# Wildlife Board meeting in Washington



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Anyone here go to the wildlife board meeting today in Washington? Anything interesting?


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

I wasn't able to attend, but we're going to try and get the audio recording online as soon as possible. At the latest, it will be online on Monday, but we might be able to post it tomorrow. I'll follow up here once it's on our website.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The audio recording of yesterday's Wildlife Board work session is now online. The meeting lasted about five-and-a-half hours.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I strongly suggest listening to this meeting....

ESPECALY you UWC guys...

Why conservation permits are, and will remain at the core of the 
habitat program,,,,,,,,,$$$$$$$.

Whats up with the new deer unit management.....

TONs of info.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I could only listen to the first 30 minutes and then it cuts out. Anyone else have this issue?


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

I got to the 1 hour 35 minute mark with no problems. Interesting to listen too.


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I strongly suggest listening to this meeting....
> 
> ESPECALY you UWC guys...
> 
> ...


 :roll: It's the Convention Tags, and the $$$ that are unaccounted for that everyone is concerned about.. :lol: DUH Numbnuts


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG wap,
did you not hear the point made that conservation tags is the main cash flow for habitat??
2 - 3 MILLION a year into habitat,,

The point was made quality of elk hunting declining is hurting $$$....

And that quote,,,," Conservation tags MUST remain at the core of habitat programs"


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I'm about an hour in and one thing is obvious. The arrogance and ignorance of the bulk of the Board is astounding!!! I heard Anis explain how they had been managing on a herd level for years and how they did not understand this before their vote last fall blows me away.

Keele is still convinced that bucks can give birth!!!! OMFG!!!!

Stay on the Legislators!!!!!


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

We'll stay on them, which ones are most likely to listen?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

The ones in your District


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> OMG wap,
> did you not hear the point made that conservation tags is the main cash flow for habitat??
> 2 - 3 MILLION a year into habitat,,
> 
> ...


Did you even read wap's post?

So how many dollars do CONVENTION tags raise for wildlife?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Why is being addicted to 'easy money' a good thing? This seems to be the pattern of numerous FAILED adventures, but for the life of me I can't think of any that ended well.....


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

So on a sidenote, who are the names that have been submitted to replace Mr. Intelligent (KJ) on the board and his co-hort in crime?


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

Yep! same problem as previously described, I can only get the first 1/2 hour to download. Any suggestions?


----------



## tonyabbott (Dec 4, 2010)

Did Keele really mention something about suing me and Steve for things we have said on the radio? That dude is a JEWEL..... Someone please tell me what was said. I keep throwing up in my mouth every time a few of them dudes open their pie holes.....


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

SCLMULEY, try clearing your cache then load again, might help.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

There went five and a half hours from my life that I'll never get back — I spent my entire evening listening to that meeting (no download problems, but I've set my cache settings big enough to hold a huge download).

Despite the time lost, I did come away more certain than ever that Keele Johnson isn't just a poser — he really is stupid. My favorite KJ moment was when he said that he didn't care about the opinions of "so-called legislators," and that he was thinking about suing Tony Abbot and Steve Brown for making fun of him on the radio. Listen in at about 1:00 to 1:04 or so.

Seriously though, it's discouraging to realize that a minimum level competency in basic wildlife biology and game management science is not a requirement to be on this board.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

And yet, goofy is lock step with Keele...............just saying. :O•-:


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

GOOFY...Here are two words...please notice the difference: 1) Convention 2) Conservation
I'm pretty sure that most people can read and know the difference. I have NO problem with the money that the "Conservation" tags bring into the state for the betterment of the "conservation' efforts. Now, Numbnuts, the "Convention" tags that are sold at your SFW/SFH "convention" are what everyone is up in arms about. I'm pretty sure this issue has been hashed and drawn out enough for even you to see that is what UWC has been pushing.

And as for the meeting minutes...I didn't listen to even a single second of the mind-numbing drivel and stupidity that flows from the mouths of those corrupt individuals. I have better things to do to entertain myself such as shooting my bow or looking at the turkeys as I exercise.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

***, I was commenting on the conservation permit program.....

NOTHING to do with the EXPO tags......Why are you twisting things around?

WTH?


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

I was just correcting your statement there Goofy. As far as i know, the UWC is not railing on the "conservation" tag system, but rather the use of the "convention" tags and monies raised from said tags.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

It was educational for me to here what goes on in these meetings. However, it seems as if the WB & the DWR are not on the same page on some issues. Most of which had to do with the WB not understanding a few things like:

1. Cutting general buck tags will do very little to increase herd size
2. Anter restrictions will do very little to increase herd size
3. One guy even said he didn't think a certain range had changed all that much since the 70's/80's and the DWR had to correct him again!

I think there is middle ground on most of the issues being discussed and it is good there are differing opinions as competition is good. But from what I have read/heard, if they want to cut tags to increase the size of bucks then sell it that way. Don't keep saying cutting tags will increase the herd.

The last issue I have is with the guy that says he didn't care what the state legislators have to say. WTF? So if I can't go to my representative to get this A** to listen to my opinion (note I said listen, not change his mind) what am I supposed to do to get him to listen to my opinion?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wapiti67 said:


> I was just correcting your statement there Goofy. As far as i know, the UWC is not railing on the "conservation" tag system, but rather the use of the "convention" tags and monies raised from said tags.


I thought about the "convention" tags and if they could prove/show this money was going back into wildlife/habitat/etc. in Utah it would be good. However, if it isn't shouldn't they change it so that the lost revenues from the conservation tags doesn't hurt as much (assuming the WB is right and 2010 wasn't just an outlying blip in the overall picture as Karpowitz tried to explain) and make sure a certain percentage of the revenues these tags (convention) bring in goes back to wildlife/habitat/etc just as the conservation tags do (I think they said 90% of the conservation tag's revenues).


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with Goofy everyone should listen to this meeting. I think most will come away with a little different feeling than Goofy did. I am about a half an hour into it and am going to finish it today.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Convention or conservation. Can any one sight a single habitat restoration project that has resulted in a significant increase in deer in the state? Even if it was done 30 yrs ago. Please give me something to chew on. One unit that has seen an improvement in deer due to habitat projects? I not aware of one. If there is one please provide some back ground. When was it done? What was done? How much did it cost? And what kind of increase have we gotten? 

Seems to me if we are dumping 100s of millions into something. Then there should be some returns.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Convention or conservation. Can any one sight a single habitat restoration project that has resulted in a significant increase in deer in the state? Even if it was done 30 yrs ago. Please give me something to chew on. One unit that has seen an improvement in deer due to habitat projects? I not aware of one. If there is one please provide some back ground. When was it done? What was done? How much did it cost? And what kind of increase have we gotten?
> 
> Seems to me if we are dumping 100s of millions into something. Then there should be some returns.


Wouldn't any significant habitat restoration project (restoring sage/etc.) for mule deer take over 20 years to make a difference? I don't know when they started these types of projects, but it it was after the herds crashed I would assume any significant benefits we could reap from these projects would still be coming 5-10 years down the road. However, I don't know enough about this to really know, I'm just throwing out thoughts.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's some conservation permit info to chew on....

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... rogram.pdf

Now I need to head to tee times in St. George.. 

Be back later.........


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Seems to me if we are dumping 100s of millions into something. Then there should be some returns.


You mean the increases of our deer herd statewide from a low of 240,000 in 1993 to about 300,000 now is not enough evidence?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Typical of someone to support the lifestyle of the frivilous - does anyone care to post what tee times in St George cost these days? No wonder he's tagging along drinking koolaid from the SFW bowl, he's got to make quite a bit of money to have a Friday off to go hit a round with those golf rate$...

Following Mr. Intelligent's (K. Johnson, WB) comments at the Wildlife Board meeting the end of last year in regards to my questioning who the "constituents" were that were pushing for the change in the mule deer plans... I quit supporting the state of Utah's hunting economy until they will let the professionals in the industry do their jobs in the DNR and DWR instead of ramrodding hunting policy and tying the DWR's hands when making decisions without regard for the science or benefit of the game as their first order of business, with hunters coming a very distant second and privelaged hunter opportunity way back in the back...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here's some conservation permit info to chew on....
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... rogram.pdf


Thanks. I read through it and it seems to only mention "conservation" tags. I was talking about convention tags. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they different?

I was just saying that it would be nice to be able to show that the "convention" tag money was also going back into habitat/etc in UT with a similar 90/10 split. Especially if the board is worried about how our "conservation" tag revenues dropped off in 2010 due to the lack of 400 class bulls :roll:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> You mean the increases of our deer herd statewide from a low of 240,000 in 1993 to about 300,000 now is not enough evidence?


I don't agree with the numbers. But just for fun lets say they are fact.

:shock:  60,000 deer over 17 yrs. Wow that's like 3500 deer per year. -)O(-

Well worth the effort in my book. What an effective program. :mrgreen:


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Alright I have jammed through most of the meeting ( I think there is only about 10 mins left ) I learned several things.

1 Biological expertise means less than Keele Johnson's war stories and his interpretation 
of what mule deer Nirvana was in the past and how it relates to the future.

2 It's painfully obvious that this group of good old cronies wants to jam every possible 
bit of this through before new members are seated on the Board.

3 The arrogance of several members of the Board, even towards the State Legislature, 
will be their un doing. They have no idea how fast the Board is trending toward 
IRRELEVANCY and that many will continue to bypass the process and go straight to
the Hill.

4 Personally I will not support one freaking cent of a tag increase. I don't care what it 
is going towards. I will not pay more to have them take more and more of us out of 
the field. I fully intend to contact every member of their Appropriation Committee
to urge them to say no to this increase. 

5 Finally I understand how it is that CC and DC worked the system. Hope ya'll are 
TICKLED with the outcome!!!

I KNOW THAT SEVERAL DIVISION EMPLOYEE'S VIEW THIS BOARD AS WELL AS OTHERS,
TO THEM I CAN ONLY SAY THANK YOU AND HANG IN THERE WE ARE WORKING TO KEEP 
YOU EMPLOYED AND TO END THIS TOTAL NONSENSE


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> I will not support one freaking cent of a tag increase. I don't care what it is going towards....
> 
> ...DIVISION EMPLOYEE'S VIEW THIS BOARD AS WELL AS OTHERS, TO THEM I CAN ONLY SAY THANK YOU AND HANG IN THERE WE ARE WORKING TO KEEP YOU EMPLOYED...


Those two objectives might turn out to be mutually exclusive.

If the wildlife board forces the DWR to increase buck-to-doe ratios, cutting permit numbers, according to director Karpowitz, is the only tool that will accomplish this. If I remember correctly, at last fall's board meeting he said that the decrease in permit revenue from cutting permits would force the DWR to make program cuts if the revenue couldn't be made up elsewhere. Program cuts mean lost jobs, and those lost jobs, I'm speculating, might possibly be lost out of the very programs that the DWR now has in place to help big game animals.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Well said.... For what end though??? We won't have more deer, perhaps a few more bucks and less money to get there.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the increases of our deer herd statewide from a low of 240,000 in 1993 to about 300,000 now is not enough evidence?
> ...


Tough to say what the loss (deer numbers) would have been if it wasn't done. So I'm okay with the gradual increase. :mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the increases of our deer herd statewide from a low of 240,000 in 1993 to about 300,000 now is not enough evidence?
> ...


The funny thing is that your response shows the very thing I mentioned in other threads...the desire of some for an overnight fix and for the herd to suddenly be much larger overnight. I am guessing that you have the cure all overnight solution that will gain a lot more? Hmmm....I will take 3500 deer per year as a major success...especially when you compare it to the hundreds of thousands of deer Colorado has lost over the same time frame!

Also, even if you don't believe the numbers, what they do show with very little room for argument is the trend. The trend is definitely up!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> I will take 3500 deer per year as a major success...especially when you compare it to the hundreds of thousands of deer Colorado has lost over the same time frame!
> 
> Also, even if you don't believe the numbers, what they do show with very little room for argument is the trend. The trend is definitely up!


I rest my case. 8)


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > I will take 3500 deer per year as a major success...especially when you compare it to the hundreds of thousands of deer Colorado has lost over the same time frame!
> ...


 :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Personally I will not support one freaking cent of a tag increase. I don't care what it is going towards. I will not pay more to have them take more and more of us out of the field. I fully intend to contact every member of their Appropriation Committee to urge them to say no to this increase.
> 
> I KNOW THAT SEVERAL DIVISION EMPLOYEE'S VIEW THIS BOARD AS WELL AS OTHERS, TO THEM I CAN ONLY SAY THANK YOU AND HANG IN THERE WE ARE WORKING TO KEEP YOU EMPLOYED AND TO END THIS TOTAL NONSENSE


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Gordy,

If attending RAC meetings and the WB meeting is working the system.........GUILTY AS CHARGED. 

If it means anything else, and I mean ANYTHING else. Then any respect I may have had for you is gone. Know the facts before you accuse me of anything else, please.

Unbelievable!!!

Cody Christensen
Concerned sportsman
Member of..... No group!


Guess I better join the UWC so I can claim to be an average sportsman and nothing else!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

muley 
I went back and read this whole post from beginning to end and I never once read where gordy called you out on a single post. So what are you talking about?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Scotty he's right I did call him out. I said "work the system" now where in that quote is the implication of wrongdoing?? 

Look man if you want to go down this road, thats fine with me. I am far from attacking you or DC but for you 
to proclaim that all you and DC did was "attend some RAC and WB meetings" is less than accurate.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Gordy,
> 
> If attending RAC meetings and the WB meeting is working the system.........GUILTY AS CHARGED.
> 
> ...


Not speaking specifically about the conversation you and wiley are having but...

You bring some good thoughts to the table....but honest feedback....typically when you dog on this forum or the comments made you almost ALWAYS misconstrue someones comments. I sincerely believe you may get more out of the discussions here if you'd try to understand what folks are really saying, even if you disagree.

Of course no one is saying that going to RAC or WB meetings is working the system and no one is saying that we should hunt deer until they are all gone.

We all want more deer but some of us believe that thinking about the resource first and hunters second is better for deer than twisting or discrediting biology and working the system as a means to grow bigger antlers. I'm not accusing you of that at all.....but that's what a lot of folks on this forum believe is happening in Utah right now and where the comments come from.

Try to see what folks are really saying on this forum....that's my challenge to you.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

To me, this whole fight is very black and white. On one side, you have the guys that would like to see less "pumkins" in the patch during the rifle hunt and more mature bucks when they do have a tag in their pocket. Then the other side, that just wants to hunt every year and is not concerned about the age of buck they tag and would rather have more tag holders in their hunting group. I think both sides are guilty of twisting words around to benefit their cause.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It is a 2 way street. and here some are saying (UWC) ? cares 
more about deer herds first and hunters secound..

But yet all I've heard out of you guys is opisition against opt. 2 
and how bad it is cutting HUNTERS permits ??

what gives?

All I've (& mulie) have said all a long is it would be better to 
manage deer ,hunters mainly, with unit managment..

And really,,This forum seems to have a little different
oppionion than most othe places....
I talk with sportsmen, and DWR personell daily,,
Many are starting to like the new deer managment idea
more and more....

PS,,,,I'm on a computer in St. George with NO spell
checker..


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I was never against #2 due to permits cuts... I am against it due to the micro units and the LE path its going to lead us down.


-DallanC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I was never against #2 due to permits cuts... I am against it due to the micro units and the LE path its going to lead us down.
> 
> -DallanC


+1


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> It is a 2 way street. and here some are saying (UWC) ? cares
> more about deer herds first and hunters secound..
> 
> But yet all I've heard out of you guys is opisition against opt. 2
> ...


I personally am not saying we should salvage the ability for hunters to hunt every year. I personally promote responsible hunter management in the way of cutting tags when buck to doe ratios get low as laid out in the 2008 mule deer plan.

I have a BIG problem with moving from a 15:100 to 18:100 minimum buck to doe ratio and cutting hunter opportunity to accomplish it. To date I have NOT heard one biological benefit to deer by doing this. I also have a BIG problem with cutting tags in units that drop below 18:100 until they reach 25:100. This is a trophy mentality at the expense of opportunity hunters plain and simple and I'm fine going on record saying that.

I don't think unit management will do much, it will hurt in some cases, but I personally can live with unit management.


----------

