showing which organizations received tags, how many tags each organization received, and the total money generated from 2001-2017. In 2017, 314 tags brought a grand total of $4,150,440.00.
> 
> ...


I get that you're shooting from the hip, but I think I failed to clearly state what I was looking for (shocker).

1) There are auction/conservation permits for Wasatch Elk in every season (reasonably sure). Let's pretend there are 2 early rifle tags that go for $12,500 each at auction, but the 2 late and mid season rifle hunts average $10,000 per tag. If you kept the number of auction tags constant, but moved all rifle tags into the non rut hunts, the net income for the units would decrease by $5000 in my hypo [(2x12.5k) + (4x10k) = $65k vs 6x10k = $60k) . I'm curious what the total budgetary hit would be in this case, ignoring that the tags would not go for even that "$10k" as we've increased supply by 50%, as this would produce the most optimistic result minimizing the losses.

2) I'm interested in seeing what the total lost revenues calculated in (1) would be, in terms of gs tags. Such as, "removing any weapon hunts from the rut will result in a $200k decrease in funding. Replacing that would require an additional 40,000 gs elk permits to be sold which would be unsustainable. Or it would require increasing the GS elk tag to $56.67" Basically enabling some insight into what is the most acceptable strategy while maintaining the same revenue levels: keeping the status quo vs. (1) vs. (2)a vs. (2)b

Not that it actually matters or would be effective, but I'm on a dreamer kind of kick lately.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Careful Johnny. We don’t want to dig that deep. Because we might find out the narrative of “all about the money” doesn’t fit as nicely.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Clarq said:


> Here's how I'd do it:
> 
> Archery - same season as now
> Muzzleloader - same season as the existing general rifle elk hunts (early-mid October)
> ...


Moving the hunts for the majority of Utah hunters to a time when many elk statewide have moved to private property and the forest service has closed roads? Wow, that's generous!

Who needs anti-hunters when we can cannabalize ourselves so effectively?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> I get that you're shooting from the hip, but I think I failed to clearly state what I was looking for (shocker).
> 
> 1) There are auction/conservation permits for Wasatch Elk in every season (reasonably sure). Let's pretend there are 2 early rifle tags that go for $12,500 each at auction, but the 2 late and mid season rifle hunts average $10,000 per tag. If you kept the number of auction tags constant, but moved all rifle tags into the non rut hunts, the net income for the units would decrease by $5000 in my hypo [(2x12.5k) + (4x10k) = $65k vs 6x10k = $60k) . I'm curious what the total budgetary hit would be in this case, ignoring that the tags would not go for even that "$10k" as we've increased supply by 50%, as this would produce the most optimistic result minimizing the losses.
> 
> ...


So here is what I found out by calling the DWR -

1. I first was told there isn't a listing of all the tags that were sold and how much they were sold for and that I would have to reach out to each individual conservation organization and get the numbers from them. 
2. I asked how much each organization got to keep of the auction price of the tag and how much was to be returned to the DWR. Once I was told the percentage I asked, "If the DWR doesn't keep a record of all the tags that were sold, how does the DWR know that they are receiving the correct amount of the auction price percentage?" I was placed on hold for 18 minutes and 42 seconds. 
3. I was told a listing actually does exist, but I would be required to submit a grama request for it. 
4. I contacted the individual responsible for the grama requests, told her what I was looking for and the call mysteriously got dropped. I call back two more times with my call being forwarded to the voicemail system each time.

In the end, there isn't a way, short of getting the grama request, to help satisfy your dreamer kick! Sorry man.

Vanilla - I have a sincere question here, because if I am wrong, I'll totally admit it - but if it isn't all about the money, why would the state allow rifle hunts during the rut?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> Vanilla - I have a sincere question here, because if I am wrong, I'll totally admit it - but if it isn't all about the money, why would the state allow rifle hunts during the rut?


W2U gave a very logical reason. Keep in mind, this wasn't something that we changed to and started doing 10 years ago when big money really entered the hunting game. We have been doing this a long time. The vast majority of hunters are rifle hunters, so giving the most people a chance to have the top experience in elk hunting is reasonable, particularly when it isn't harming herd health to do so.

Also, it is a extremely effective way to keep up with management objectives. There is actually a sound biological reason for doing this with a thriving elk herd.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

And that exchange with the DWR doesn’t help the popular belief that they are hiding things in all this...does it?


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Wonder how every other state could possibly manage elk without this very valuable tool. Easy isn't better

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Well thanks Jeff! I was not expecting that much follow through. I'll be sure to make you a shiny star after I'm done crafting this fedora, as long as the roll doesn't end first.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> W2U gave a very logical reason. Keep in mind, this wasn't something that we changed to and started doing 10 years ago when big money really entered the hunting game. We have been doing this a long time. The vast majority of hunters are rifle hunters, so giving the most people a chance to have the top experience in elk hunting is reasonable, particularly when it isn't harming herd health to do so.
> 
> Also, it is a extremely effective way to keep up with management objectives. There is actually a sound biological reason for doing this with a thriving elk herd.


Thanks for the response and the clarification. W2U - sorry for being snarky above. I reread your explanation and it makes sense, I stand corrected - thanks for pointing some items out to me!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> Well thanks Jeff! I was not expecting that much follow through. I'll be sure to make you a shiny star after I'm done crafting this fedora, as long as the roll doesn't end first.


It was actually kind of fun and it helped the commute go much quicker! I may have felt that euphoria that Rep. Trey Gowdy feels every time he starts asking questions . . .


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

These threads leave me shaking my head........it’s always someone who has already gotten a chance to enjoy an awesome hunt trying to scheme up ways to screw over those who haven’t yet. 

Here’s the brass tacks:

1. There are too many hunters in Utah to accommodate everyone.
2. Using the current system, everyone can eventually get a chance to hunt elk.
3. Hunting big bulls during the rut is worth the wait.
4. You can still hunt bulls EVERY year if you want.

So let’s LEAVE IT ALONE. Quit being selfish and enjoy the memories from your hunt. If you want some action, volunteer your services to someone else or go hunt the generals.

On a positive note, I am not planning on ever hunting LE elk in UT. I much prefer deer hunting and my plan is to draw 3-4 LE deer tags and a handful of antelope tags in between. ———SS


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Springville Shooter said:


> These threads leave me shaking my head........it's always someone who has already gotten a chance to enjoy an awesome hunt trying to scheme up ways to screw over those who haven't yet.
> 
> Here's the brass tacks:
> 
> ...


If we stopped points now and just tried to work current point holders but though the system it's hovering around 25 years.
14204 bought points only
50102 applied for a limited permit
2643 permits issued 1272 bonus and 1371 regular permits.
These are the 2018 resident numbers


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

weaversamuel76 said:


> If we stopped points now and just tried to work current point holders but though the system it's hovering around 25 years.
> 14204 bought points only
> 50102 applied for a limited permit
> 2643 permits issued 1272 bonus and 1371 regular permits.
> These are the 2018 resident numbers


Exactly why we need to leave things alone. Even a person starting in their 40's will have the opportunity to hunt LE bull elk. In my opinion, opportunity for first timers takes precedence far and above those who have had a tag.

One fair solution that might help would be to have a 5 year waiting period for all LE species once any LE tag is drawn. So once you draw an LE tag, you cannot apply or gain points for any LE tags for 5 years. Once your waiting period is up, you can resume applying for the species of your choice.

I have not done the math, so 5 might not be the right number but at some point, the waiting period method could be used to move applicants through the pool.

As an added bonus, we could take back all the expo tags and put them in a random drawing open to all applicants at the normal application cost available on the DNR website with ALL proceeds going to the state. There's your opportunity for those on waiting period.-----SS


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you really want to drive the point creep down all you would need to do is to make the LE pool a OIL pool. 

You draw a LE/OIL elk tag you are done. You draw a LE/OIL deer tag you are done. Same with pronghorn. 

Then reevaluate it in 10 years and see how the point problem is.

It is really to the point that it is close to being a OIL tag anyway for the most wanted tags. I drew a LE deer tag for the Book Cliffs 3 years ago with 14 points and if it takes another 14 years I'll be in my 70's. But then I am a non resident but residents points for the rifle hunt are 12+ without looking at the figures and just going by what my brother in law has since he drew back in 2004 and has been putting back in for the last 12 years after his waiting period.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

After the doctor slaps the baby on the butt it receives it's one time token to hunt in Utah

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

For people who studied harder in school and got great jobs, they get to hunt every year. Just buy another CWMU tag and go hunt. Rich people love hunting Utah, they do it every year.





-DallanC


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

KineKilla said:


> Kudos to you for being so generous as to put in for a hunt with a more primitive weapon and not accumulate so many points, so that someone else can have a better chance at drawing a tag.
> 
> I have to ask though...what changed your mind now that didn't for the last 13 years?
> 
> ...


I love it when my cred score is questioned on the UWN so here ya go

I have lot's of reasons why I haven't cashed in my elk points yet. In 2010 I discovered chukars and upland hunting. I was taught by one of the best upland hunters in the country and fell in love with bird hunting and bird dogs ( I own 3 pointers) so my focus moved from big game to birds. I usually put in for an unobtainable LE elk hunt just to put off taking away time from my upland obsession.

Ya want proof->

Search 'my upland game slam' on this forum if you are doubting my upland cred and want proof in that department. Also you can send me a PM and I can email you hundreds of pictures of dogs on point and bird hunts from all over the United States.

The other reason is I mainly big game hunt for meat and if I can plan on drawing an antlerless tag with points then I don't need to worry about drawing a big bull hunt. In 2017 I drew cow moose, in 2016 I drew antlerless elk, in 2015 I went to Wyoming and killed a pile of antlerless deer. I knew my meat needs would be met for the year so I didn't cash in my LE points. I have pics to back all this up--PM me your email address.

If I can't plan on an antlerlesss hunt then I hunt the Uintas. I figured some stuff out in 2009 and have a good area to hunt that I pack in on horseback.
An LE tag would mean no uintas and I truly love going into the wilderness. In 2013 I killed a 316" 5x6 in the Uintas and that scratched my big bull itch for a while anyways.

I am actually gearing up for that hunt now and am stoked about it! Spent time with the horses I am renting today and am packing gear tomorrow--so fun!

If you need some pics of my big bull or hell you can come over to my house and hold the antlers in your hand you are welcome too--just send me a PM and we can communicate offline.

So there are my reasons--like any true hunter in Utah I make due with what I have and hunt when and where I can. I make my own luck and don't bank on LE tags. They are a cherry on top of a very big pie that I have made for myself using the opportunities I have. Simply put, I don't cash in because I have so much fun already.

Is that a good enough 'proof' for you?


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

hawkeye said:


> We cannot continue to manage for 90-100% success rates and expect to make any progress on the bonus point log jam. I would like to see the DWR to explore rearranging the season dates in an effort to lower the success rates so that we can issue more tags and move more folks through the system. Hunters are entitled to a quality hunt not a guaranteed kill. Many surrounding states are managing for 50-70 success rate on LE rifle elk hunts. We need to do something or our LE elk hunts will become OIL hunts for our children and grandchildren.
> 
> Hawkeye


I think they already are once in a lifetime...&#8230;..


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

You want some more "free" tags to move people through the system faster, change CWMU tags so the landowners have to issue 2 tags per 10, vs the 1 out of 10 they currently have. I doubt many landowners will leave the CWMU program as they still get 80% allotment to sell / do what they want.




-DallanC


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

DallanC said:


> You want some more "free" tags to move people through the system faster, change CWMU tags so the landowners have to issue 2 tags per 10, vs the 1 out of 10 they currently have. I doubt many landowners will leave the CWMU program as they still get 80% allotment to sell / do what they want.
> 
> -DallanC


Isn't that already the rule? The CWMU's that I am involved with are already 2/10 on bucks and bulls and 1/1 on OIL.----SS


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Airborne said:


> Is that a good enough 'proof' for you?


I apologize as I never actually intended to question your Cred.

The point I was trying to make is that you said you'd gladly cash in your points so that someone else could have an increased opportunity.

I understand you're holding on to them and continuing to add to them so that you might one day draw a great tag. Just like everyone else is doing.

If you aren't actually willing to cash them in and shorten the line by 1 then I don't think you should make the claim otherwise.

If you truly are willing to do that then I'd imagine you'll be putting in for an easier to draw unit next year and getting out of line? I'd love to follow the thread and live vicariously through you when you do so.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> Isn't that already the rule? The CWMU's that I am involved with are already 2/10 on bucks and bulls and 1/1 on OIL.----SS


Hmmm I thought it was 1/10 ... but you may be right. Packout would know the current split. Either way, the split between public tags vs the landowner tags could be adjusted a bit.

-DallanC


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Springville Shooter said:


> Isn't that already the rule? The CWMU's that I am involved with are already 2/10 on bucks and bulls and 1/1 on OIL.----SS


From my experience with the CWMU program, it's a negotiable item with the DWR. For example, one CWMU has a 10/90 split on antlered animals because they allocate 100% of the antlerless tags to the state drawing. I've said this before and I truly believe it - there is nothing holding these private land owners in the system save it be hunt dates. If the DWR starts throwing a bunch of new regulations into the existing program, private land owners could very easily walk away from the program.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Jeff is correct. CWMUs choose from a few options how the split of public and private tags is determined. CWMUs that include public lands in their acreage have to give additional public tags beyond these numbers. 

R657-37-9
MOOSE AND PRONGHORN
Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit's Share
Option Bucks/Bulls Does/Antlerless

1 60% 40%
Public's Share
Option Bucks/Bulls Does/Antlerless

1 40% 60%
TABLE 2
ELK AND DEER
Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit's Share
Option Bucks/Bulls Antlerless
1 90% 0%
2 85% 25%
3 80% 40%
4 75% 50%
Public's Share
Option Bucks/Bulls Antlerless
1 10% 100%
2 15% 75%
3 20% 60%
4 25% 50%


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

KineKilla said:


> I understand you're holding on to them and continuing to add to them so that you might one day draw a great tag. Just like everyone else is doing.
> so.


Did you not read anything that I wrote? Are you that daft?

I am not holding on to my points for a great tag--I am holding onto them because I have other priorities.

I will cash in my points when I need the meat or when I decide to burn PTO on a LE big game hunt instead of bird hunting. At the moment I enjoy bird hunting more and if I do big game hunt I enjoy the uintas wilderness

I know you are trying to paint me as a hypocrite but please try to understand my overall premise and cut out your false equivocation if that's even possible.

I have a lot of points, I would be all for increasing opportunity by decreasing the effectiveness of our weapons regardless of the amount of points I have. That's my whole point.

There are a lot of factors to consider when cashing in points, not just a hypothetical UWN thread. If you can't understand that then you simply aren't worth the time.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Airborne said:


> I usually put in for an unobtainable LE elk hunt just to put off taking away time from my upland obsession.


No need to make things personal and take jabs at someone, I'm simply basing my arguments off of info you provided.

It really sounds to me that you are not just buying points but that you are actually continuing to put in for hard to draw units or weapon types.

When you don't draw, you justify the entry as "I didn't really want to draw anyway because I love upland hunting so much". If that's the case then stay out of the draw and just buy a point each year.

If you love and are highly successful at other hunts (as you have repeatedly stated in these replies) then you really have no need to put in for LE Elk hunts at all.


----------



## ISHY (Dec 4, 2015)

As an archer with a few points I would love to see dates something in the line of Sept 10-30th. But I get it, everyone wants those dates. One thought I had was about Utah's rotating dates, not sure why it is the way it is. It makes a big difference in rut activity if your hunt ends the 11th of Sept. vs the 17th! You hunt the year it ends the 11th your are probably hunting the worst dates of any le archery hunt possible. The 17th-not so bad at least you should get a few decent calling days. Other than it's the way it's always been-is there a real justification for these dates to rotate? One change that wouldn't upset the universe (we all know the earth would stop spinning if rifle guys had to hunt in October) would be to keep the dates the same for the latest year-have le archery end the 17th every year. Still worse than most states, but would be better than what we do currently.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

What is the reasoning for Utah scheduling the LE rifle hunt during the peak of the rut? Can somebody answer that question for me? 

Hawkeye


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Random, I need to clarify one thing. The only way to move more people through the system is more tags, not changing the system.


I'm late, but I want to defend what I said: More tags OR changing the system are the only things that will actually stop the path we are on.

Path we are on: The ever-growing point creep.

Changing the system could mean going to a draw like wyo for residents, which would do away with points. That wouldn't help point creep, it would eliminate it completely.

However, I first said tags and acknowledge that the only way more people can hunt, is if you give more tags to have more people hunt.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I said it on another thread - but people mentioned doing a random draw (so have I)- you could go to a tier system:


Applications years:
0-4 with no success - 1 total "point"
5-9 - 2 total points
10-14 - 3 points
15-19 - 4 points
20+ - 5 points

Cap it at 5 points. Then you can either keep half(or less) the tags going to that group, or you can do a random but they get extra entries. Or, we go to a straight random draw and let the lucky buggers soak up the tags. Waiting periods stay.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Maybe we have reached the point where everyone should be allowed 1 buck/bull/OIL tag per year period. Not that it would solve the point creep problem but it would certainly get a lot more folks out in the Woods each year. Who could be too upset about having to forego a general buck or bull tag on a year when they draw an LE tag? Those who want to hunt the general bull tag each year will have to give up the deer hunt but they will be hunting elk without the pressure of those who had deer tags. ———SS


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Springville Shooter said:


> Those who want to hunt the general bull tag each year will have to give up the deer hunt but they will be hunting elk without the pressure of those who had deer tags. ---SS


No.

;-)


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I still like the idea of capping points. This would stop point creep.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

What should be happening? We should be working towards offering as much hunting opportunity as possible. Anything that takes away hunting opportunity is a bad idea in my mind UNLESS the long-term viability and productivity of the herd is in jeopardy.

What shouldn't be done? We shouldn't be pushing new management ideas that eliminate general season hunting opportunity for the sole sake of increasing LE hunting opportunity. In my mind, LE hunting is like an extra opportunity for the lucky few who draw.

I like the idea of capping points and creating a tier system for point holders. But, every tier should be given a chance of drawing with the highest tiers given the most chances.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> We should just go to a random draw with no points . . . op2:


I'm with you on this Jeff. I brought up the idea a few years ago.

For example...If the top point holders have 20 points we issue available tags to everyone with 15 and up to flush those folks. Everyone with 14 or less gets to use their points as preference points in a fully random draw with a 5 year waiting period.

I had threats made against my life for this idea. ray:

I don't think we can have a solution to point creep that won't negatively affect some people. Sometimes you need to endure the pain of getting stitches for the wound to heal.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> After the doctor slaps the baby on the butt it receives it's one time token to hunt in Utah
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


If the point creep does not stop this will be true for my kids and grand kids...maybe it already is.


----------

