# the answer to state wide spike!!!



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

just dont purchase a spike tag or a cow tag this year. if we dont purchase a spike or cow tag they will be forced to kill big bulls next year. 

JUST DONT PURCHASE THEIR STUPID TAG!!! :mrgreen:


----------



## for fun (Sep 13, 2007)

I agree we are few on here but that would be the only way to beat the system.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It's been about 10 years since I've had a spike rifle tag, and 8 years ago was my 
last general archery.............not buying one in 09...........


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

the division is counting on all the tards in utah to flock in and purchase these tags so they can give themselves a big pay raise and drive new trucks. Lets just put in for open bull and say the heck with spike. 

I must be dreaming no make that having a night mare. This is tardvile! tards will be tards and tards will kill spikes!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I must be dreaming no make that having a night mare. This is tardvile! tards will be tards and tards will kill spikes!


You will never keep people like Wyo2ut from killing spikes. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I always purchase an archery tag, which is all inclusive and doesn't necessarily take away from the spike tags. I will more than likely be in an any bull area. I feel bad for those who draw a high end LE archery tag. Their areas will be flooded with archers looking to stick a spike, blowing hoochie mommas all over the hills and screwing all the LE hunter's hunts. In the mean time, the LE elk rifle guys will have the area to themselves with the most effective weapon slaughtering trophy bulls. Good one WB, screw most everyone for whatever under-the-table deal you had going (since you went against the majority). Hopefully you idiots get replaced in the near future and we can have someone actually make decisions based on common sense. 

I can't begin to explain how pi$Sed off I am over this. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## orvy (Oct 30, 2008)

It might come as a shock to some of you but, not everyone has big dreams of killing a trophy bull, and there are more people in this world to consider than the "elite". Some actually go to enjoy the hunt and if the opportunity presents itself, get some meat, and to consider them less of a sportsman is ridiculous. Ever hear "Judge not, that ye be not judged"? They could have made a lot more money by issuing more LE tags, so I doubt that money was the deciding factor.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

orvy said:


> It might come as a shock to some of you but, not everyone has big dreams of killing a trophy bull, and there are more people in this world to consider than the "elite". Some actually go to enjoy the hunt and if the opportunity presents itself, get some meat, and to consider them less of a sportsman is ridiculous. Ever hear "Judge not, that ye be not judged"? They could have made a lot more money by issuing more LE tags, so I doubt that money was the deciding factor.


So, please enlighten us to what the "deciding factor" was. I agree not everyone is consumed with killing a 400" bull, that is why managing the LE units for that small percentage of the hunters is nonsensical. There are so many other options to lower the bull:cow ratio than spike tags that are more desirable by MORE hunters. Issuing more mature tags, moving season dates around, changing tag allotment percentages, issuing management tags on all LE units. These were all brought up, and it was brought up by several of us to reconvene the elk committee were these VIABLE options good be analyzed and discussed. Instead they issued 1500 more spike tags that will accomplish what? Can anyone predict with any accuracy what will happen now? Can 'experts' and wannabe 'experts' like W2U predict how many spikes will be killed on ANY given LE unit in 2009? Can anyone tell me how many spike hunters will be on the Manti next fall, the Fish Lake, the Pahvant, the San Juan, the Nebo, the Book Cliffs, the Wasatch? How many spike hunters will migrate from the existing 10 spike only units over to the other 17 LE units? How many spikes will be killed on Monroe in 2009? How can you kill an uncontrollable number of yearling bulls and know how many bulls will be recruited into the herd the following year?

Who here would rather hunt spikes than mature bulls and/or management bulls?

I 400 looks better every day! I guess it's time to start pushing it again.* **** STRAIGHT!*


----------



## orvy (Oct 30, 2008)

I don't know what the deciding factor was, the only one who does is the guy who made the decision. I doubt it was money and new trucks. The main reason of my reply was that I get tired of some of the guys thinking their way is "THE" way and that they are the only ones who should have been considered in any decision that is to be made. I am not a biologist, a guide or do I have any desire to wait 15-20 years to draw a LE elk tag, I'm just a guy that thinks the "holier than though" on this site need a wake up call, and need to realize they aren't the only people in this state that enjoy hunting.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I think I'm with Proutdoors on this one, but I'm not sure? I've never killed a branch antlered bull elk. I've killed a number of spikes because that's all I can shoot in the area where I choose to hunt. I see my opportunity to draw an LE elk tag at almost 0% because I've been putting in on LE deer for the past decade. I'll draw a deer tag sometime in the next number of years and then I'll start putting in on elk. For those just starting on elk, the draw numbers now seem to leave a OIL at best shot at ever drawing out. Someday I'd like to kill a branch antlered bull. I don't care if it's 400 or 350. I just want a chance at a 6 pt. bull that would look good to my eyes in the basement. I would think issuing more mature bull tags would open up opportunity for guys like me that have been putting in on deer for a long time. Am I correct or is there something I'm missing here?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

orvy said:


> I don't know what the deciding factor was, the only one who does is the guy who made the decision. I doubt it was money and new trucks. The main reason of my reply was that I get tired of some of the guys thinking their way is "THE" way and that they are the only ones who should have been considered in any decision that is to be made. I am not a biologist, a guide or do I have any desire to wait 15-20 years to draw a LE elk tag, I'm just a guy that thinks the "holier than though" on this site need a wake up call, and need to realize they aren't the only people in this state that enjoy hunting.


I'll say it one more time, it's not about getting "my" way, it's that the WB refused to even consider other options, or even better they refused to have the elk committee look at the MANY options and come up with a plan that is more desirable to more hunters.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Her is my guess for the 2009 spike season,

A lot less hunters on Wasatch, Manti , and Nebo. lot's of these guy's will go to Fillmore
And Monroe.

And all the Cedar city, St. George and surounding area's NOW have Panquitch Lake
and Dutton.

The Blanding and Monticello boy's will now be on the Abajo's and San Jaun.

The Roosrvelt and Vernal crowd will go to the Bookcliff's.

Not that tough to figure out. Is it?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Her is my guess for the 2009 spike season,
> 
> A lot less hunters on Wasatch, Manti , and Nebo. lot's of these guy's will go to Fillmore
> And Monroe.
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG PRO, how can you copy that before I even fix my spelling??????????????????

You must be able to type like,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,500 words per minute!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> OMG PRO, how can you copy that before I even fix my spelling??????????????????
> 
> You must be able to type like,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,500 words per minute!


 *\-\* *(())*


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

I wont for one do not have a problem with a person hunting for meat but the reason i m dead set against the addition of spike hunting on limited entry is based on the following.
Let s use the local oquirh/standsbury unit for a example of why not to hunt spikes there.
the overall population by the dwr survey is around 700 which is pretty close to harvest objective on this unit, the problem begins with the fact that the biggest partion of the total herd is located north of the butterfield canyon road which as most know is landlocked by kennecott and has very very limited hunting. know the rest of the herd is split in three bunchs the ophir herd, the mercure mine herd and a very small population on the standsbury total number of animals is around 300 know make the split lets say 50 50 which is not the case on this unit but it fits makes the figuring easier, there was 35 plus tags issued on this unit and there is usually around 100 percent harvest add in your wounding losses preditaion losses desease and winter kills you are gonna pull around 40 to 45 bulls from this unit annually know the replacements come from the 150 cows but you have to figure out that only around 50 to 60 cows are gonna produce calfs the rest of the animals in this group are last years calfs minus the calfs that do not make it and the cow s that for one reason are another do not produce the calf recruitment may be as low as 45 to 50 calfs born into the herd make the split again and you may have 25 to 30 bulls born into the herd. know this sounds bad but than again you add a spike hunt into the mix well it does not take a mathamatiion to figure out how for into the toilet this herd gonna be headed. that is somewhat of what i e mailed to the wb and you all see how much they use common sense and this is the reason i say NO to spike hunting on the limited entry units


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

> BirdDogger said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm with Proutdoors on this one, but I'm not sure? I've never killed a branch antlered bull elk. I've killed a number of spikes because that's all I can shoot in the area where I choose to hunt. I see my opportunity to draw an LE elk tag at almost 0% because I've been putting in on LE deer for the past decade. I'll draw a deer tag sometime in the next number of years and then I'll start putting in on elk. For those just starting on elk, the draw numbers now seem to leave a OIL at best shot at ever drawing out. Someday I'd like to kill a branch antlered bull. I don't care if it's 400 or 350. I just want a chance at a 6 pt. bull that would look good to my eyes in the basement. I would think issuing more mature bull tags would open up opportunity for guys like me that have been putting in on deer for a long time. Am I correct or is there something I'm missing here?


I like this Quote, This is the "BUS" a lot of hunters are in.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Problem is, the DWR has STOLEN the wheels of that "bus". It's just sitting in the lot unable to hit the road. :?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

all of you are sounding like whining little brats, throwing a tantrum. for gods sake get over it.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Here's the deal....Shi* happens. It's how we deal with that Shi* that determines what kind of hunters we are! I'm pi**ed about this statewide archery thing but I don't know what else to do about it. I wrote letters...made phone calls...went to SOME meetings...what else can I do? The WB knows that if we as hunters want to continue hunting then we will ADAPT and play by their rules. Sure it doesn't sound fun...and it might just do some damage. However, I think that as long as we do our part things will be ok. They may screw up...and hopefully realize that they did...and when they realize they boofed up, then hopefully they will have the B*LLS to admit they made some wrong decisions and change. Until then....I choose to continue hunting........AND *ADAPT!*


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> all of you are sounding like whining little brats, throwing a tantrum. for gods sake get over it.


Easy to say, but I like everyone else in this state have been "getting over it" now for years. The DWR was and still is a bunch of money grubbing retards running our wildlife into the ground. The system needs an enema. How much more are we going to have to endure. The good ol boy bureaucratic way of managing our wildlife has got to end. After what just happened it's more than obvious to most of us that the system is BROKEN.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> all of you are sounding like whining little brats, throwing a tantrum. for gods sake get over it.


I have two daughters, ages 4 and 1. My 4 year old is great at throwing tantrums when she doesn't get what she wants, but my 1 year old gets much worse once she sees the 4 year old getting attention over it. What's worse, throwing a tantrum for being upset or throwing one for attention? I'll take the 4 year old tantrum over yours any day!


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Sorry! I like elk hunting, A LOT and I will be buying a spike elk tag just like I have for the past 22 years. My 16 year old son will also be buying a spike elk tag. I feel like I need to apologize to all of you badarses on this site for enjoying elk hunting. A deer tag has turned into an every other year thing and now we can only hunt LE elk every 20 years (according to you guys). I sure hope none of you guys get on the wildlife board; hunting numbers would drop to an all time low. Thank you for telling the young hunters that they should only hunt elk as you would see fit and that they are foolish for killing anything less than a 375 bull. Did you ever stop to think that some people may actually enjoy hunting with their kids? And if that hunting is for spike elk, so be it. My son didn't even draw a deer tag last year so his only opportunity to hunt big game was for, oh crap, spike elk (gulp)! He didn't kill one thank goodness, I wouldn't want to have one more thing to apologize for. I was planning on hunting spikes on Wasatch, but now I think I will hunt one of the newly opened spike areas :lol: 

One more apology; sorry for the rant and I'll get off my soapbox now.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> Sorry! I like elk hunting, A LOT and I will be buying a spike elk tag just like I have for the past 22 years. My 16 year old son will also be buying a spike elk tag. I feel like I need to apologize to all of you badarses on this site for enjoying elk hunting. A deer tag has turned into an every other year thing and now we can only hunt LE elk every 20 years (according to you guys). I sure hope none of you guys get on the wildlife board; hunting numbers would drop to an all time low. Thank you for telling the young hunters that they should only hunt elk as you would see fit and that they are foolish for killing anything less than a 375 bull. Did you ever stop to think that some people may actually enjoy hunting with their kids? And if that hunting is for spike elk, so be it. My son didn't even draw a deer tag last year so his only opportunity to hunt big game was for, oh crap, spike elk (gulp)! He didn't kill one thank goodness, I wouldn't want to have one more thing to apologize for. I was planning on hunting spikes on Wasatch, but now I think I will hunt one of the newly opened spike areas
> 
> One more apology; sorry for the rant and I'll get off my soapbox now.


The way I see it there are three types of stances on this issue.

1. Those who don't want spike tags, more mature bull tags, or cows harvested. They believe that if everyone doesn't shoot a 400" bull its due to over harvest reducing quality. They also believe that only a VERY SMALL select few should ever have the opportunity to hunt bulls in most of Utah.

2. Those who understand that way more bulls need to be harvested but that it would be a better quality hunt if those bulls were not all spikes. They believe that if those spikes were allowed to mature there would be more opportunity at mature bulls for everyone. They also believe that this will also move people through the bonus point pool faster.

3. Those who understand that way more bulls need to be harvested and spike tags will do that. They believe that spikes are a great opportunity to hunt every year, while still making it possible for a VERY SMALL select group of people to hunt mature bulls.

The biggest mistake that you just made as well as many in group 3 is you assume that group 2 and 1 are the same! Quite a few people who disagree with spike hunting (Group 2) are much closer to your line of thinking than you realize.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Im not suprised the DWR is srewing up a good thing! It seems to be the way of the DWR. Does anybody remember good deer hunting in this state? Im still pissed over that. So it doesn't suprise me to see them mismanage a good thing. I wish there was more acountability for the DWR leaders. I figure what has happenend to the deer herd is criminal.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm in group 2


----------



## RobK (Jul 3, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > I must be dreaming no make that having a night mare. This is tardvile! tards will be tards and tards will kill spikes!
> 
> 
> You will never keep people like Wyo2ut from killing spikes. :lol: :lol:


OR ME !:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'm in group 2


As am I.


----------



## RobK (Jul 3, 2008)

sfelk34 said:


> Sorry! I like elk hunting, A LOT and I will be buying a spike elk tag just like I have for the past 22 years. My 16 year old son will also be buying a spike elk tag. I feel like I need to apologize to all of you badarses on this site for enjoying elk hunting. A deer tag has turned into an every other year thing and now we can only hunt LE elk every 20 years (according to you guys). I sure hope none of you guys get on the wildlife board; hunting numbers would drop to an all time low. Thank you for telling the young hunters that they should only hunt elk as you would see fit and that they are foolish for killing anything less than a 375 bull. Did you ever stop to think that some people may actually enjoy hunting with their kids? And if that hunting is for spike elk, so be it. My son didn't even draw a deer tag last year so his only opportunity to hunt big game was for, oh crap, spike elk (gulp)! He didn't kill one thank goodness, I wouldn't want to have one more thing to apologize for. I was planning on hunting spikes on Wasatch, but now I think I will hunt one of the newly opened spike areas :lol:
> 
> One more apology; sorry for the rant and I'll get off my soapbox now.


+1 No need for a apology

I I also enjoy hunting spikes with my son and don't really care how big a bull we get as long as we can go as often as we can . I would rather shoot a spike than a cow , at least there is some challenge .


----------



## for fun (Sep 13, 2007)

I think that most of us against the spike only hunt is in group 2.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

I didn't realize so many people on this site were professional wildlife biologists! For the umpten years I've been chasing spikes with the other tards and watching big bulls on the Wasatch or Manti dreaming of the day my number comes up I thought the DWR was doing a good job. 

Fortunately gas is coming down so I can only hope these knowledgeable wildlife experts will be able to travel to ID, WY, or CO to chase the mighty raghorn. 

As for me I'll happily chase the mighty spike if my magic number doesn't get drawn again.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I didn't realize so many people on this site were professional wildlife biologists!


Tell me, do you see any biologists involved in this, anywhere?

Count Craig McLaughlin out...he's a politician.

Count Anis Aoude out...he's a politician.

Jim Karpowitz is a...well, he"s not a biologist.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't realize so many people on this site were professional wildlife biologists!
> ...


sarcasm [sahr-kaz-uhm] 
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Would you prefer I refer to them as armchair biologists? Did you not read the doom and gloom predictions the elk would suffer with this change?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> As for me I'll happily chase the mighty spike if my magic number doesn't get drawn again.


The majority of hunters don't like to hunt these mighty baby elk and since we have a huge surplus of bulls then it's time to give out more management tags or mature bull elk tags.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

No sarcasm. I'm serious. Show me where the DWR is behaving like biologists.

Fact - not one of them even claims to have a biological reason for imposing regional restrictions on bowhunters.

Fact - every study ever done on antler restricted hunts shows that they do not produce the desired results.

Fact - spike hunts reduce bull/cow ratios, but so does increased harvest of mature bulls. At best, spike survival to maturity is a gamble whereas mature bulls are a quantifiable reality. You don't need a biology degree to understand that the more spikes that survive, the more will reach maturity. Mature bulls are the objective of a LE unit, are they not? 

Fact - Pittman-Robertson funds are a significant source of revenue and qualification for those funds is dependent in part upon public input.

Fact - there are serious habitat concerns on several units in the state, including the Paunsaugunt. No recommendation of the DWR addresses these issues.

Fact - the DWR admits that the new state mule deer objective is dependent upon increased habitat carrying capacity, but no recommendation from the Division provides for that increased capacity beyond a vague "we'll do something".

Do I need to continue, or do you get my point?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

coyote, your right! all these new spike units are fine and dandy for the future. 
Well not really but what is the plan for the over surplus of branch antlered bulls we have now. THEY NEED TO GIVE OUT MORE TAGS!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Finnegan said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Dukes_Daddy":10bqe5so]I didn't realize so many people on this site were professional wildlife biologists!
> ...


sarcasm [sahr-kaz-uhm] 
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Would you prefer I refer to them as armchair biologists? Did you not read the doom and gloom predictions the elk would suffer with this change?[/quote:10bqe5so]Hello? The men he mentioned are paid by the state of Utah to be biologists, and yet they do less biology than many 'laymen'. Most of what the DWR , ran by the three mentioned, recommended were based on social issues NOT biology. Anis admitted to it SEVERAL times. That is as bad as the Wildlife Board ignoring public input. The biologists should make recommendations based on BIOLOGY, and leave the social aspects to the public. What happened Thursday was the exact opposite. The PUBLIC was left to look at things from a biological viewpoint because the DWR was too busy worrying about social issues. Think about it: the DWR recommended going from a 5 day hunt to a 9 day hunt, not based on biology, but because they say it makes no difference so why not? If the hunters from the Southern and Southeastern overwhelmingly asked to keep it a 5 day hunt, why did they change it? Anis flat out admitted on record SEVERAL times that there is NO biological reason(s) to limit archers to a region for any length of time, and there was ONE archer who stood up in favor of doing away with statewide at the southern RAC, not ONE voice of opposition at the other 4 RAC's and Wildlife Board from archers. And yet, they are now FORCING archers to choose a region for the first 17 days. When asked why 17 days Anis said it was just an 'easy' date (September 1st). Is that the biology you speak of? :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

It's sad that biologist become politicians after they take biology classes in college. I think Anis wants to manage based on Biology, but he's not allowed to do so because of people higher up in the chain of command.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The DWR also said that management elk tags don't work, but they want to issue management deer tags. Why does it work for deer and not elk? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Finnegan,

ELK:


> The success of the DWR's management program is best told in the number of trophy elk now listed by the Boone and Crockett Club.
> 
> As noted, in its 1981 book, there was not a single entry in either of the American elk categories -- typical and nontypical.
> 
> The four biggest Utah elk were all shot between 2003 and 2005. Lloyd Jacobson, No. 19, shot his elk on the Pahvant unit in 2005; Brian Gilson, No. 28, shot his elk in Emery County in 2003; Larry Ball, No. 36, shot his elk in Garfield County in 2004; and Ryan Brindley, No. 59, shot his elk in 2003. The top 12 Utah trophies were all tagged after 1999.


p.s this quote was from Oct06 so these records are already broken.

Why don't you do a little research on how many sheep, moose, goat, and antelope tags were available in this state 20 years ago. Deer are caught between development and the **** predators. Other than that our big game herds have never been in better shape with more hunting opportunity. That is reality!

USU has a great wildlife program if any of the armchair biologists would actually like to learn some science.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Why don't you do a little research on how many sheep, moose, goat, and antelope tags were available in this state 20 years ago. Deer are caught between development and the **** predators. Other than that our big game herds have never been in better shape with more hunting opportunity. That is reality! The elk herds are NOT healthy when they have bull:cow ratios as high as they are right now. It is akin to the stock market months before it crashes. All the minions think all is grand in Oz, until reality shows up. Our elk herds on many LE units are one bad winter/drought away from a crash.
> 
> USU has a great wildlife program if any of the armchair biologists would actually like to learn some science. I agree with USU having a great biology program, in fact one of those directly involved with teaching biology at USU was at the Wildlife Board voicing his STRONG opposition to statewide spike tags. I have had MANY talks with Mr Black, learning as much as I can before spouting off. Thanks for confirming one of my sources as being 'qualified'. :wink:


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

My question is this why, are there no mid quality units..... what I mean is in just about every unit it takes **** near max points to draw there are very few units that are a decent unit with decent bulls that dont take 20 f-ing years to draw.... There are a few units that dont take many points but arent real decent.... why couldn't we open up some more tags on some units to allow more opportunity for those that just wanna shoot a nice 6 pt bull that doesnt have to be a 400 in bull some thing that would only take 5-7 points.... why do the majority of the units have to be 400 in bull units.... I still think there should be a handful of 400 in bull units but not the majority that we have now... maybe I'm just talking out my ass but it dont make sense... sure we've got a bunch of high quality units but the general public cant hunt the **** things...


----------



## for fun (Sep 13, 2007)

I have a BA in Social Science (Biology) does that count and I think state wide spike hunting is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think the point is that it was suppose to be a democratic organization running things and it wasn't. It seems to be what certain people wanted to do. Would you hunt spikes every year if you could hunt bull elk every five years for say by issuing more LE tags? I see nothing wrong with hunting spikes if that is what you want to do.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

for fun said:


> I think the point is that it was suppose to be a democratic organization running things and it wasn't.


Uhhh...the process for making rules and regulations in Utah was NEVER designed nor intended to be democratic at all. Rule changes are not up to popular opinion or votes....The WB is the decision making board.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Finnegan,
> 
> Why don't you do a little research on how many sheep, moose, goat, and antelope tags were available in this state 20 years ago. Deer are caught between development and the **** predators. Other than that our big game herds have never been in better shape with more hunting opportunity. That is reality!
> 
> USU has a great wildlife program if any of the armchair biologists would actually like to learn some science.


What developement? This argument for low deer pop is BS. Take a look down south things havent really changed down here for 100 yrs. Sure the Wasatch and a few other areas have deen developed. That cannot be the reason the deer are gone on Monroe. Personally I believe the hunger for good elk hunting has been the reason for poor deer management. All the efforts and creative management in the last 15yrs has been almost solely for elk with the exception of a few units. I remember deer hunting with my whole family every year about 15 hunters and 30 other non hunters in the group. We maybe averaged 50% success rate. (about 7 or 8 deer a yr). With good deer hunting a thing of the past. Only about 6 of us still hunt. None with the same passion as before. In 15yrs 2 have drawn elk tags for our beloved mountain that used to provide endlees deer hunting oppertunities. 1 success and 1 not. I guess you could say were are still averageing 50%. But we really need to ration our elk stakes at that rate. Is it that elk are easier to manage and the DWR is just lazy? I wonder how long it will take for Utah to see the error of there ways and follow CO lead in recovering our deer herd. Im sorry but 1 elk (hunt) isn't equilvent to 10 deer (hunts) in my mind.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Is it that elk are easier to manage and the DWR is just lazy? I wonder how long it will take for Utah to see the error of there ways and follow CO lead in recovering our deer herd. Im sorry but 1 elk (hunt) isn't equilvent to 10 deer (hunts) in my mind.


Yes managing elk is MUCH easier than managing deer. They are more hardy, more adaptable, less susceptible to disease, and cows live longer allowing for them to give birth to more 'replacements'. Having said that, to assume the sole or even a primary reason deer are struggling is because of elk is a mistake and wrong.

I also am puzzled by your comment, "follow CO lead in recovering our deer herd", since Colorado went to the micro managing and reduced buck tags to the current levels, Utah's deer herd has grown FASTER than Colorado's during the same time frame. They have higher buck:doe ratios, but that does NOT equate to a healthier herd. Look at this past winter, Colorado experienced huge winter kill numbers, and because they have such high buck:doe ratios it will take longer for the herds to bounce back as there are fewer does to bear fawns to build the numbers back up.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Im no expert on numbers. I dont really know the ideal buck doe ratios ect. What I do know is my experience in the feild. I also am very suspect of the DWR's numbers. I believe they use figures to help push what ever agenda they have. Dont get me started on preditor pop predictions. Can anybody give me an example of a single unit in the state that has deer numbers even close to populations in the 80s little lone the 70s or 60s. Also give me an example of some form of habitat restoration that has been solely for deer? Please dont refeer to the dreaded Dixie harrow. I have watched this practice closely on Monroe its not working for deer. The elk and cattle love it! As for CO the few guys I have spoken to have really seen an improvment in deer hunting. But thats just feild expierence not pencil pushin back room propaganda!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'll agree with you on predator numbers being much higher than the reported numbers from the DWR. 

You will NEVER see deer population numbers reflect that of the 60's, and how many bucks we kill each year has little to do with population numbers, that is determined by does, not bucks. Last I checked bucks don't drop fawns in the spring.

Habitat restoration won't reflect in instant deer numbers being increased. It takes time, weather, moisture to get there as well.

As I said, Colorado has higher buck:doe ratios, and they issue fewer buck tags per 100,000 deer, but that has NOTHING to do with herd health and population increases. I guide deer hunters in Colorado and in Utah, I think I have a bit of "field experience" on my side as I have been doing it for 20+ years. 8)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

for fun said:


> I I think the point is that it was suppose to be a democratic organization running things and it wasn't. It seems to be what certain people wanted to do.


Actually, a number of years ago there was an election (I forget the proposition number) regarding the decision making process for our wildlife in Utah. The people put it to a vote, and the outcome (democratic process!) was an overwhelming vote that resulted in leaving the decision making process in the hands of the professionals. The very public of Utah voted against allowing the public to make changes to rules and regulations.

The RAC was put in place as an information gathering tool. The acronym "RAC" stands for Regional Advisory Council. Advisory. Advise: to recommend or suggest. To offer council. Nowhere has it ever been suggested that the RAC process be a democratic process. It is not intended to be a "vote". The councils shall:

hear Utah Division of Wildlife Resources input, including recommendations, biological data, and information regarding the effects of wildlife;
gather information from staff, the public and government agencies; (and)
make recommendations to the Wildlife Board in an advisory capacity.

The Wildlife Board is a rule making committee. These members are appointed by the Governor of Utah, based of a list of nominees. Nominees are submitted by groups from the agriculture industry, sportsmen's groups, non-consumptive groups, federal land management agencies, Utah Association of Counties, Utah chapters of the Society of Range Mangement and the Wildlife Society.

In establishing policy the Wildlife Board shall:

* recognize that wildlife and its habitat are an essential part of a healthy,productive environment;
* recognize the impact of wildlife on man, his economic activities, private property rights, and local economies;
* seek to balance the habitat requirements of wildlife with the social and economic activities of man;
* recognize the social and economic values of wildlife, including fishing, hunting,and other uses;
* seek to maintain wildlife on a sustainable basis;
* *consider the recommendations of the regional advisory councils*;
* _If a regional advisory council recommends a position or action to the Wildlife Board, and the Wildlife Board rejects the recommendation, the Wildlife Board shall provide a written explanation to the regional advisory council_. (I think the WB is failing in this regard)

Definition of consider: To think carefully about.

The nominating committee solicits nominees statewide and then submits them to the Governor, who makes the final decision regarding appointments to the Wildlife Board.


----------



## for fun (Sep 13, 2007)

Ok, I made a goof. I should of stated it seems they never even considered the opinion of the RAC's. Lets go hunt spikes in Wyoming. Oh wait they are smarter than that and don't have those kind of hunts.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Ok, I made a goof. I should of stated it seems they never even considered the opinion of the RAC's. Lets go hunt spikes in Wyoming. Oh wait they are smarter than that and don't have those kind of hunts.


Why would we want to give out 5,000 mature bull tags when we can shoot baby elk? Wyo2ut said that giving out more spike tags creates more opportunity for WHOM??? Baby elk killers OR People who want to hunt mature bulls.

I guess it just depends on the way you look at it right? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

A lot of you guys want everyone to believe that if we eliminate spike elk hunting, we can hunt mature bulls just as often as we hunt spikes now. That absolutely not the case. I can hunt spike elk with my son every year. If we eliminate spike hunting, I can guarantee that I will only be hunting elk (with a rifle) every 10 years. Yes, you bowhunters will be hunting mature bulls every 3 to 4 years but not the rifle guys. Hum, I wonder why all of the archery guys would be in favor of such a proposal.


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

Good point SFelk, I'm with you on this one. My kids and I have had a great time the past few years spike and cow hunting on a LE unit. They enjoy seeing the "big boys" and they know that some day it will be their turn, but until then we are making the best of it. I know without the opportunity to hunt cows and spikes my kids would not enjoy hunting like they do now.
We are excited for next year, with this new plan lots less pressure for us!!!
These threads are quite entertaining all you "bow biologists" think the world is ending


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> A lot of you guys want everyone to believe that if we eliminate spike elk hunting, we can hunt mature bulls just as often as we hunt spikes now. That absolutely not the case. I can hunt spike elk with my son every year. If we eliminate spike hunting, I can guarantee that I will only be hunting elk (with a rifle) every 10 years. Yes, you bowhunters will be hunting mature bulls every 3 to 4 years but not the rifle guys. Hum, I wonder why all of the archery guys would be in favor of such a proposal.


Who said you would be able to hunt mature bulls every year? :? Nobody is asking to eliminate spike tags where they have been for the last 10 years, I am against having spike tags on EVERY LE unit as the 'cure all' management plan. If you add management tags, get bull:cow ratios in line, move season dates around, give higher percentage of tags to primitive (IE less effective weapons), you will have MORE opportunities to hunt elk than you had in 2008, with BETTER options than having to hunt either cows or spikes.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Higher percentage of tags to primitive weapons.

Pro, that is my point. There are fewer archers than rifle hunters so by giving more tags to archers, you have allowed them to hunt LE every 5 years. You also say you will be able to increase rifle tags, but to what point? You are taking a higher percentage of the total tags and giving them to archery and muzzy, but the majority of hunters hunt with a rifle. If you have a unit currently giving 100 LE elk tags (50 rifle, 25 bow, 25 muzzy, just an example) and you increase tags by 50% and change the percentages to each weapon type (40% rifle, 30% bow, 30% muzzy) then yes, you have increased tags for all types. But, you increased bow and muzzy tags 80% and rifle only 20% and like I stated earlier, there are more rifle hunters than the other two choices. So it seems pretty reasonable to me to assume that a bow or muzzy hunter will have the *opportunity* to hunt 3 to 4 times to my once. I don't see the equity there.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

hockey said:


> Good point SFelk, I'm with you on this one. My kids and I have had a great time the past few years spike and cow hunting on a LE unit. They enjoy seeing the "big boys" and they know that some day it will be their turn, but until then we are making the best of it. I know without the opportunity to hunt cows and spikes my kids would not enjoy hunting like they do now.
> We are excited for next year, with this new plan lots less pressure for us!!!
> These threads are quite entertaining all you "bow biologists" think the world is ending


sfelk34 & hockey, Why is it you think you need to turn one weapon hunter against another to make your point? Would you rather have archery hunters join your ranks to add to the competition? Or maybe push us out of hunting altogether? Or are you saying to us, "Shut up and take whatever happens to you?" Apparently, you don't think this is such a big deal for us, but you're missing several concerns, as is this thread. And let's put biology aside!

1) *EVERY ARCHERY HUNT, both deer and elk (and pronghorn, BTW), both general and LE as well as Premium LE and the antlerless option HAPPENS AT THE SAME TIME on every unit in the state! (Last year 08/16-09/12). Same with many, not all, Muzzleloader hunts! But ALMOST NONE of the rifle hunts do.*(Look it up!) So this proposal now allows archery elk hunters to add to the overcrowding during the archery hunt on the LE units they couldn't hunt before. Archery deer hunters have been allowed on these units but not archery elk hunters, until now! That's not going to make the archery LE elk hunters happy, so they may add to the rifle LE elk ranks as well.

2) Now every square inch of accessible public and non-posted land in the Southern Region (and NE) is open to spike elk hunters! (Look at last year's guidebook maps pages 78-81) There's no safe haven for the any elk except the National Parks, Tribal lands and posted private land, and even most of the Tribal lands and posted private land is hunted for big bulls and cows.

3) Every time you diminish the incentives for bowhunting, you drive people away, because the incentives don't balance the 17 or so, challenges involved in bowhunting (Short distance, no second shot, standing broadside or quartering away shot only, jumping the string, holding the bow at draw until the shot develops, etc.) And it makes it harder to recruit bowhunters. Those that quit either join the rifle ranks, adding to that competition or quit hunting altogether, neither of which is good,

4) No one knows what this will do to the perceived overcrowding issue and will make the split archery deer proposal more meaningless.

5) This program is extremely divisive as evidenced by your remarks. We certainly don't need that.

Regardless of whatever happens biologically, this statewide spike hunt will throw a wrench in the gears of the archery hunting machine.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> Higher percentage of tags to primitive weapons.
> 
> Pro, that is my point. There are fewer archers than rifle hunters so by giving more tags to archers, you have allowed them to hunt LE every 5 years. You also say you will be able to increase rifle tags, but to what point? You are taking a higher percentage of the total tags and giving them to archery and muzzy, but the majority of hunters hunt with a rifle. If you have a unit currently giving 100 LE elk tags (50 rifle, 25 bow, 25 muzzy, just an example) and you increase tags by 50% and change the percentages to each weapon type (40% rifle, 30% bow, 30% muzzy) then yes, you have increased tags for all types. But, you increased bow and muzzy tags 80% and rifle only 20% and like I stated earlier, there are more rifle hunters than the other two choices. So it seems pretty reasonable to me to assume that a bow or muzzy hunter will have the *opportunity* to hunt 3 to 4 times to my once. I don't see the equity there.


Why are YOU making this about weapon type? Right now *60%* of LE elk tags go to rifle hunters, *25%* to archers, and *15%* to muzzle loader hunters. Can you name ONE state in the west that issues tags so heavily favored to the rifle hunters? As long as you keep giving such a high number of tags to rifle hunters, and the rifle hunt is smack in the middle of the rut you are LIMITING to opportunity. I don't say that because I'm an archer, I say that because I'm looking at ways to MAXIMIZE opportunity and still maintain 'quality'. Why is it so 'crazy' to have tag allotments set at 50% rifle, 30% archery, and 20% muzzle loader? I know several 'archers' who apply for rifle LE elk because of they feel it is a once in a lifetime tag, make it easier to draw a tag and the number of 'rifle' hunters switching to primitive weapons will surprise you. The bulk of LE elk applicants are in rifle pool because it is the most attractive, both for season dates and number of tags available to draw. Make archery/muzzle loader seasons more attractive and hunters WILL 'switch' to them. That is how human nature works.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

So let me get this right.

The small portion of 400" guys believe that every unit in the state of Utah should be managed for them!

The small portion of spike hunters believe that every unit in the state of Utah should be managed for them! (Even though they already had the ability to hunt every year before this was implemented.)

The rest of us (which I believe to be the majority) want to see a few of these units opened up for more mature bull tags.

Here's a novel idea. How about Utah give the 400" guys several units where they can wait a lifetime to hunt ginormous bulls if they so desire. (Last I checked you can only hunt one unit at a time so you don't need them all :wink: .) 

Next, Utah can give spike hunters the ability to hunt spikes every single year on a few of the units if they want. (Wait... isn't that the way it's been for the past forever? I have to ask myself why they're all making the argument that state wide spike hunting increases their opportunity when they already could hunt spikes every year? I think it's because they want to increase their opportunity of hunting spikes every single year to being able to hunt spikes every single year! Oh.....that makes sense.....I think :? .) 

Finally we can keep a portion of the units (for what I believe is the majority) as LE units with no spike tags and WAY more mature bull tags offered. (Hold on a minute :shock: ! This might mean that the state will be split up according to what most want. What would we all complain about then?).


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I know several 'archers' who apply for rifle LE elk because of they feel it is a once in a lifetime tag, make it easier to draw a tag and the number of 'rifle' hunters switching to primitive weapons will surprise you. The bulk of LE elk applicants are in rifle pool because it is the most attractive, both for season dates and number of tags available to draw. Make archery/muzzle loader seasons more attractive and hunters WILL 'switch' to them. That is how human nature works.


You just described me. I apply every year for archery elk tags in Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Montana, Woming, and Colorado. I've also been applying for archery tags in Utah for the past 9 years. This year I will be applying for early rifle. Who in their right mind would want a Utah archery tag next year over a rifle tag?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

IDHunter said:


> So let me get this right.
> 
> The small portion of 400" guys believe that every unit in the state of Utah should be managed for them!
> 
> ...


You have STOLEN I 400 concepts! :wink: Seriously, what you are detailing is I 400 in a nutshell. Glad to see another supporter of this great plan! *(())*


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

It's funny that I post a comment about my opinion and I'm the bad guy trying to be divisive. But on the the first page of this thread, swbuck calls everyone who hunts spike elk a _tard_. Are we trying to drive away 11,000 hunters with comments like that? That comment seems a lot more divisive than my comments about different types of hunting. You call my kids _tards_ because they enjoy elk hunting with the old man? WOW, pretty childish and extremely hypocritical. I know I'm not part of the good ole' boys club, but don't condemn someone because they have a different opinion than you. Why didn't someone call swbuck out? I know, because he has the same opinion as you do and he's one of the good ole boys.

By allowing spike hunting statewide, you have reduced the number of spike elk killed on the two biggest herds in the state. This will allow more future mature bull tags on the two units that already have the most tags. This is a huge benefit to a lot of hunters. I also don't see the number of tags on the new spike units being decreased. Manti and Wasatch have had spike hunts on them for years, but the numbers of tags has continually increased.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Good post SFelk! +1


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> It's funny that I post a comment about my opinion and I'm the bad guy trying to be divisive. But on the the first page of this thread, swbuck calls everyone who hunts spike elk a tard. Are we trying to drive away 11,000 hunters with comments like that? That comment seems a lot more divisive than my comments about different types of hunting. You call my kids tards because they enjoy elk hunting with the old man? WOW, pretty childish and extremely hypocritical. I know I'm not part of the good ole' boys club, but don't condemn someone because they have a different opinion than you. Why didn't someone call swbuck out? I know, because he has the same opinion as you do and he's one of the good ole boys.


Everyone in the state of Utah that hunts has been called "Utards" for a very long time. Nobody was singling out you, your kids, or only spike hunters. Believe me when I say that there are many more "tards" in the state of Utah than just spike hunters. We have lots of company!



sfelk34 said:


> By allowing spike hunting statewide, you have reduced the number of spike elk killed on the two biggest herds in the state. This will allow more future mature bull tags on the two units that already have the most tags. This is a huge benefit to a lot of hunters. I also don't see the number of tags on the new spike units being decreased. Manti and Wasatch have had spike hunts on them for years, but the numbers of tags has continually increased.


You are absolutely right. The number of tags on these new spike units will more than likely not decrease because tags have been increasing state wide for a few years now. However, the number of mature tags could be increased dramatically right now, and in the future, if those spikes were allowed to grow up. Why do you as a spike hunter feel you need the entire state of Utah to hunt when you already have the ability to chase spikes every single year?

There were two ways for the WB to fix this problem and spike hunting was one of them. The other was they could have issued way more mature tags on most of those units allowing people to move through the bonus point system faster. If this was done opportunity would have increased for mature bulls, trophy hunters could still chase monster bulls on the premier units, and spike hunters could still hunt every single year. Again I ask, why does the entire state need to be managed for you when you already could hunt the way you wanted? Would it really be so bad to increase opportunity for everyone rather than just you?


----------



## albubba (Nov 12, 2007)

Correct me if i'm wrong( I'm sure pro will), didn't I-400 want to do away with spike hunts?


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

no


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

albubba said:


> Correct me if i'm wrong( I'm sure pro will), didn't I-400 want to do away with spike hunts?


The initial I-400 did, but not the latest, at least this is how I remember it. :mrgreen:


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Hey IDiot hunter, (I assume that is okay since I am a tard) I could care less if the entire state is spike only or if they left it the way it was. I will still hunt Wasatch and have an awesome time. My post refered to the original post by sw stating that we should all buy open bull tags and boycott the spike tags. No where in any of my posts did I say we should hunt spikes on every unit in the state. And I didn't say we should manage the state for only me. I actually think we should be shooting more mature bulls in this state, you just assumed that since I objected to boycotting spike tags that I was in favor of statewide spike. I would rather hunt mature bulls myself. My opinion is that we increase mature bull tags on all units until the age objective for each unit is met. How far away from that idea is yours? Not very far right?


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

sfelk34,

Let me make sure I'm clear on the chain of events here.

1. Swbuck uses the term "tard" (which describes everyone from the state of Utah).

2. You get upset because you think he's singling you and your kids out :roll: .

3. I try to bring up the point that "tard" can describe everyone from the state of Utah and you shouldn't take it personal :roll: .

4. I even include myself in the "tard" category. (I'm not a spike hunter, but I am from Utah.)

5. Finally (This is my favorite part!), you call me an "IDiot" :mrgreen: !

I think you summed it up perfect...



sfelk34 said:


> WOW, pretty childish and extremely hypocritical.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wow people are fighting all this forum. In this corner we have Utard and in this corner IDiots

ding, ding!!! -oOo- -oOo- -oOo- Good Grief!!!!

Fatbass is my favorite hunting buddy though!!!!!!


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Utard is the word, Utard. Not the derogatory reference to a mentally handicapped person. One more time *UTARD*. Plus, that term has been beatin' into the ground for waaaayyyy too long. And you know as well as I do that sw meant it as an insult to spike hunters not Utahns. UTARD, UTARD, UTARD this is the term used to reference Utah hunters. I'm sorry I used a play on words to call you a childish name like IDiot; it won't happen again. 

Answer my question, are my opinions on hunting mature bulls and spikes that much different than yours? I find it funny how you chose to only respond to one thing on my entire post. What about the fact that I'm not in favor of statewide spike hunting, but am in favor of killing more mature bulls.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

the problem I see is that people think that all the mature elk will disappear for some reason. and that all the units will over crowded with extra hunters, we are talking about the whole state not just certain areas. sure you will see some hunters out in the field while hunting so what this is public land and we all have the right to hunt it, even if it is for a spike elk or spike deer.

now if some of the mature elk hunters will kill an animal instead of saying oh its too small I will be embarrassed if i shoot that one. all of the trophy hunters need to learn that you will not all get that big 400" bull and you will have to settle for something lesser.

these units need bulls killed on them to keep the bulls from over crowding the cows.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> By allowing spike hunting statewide, you have reduced the number of spike elk killed on the two biggest herds in the state. This will allow more future mature bull tags on the two units that already have the most tags. This is a huge benefit to a lot of hunters.





sfelk34 said:


> No where in any of my posts did I say we should hunt spikes on every unit in the state....you just assumed that since I objected to boycotting spike tags that I was in favor of statewide spike.


I didn't realize this was an objection for boycotting spike tags and not a post in favor of statewide spike hunting. Sorry about that!



sfelk34 said:


> My opinion is that we increase mature bull tags on all units until the age objective for each unit is met. How far away from that idea is yours? Not very far right?


Honestly, you are probably right that we're not that far off in our thinking. I agree with you that we should be giving out more mature bull tags until the age objective for each unit is met. Where I can't agree with you is that statewide spike hunting is a "huge benefit to a lot of hunters." If bulls are shot as spikes they don't have the chance to mature. This means that there are less mature bulls that can be harvested later. Less mature bulls later means less mature bull tags for hunters. Less mature bull tags is not a "huge benefit to a lot of hunters."


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

If hunting spikes is so bad for the elk herd, how come the Manti unit seems to be, at the very least stable. They have been slamming the spikes since they started this spike thing and the overall herd seems to be healthy. What makes this unit different then say Monroe and such?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> If hunting spikes is so bad for the elk herd, how come the Manti unit seems to be, at the very least stable. They have been slamming the spikes since they started this spike thing and the overall herd seems to be healthy. What makes this unit different then say Monroe and such?


The Manti unit has a bigger elk herd so the impact of killing spikes is smaller than the Monroe. If the Manti unit wasn't killing spikes I bet they could give out over 1,000 mature elk tags.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> now if some of the mature elk hunters will kill an animal instead of saying oh its too small I will be embarrassed if i shoot that one. all of the trophy hunters need to learn that you will not all get that big 400" bull and you will have to settle for something lesser.
> 
> these units need bulls killed on them to keep the bulls from over crowding the cows.


Sage, the reason we have high bull/cow ratios is because we aren't giving out enough tags not because hunters are picky with the size of the horns. We manage for age class objectives which doesnt work because if you have a unit with 1,000 mature bulls and you issue only 100 tags and the average age of harvest is 5-6 yr olds and after you gather the harvest info then the data shows that the average bulls killed (out of the 100 bulls) was 5-6 years old then on paper you have reached the objective meanwhile you have a HUGE surplus of bulls.

BTW most units are 2 years over objective.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > If hunting spikes is so bad for the elk herd, how come the Manti unit seems to be, at the very least stable. They have been slamming the spikes since they started this spike thing and the overall herd seems to be healthy. What makes this unit different then say Monroe and such?
> 
> 
> The Manti unit has a bigger elk herd so the impact of killing spikes is smaller than the Monroe. If the Manti unit wasn't killing spikes I bet they could give out over 1,000 mature elk tags.


Yes the Manti has a large herd, but it is also one the hardest hit units. Yes you could issue more mature tags if you did not hunt spikes, but I'm just guessing it would turn into a once every ten year hunt for most people. Just looking at these two areas, I'm just not sure it is going to be as bad as some are saying. Maybe it is as simple as one area is smaller than the other (it could be easier to overwhelm it) and that is why it would be bad.

Don't get me wrong I would have much rather seen them issue the management tags or just flat out more tags on these LE units.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> *Yes the Manti has a large herd, but it is also one the hardest hit units*. Yes you could issue more mature tags if you did not hunt spikes, but I'm just guessing it would turn into a once every ten year hunt for most people. Just looking at these two areas, I'm just not sure it is going to be as bad as some are saying. Maybe it is as simple as one area is smaller than the other (it could be easier to overwhelm it) and that is why it would be bad.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I would have much rather seen them issue the management tags or just flat out more tags on these LE units.


Again more spikes are born on Manti and I believe the Monroe is more accessible than the Manti. Yes more hunters hunt the Manti, but the spikes have more places to hide.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > *Yes the Manti has a large herd, but it is also one the hardest hit units*. Yes you could issue more mature tags if you did not hunt spikes, but I'm just guessing it would turn into a once every ten year hunt for most people. Just looking at these two areas, I'm just not sure it is going to be as bad as some are saying. Maybe it is as simple as one area is smaller than the other (it could be easier to overwhelm it) and that is why it would be bad.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong I would have much rather seen them issue the management tags or just flat out more tags on these LE units.
> 
> ...


I can not say about the Monroe accessiblity (I'll take your word), but the Manti is pretty accessible. And if the Monroe is more accessible then the Manti, then for sure it should not have unrestricted warfare on it.

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Either of you guys ever been on the Manti? :lol: 

Most accessible unit in the state. Skyline drive runs the length of it with roads and ATV trails running down almost every canyon clear to the valley floor. Prime habitat with a carrying capacity well above population objective, but some serious depredation issues on the winter range such that the population remains below the objective of 12,000 animals and probably always will unless the outfitting industry takes over the local economy or somebody with deep pockets steps up with some mitigation funds.

I'm against spike hunt management in general, but on this unit it's a necessary evil. So is the continual harvest of cows. As a hunter, I'd love to see those spikes grow up. But they have to eat and that increases the depredation issues. So to make room for them, we'd have to take out so many older bulls that there wouldn't be much quality left. That's exactly how things stood when the Manti became an LE unit in the first place - raghorn heaven.

Still, we could issue a lot more LE tags up there.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> *Either of you guys ever been on the Manti*? :lol:
> 
> Most accessible unit in the state. Skyline drive runs the length of it with roads and ATV trails running down almost every canyon clear to the valley floor. Prime habitat with a carrying capacity well above population objective, but some serious depredation issues on the winter range such that the population remains below the objective of 12,000 animals and probably always will unless the outfitting industry takes over the local economy or somebody with deep pockets steps up with some mitigation funds.
> 
> ...


I believe I did say it was accessible.

You can take a ride out South Hollow (12 mile canyon) and see the work that has been done on the winter range (Major work). While I do not not know how far along the range they are planning to do this type of work or what the current economy will do, I am glad to see soming being done.

While they may not be 400", they are anything but rags. But I will them for you that they are now rags.

As far as knowing the area, 34+ years of memories.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

You didn't read very carefully, Amigo.

Only 34+? You young pup! -_O-


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> You didn't read very carefully, Amigo.
> 
> Only 34+? You young pup! -_O-


I'm slow what did I miss?

I got a slow start, not much to hunt on Guam. :mrgreen:


----------

