# Who Will Stand and Fight?



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The Elk Committee just voted on a proposal for the new Elk Management Plan, that if passed in March will be the directives for the DWR and the Wildlife Board for 5 years, as many of you already know. How many are okay with that? How many are willing to take a stand against it?

I would like to set up a meeting for any/all concerned elk hunters somewhere in the Salt Lake Valley in the next couple of weeks. The purpose of the meeting is to brainstorm on specific suggestions to be drafted into an alternative proposal to the one being proposed by our 'leaders'. Is there enough elk hunters along the Wasatch Front who are willing to have their voices heard? If so, lets do this!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Ha, I was going to post a similar thread, problem is, I've done this before and about 2% of concerned sportsmen and women who said they'd show up actually showed.

I'm in, although I'd like to see a vocal protest of some kind that gets some press. How about a petition of some kind?


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

I am all in just let me know and I will make sure to get off of work!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Ha, I was going to post a similar thread, problem is, I've done this before and about 2% of concerned sportsmen and women who said they'd show up actually showed.
> 
> I'm in, although I'd like to see a vocal protest of some kind that gets some press. How about a petition of some kind?


Good idea on the petition.

Does your place we met at before still work as a possible meeting place? I'll take 2% at this point. :?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'll help support you guys the best way possible.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

What exactly is your stance on the elk issue Pro? If you are about increasing opportunity for the little guy(those of us who can't afford to spend $15,000 on a tag), i would love to be involved. If you are in it for decreasing tags and limiting hunters who get them, i don't want anything to do with it. I am planning on burning my points this year on a lesser unit just to have the experience of a decent(maybe 330) bull. I don't like the odds of drawing a tag in the future the way things are going. My 6 year old son will probably never get an opportunity to shoot a trophy bull elk in this state or any other animal for that matter. So which is it?


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

I'm in but being a non resident best I can do is offer ideas. Pass out some fliers at the up coming show to get word out. :idea: 
Let me know what I can do to help from outside the state?

Allen


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Deal me in.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

screw all of ya!!! I've wasted enough time on this............


Let me know where and when and count me in


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Count me in too  Then afterwards some of you can give me a thumping for being mean to you on this forum. :mrgreen:


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm in.....just tell me the time and place! Kelly


----------



## bigbuckhunter64 (May 6, 2008)

Count me in...just let me know the time and place...oh and who you want whooped!!!! :mrgreen:


----------



## MEEN (Jan 27, 2009)

Count me in. This thing will go no where if we dont have numbers and media attention. If you want media attention then lets set up a billboard. I guarantee 99% of hunters have no idea this has been approved. If they did they would drop a dookie in their pants. So lets get this out there for the public to decide.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

What are you fighting agensit? the whole plan or just parts?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

What, you guys do not like that the Elk Committee recommended increasing the age objectives on 93% of Utah's limited entry elk herd? (sarcasm intended) 

It sure was a surreal moment when the cards were played at the meeting. Compromise was the wording used, not correct, but it was the wording.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Not one of you have thanked me for getting you started on this. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout, I HATE the term 'compromise', especially when it is thrown around like a strippers thong at a stag party.



elk22hunter said:


> Not one of you have thanked me for getting you started on this. :mrgreen:


Thank you sir Scott! :mrgreen:

Sounds like we are getting some support here. How many are planning on going to the expo next week? We need to mobilize and get hunters aware of what is being done 'in the dead of the night'. I think maybe we could get some fliers together and have them passed out, maybe inside the taxidermy area, what do you say Tex? That ought to stir the hornets nest, bad-mouthing the, lets call it what it is, SFW proposal at their own shin dig.

Packout, can you explain why this is going through the RAC's/WB now instead of through the Bucks and Bulls RAC's/WB in November?

Meen is right, we need publicity and we need numbers. Any/all suggestions on how to get both/either are welcome.

I have been heavily involved in the Tea Party movement here in Utah, I can see the effect 'common' people can have on the 'leaders'. We do need to switch tactics from the normal, which is to go to the RAC meetings and comment, although that is needed as well, I think we need more than just that.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> What exactly is your stance on the elk issue Pro? If you are about increasing opportunity for the little guy(those of us who can't afford to spend $15,000 on a tag), i would love to be involved. If you are in it for decreasing tags and limiting hunters who get them, i don't want anything to do with it. I am planning on burning my points this year on a lesser unit just to have the experience of a decent(maybe 330) bull. I don't like the odds of drawing a tag in the future the way things are going. My 6 year old son will probably never get an opportunity to shoot a trophy bull elk in this state or any other animal for that matter. So which is it?


Have you not read the thread on this subject? :? Or, my first post in this thread? :? I have been crystal clear on where I stand. :O_D:


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> lunkerhunter2 said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly is your stance on the elk issue Pro? If you are about increasing opportunity for the little guy(those of us who can't afford to spend $15,000 on a tag), i would love to be involved. If you are in it for decreasing tags and limiting hunters who get them, i don't want anything to do with it. I am planning on burning my points this year on a lesser unit just to have the experience of a decent(maybe 330) bull. I don't like the odds of drawing a tag in the future the way things are going. My 6 year old son will probably never get an opportunity to shoot a trophy bull elk in this state or any other animal for that matter. So which is it?
> ...


Yes i read this thread and your first post. it pretty much told me that i just read a post. What part of the decision are you fighting for? For or against what?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Not this thread, THE thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23627


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Count me in too  Then afterwards some of you can give me a thumping for being mean to you on this forum. :mrgreen:


Now, there is a perfect Idea to get a lot of people to come out! Count me in, but I would rather do it before the meeting! :mrgreen:


----------



## MEEN (Jan 27, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> How many are planning on going to the expo next week? We need to mobilize and get hunters aware of what is being done 'in the dead of the night'.


I will be going most likely Thursday the 11th.

As far as publicity goes we should look at what the river walkers did right on HB80 or whatever it is. I believe they posted on every forum they could find and did some walk about in waiders on capital hill?? They even got news coverage.

Has anyone started a thread like this on MM? I would but I don't have an account.

Whether we get a billboard or pass out a flier we should have a website or blog setup to refer people to so they can continually get additional info and have a chance to sit down and really study the issues. Any marketing guys on this forum? Whats your ideas?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

MEEN said:


> As far as publicity goes we should look at what the river walkers did right on HB80 or whatever it is. I believe they posted on every forum they could find and did some walk about in waiders on capital hill?? They even got news coverage.


A good and valid suggestion, but remember that there's a fundamental difference here. HB80 had to influence the legislature. Our target is the wildlife board and governor. Even though the gov has authority over the board, he's twice separated with a nominating committee between him and the board that operates under his authority. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't pay much attention without cause. So give him a reason to pay attention.

Making a case at the RACs is important, but others have demonstrated the effectiveness of bypassing the RAC system by going directly to the individual board members before the board convenes.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Unless thousands of concerned sportsmen unite,,,,,,,it will go no were.

I would like to see a specific plan ,, I know your talking a 50/50 split with
opportunity versus quality which I like....and shouldn't be an issue.
Managing elk to bull to cow ratios instead of age objective would be a big step forward.

The spike hunting issue is were the battle lies,,,,
I would be almost impossible to make large increases in limited entry tags without doing
away with spike hunting.


----------



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

coyoteslayer said:


> Count me in too  Then afterwards some of you can give me a thumping for being mean to you on this forum. :mrgreen:


Na, you can't hit a guy sitting down. I'll just shove a stick in yer wheelchair spokes. :twisted: :mrgreen:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I'm NOT an elk hunter, nor do I fully understand all the issues here as well as most of you folks do. But I AM a hunter who cares, so count me in. I can help in some way or another. It is going to be very, very difficult to motivate the "average joe" to get involved enough to have our voice heard, but NOT doing anything is much worse! :shock:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Unless thousands of concerned sportsmen unite,,,,,,,it will go no were.
> 
> I would like to see a specific plan ,, I know your talking a 50/50 split with
> opportunity versus quality which I like....and shouldn't be an issue.
> ...


Ya know not everything has to be all or nothing. There is already a cap on tags. Phase one in (Branched antlers) and phase one out (spike).


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Count me in. I will gladly donate the paper for the fliers. Even pay for the printing. Just let me know.

I believe Tree has a solid plan.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

Count me in.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm in.....


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Count me in!!! I'm experienced in tarring/feathering and burning in effigy.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Pro/Bart

In one sentence please tell me what this 'fight' is about. What do you hope to accomplish? If you have said it say it again because i missed it.

Two other question. 

Now that we have this (DRAFT) plan, there are many habitat and population objectives that i believe if followed and implemented will allow us to increase our state wide elk herd from 65 to 80,000. If that increase is made (noting that it won't happen i one year) will that not increase opportunity? 

last question--to all you 'fighters'
How many of you that are in the 'fight' have drawn a LE elk tag (lets say in the past 8 years), just state yes or no. I ask this because what this fight will really boil down to is those that have and those that have not and have 10+ points give or take. IMO

Thanks

Todd


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I have *not* drawn an elk tag in the last 8 years.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

MEEN said:


> Count me in. This thing will go no where if we dont have numbers and media attention. If you want media attention then lets set up a billboard. I guarantee 99% of hunters have no idea this has been approved. If they did they would drop a dookie in their pants. So lets get this out there for the public to decide.


He's right. Most of my neighbors, and friends are sportsmen, and none of them have any idea what happens on here, in the RAC's or elsewhere. The either read it in the highlights section of the proclamation when it finally gets printed (3 days before the big game drawing opens) or when they go to buy a tag at wal-mart. If you want more than the small band we have here, we need to get the word out in a big way.

Oh and PRO, you know my stance on this. Just tell me where to be...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

You need to get something up on a high traffic site like KSL.com. I'm sure a lot of sportsmen hit that site up more than once a day. How about getting in contact with "Roughin' it Outdoors" or something else like that to see if they would be willing to do a piece on it. If you want to mobilize the troops you need to get out with the bigger media outlets.

I think getting someone in the legislature involved would help to put some pressure on. There has to be some political "geniuses" (hopefully the exist) that love to hunt and can see through the crap that has been placed in front of us. Getting them involved can/should help the cause.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Pro/Bart
> 
> In one sentence please tell me what this 'fight' is about. What do you hope to accomplish? If you have said it say it again because i missed it.
> 
> ...


Todd. I've never drawn more than a cow elk tag. I probably never will, i'm clear down the list in the middle of the backlog of hunters that will take a long time to clear out under the current plan. This isn't about me. This is completely about my 12 year old daughter who is just starting the journey of big game hunting. This is about my 8 year old son who in 4 years will inherit our transgressions against the next generation's ability to participate in the hunting sports. The current system is putting the next generation in a stranglehold and taking away their reason to care about elk at all.

I have no illusions that by the time this mess clears, I'll be old enough that my back and knees won't take the beating that elk hunting always provides. But I want to ensure that my children don't have a better chance of winning the idaho lottery than drawing an elk tag. The quality is already way more than the average hunter wants or needs to be happy. By taking away more tags and opportunity it's just compounding the problem. And right now you're handing out less tags each year than the number of NEW recruits into the drawing every year. Hate to point this out, but that kind of logic is sending the elk hunts down the EXACT same path as the social security program has followed. This program will be dead and bankrupt before any of the new contributors stand a chance to benefit from it.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Wasatch--

I don't doubt that youth and hunting is critical, i'm in the same boat. And with this generation if there isn't a harvest (not just opportunity) in a year or 2 of hunting my guess is they are out.

However if your point of fighting is just about getting kids a trophy bull on a LE unit, i think you are wasting your time.

Special youth hunts during the general season
Tons of opportunities for youth antlers hunts

I'm sorry but i don't think this is a valid argument to 'fight' for more opportunity. Asking for a certain percentage to be given to the youth i think would be a great idea.

Todd


----------



## Wes (Jan 3, 2008)

Count me in on the "FIGHT". The fight is about the continuing loss of opportunity for the average hunter for the benefit of a few. 
Wes


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

I wish I could say I knew more about the proposals being pushed. I would love to get involved too, but don't want to blindly support something I don't know much about. It would be nice to read up on (all) the proposed management objectives and strategies being looked at/pushed if they are available for all. 

I do like the objective to increase elk qtys, maintain a good bull/cow ratio and maintain healthy elk herds. But then it seems discussions start getting muddled down about who wants to hunt what and when, and with what weapon, who’s getting ripped off and who’s getting too much opportunity. I may be wrong, but it seems that sound elk management objectives and strategies need to be defined and put on the table before defining how the actual management ideas are pushed (i.e.: archery vs. rifle, # tags for cows/bulls, dates, etc).


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Todd, I have NOT drawn an LE elk tag in the last 8 years. I have 10 elk points.

To me, the fight is for one simple philosophy, that is that our elk be managed according to the many, not the few.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I only have 16 measly Elk Points.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Tree--

My point exactly. Who are the many and who are the few? Can you see the problem, 5% want this and this is what they define 'quality' 15% want this and this is what they think is best for the resource, and 18% of the people want this and this is what they think is fair and 3% want this and they control lots of money and politics and then those that want to 'fight' represent 10% and they want something that is similar to those that have 5% but it s a little different because they want 4 more units to be open bull or what ever the case maybe, i hope you see my point.

I was on the committee i seriously doubt that any of the organization really polled their numbers to see what they wanted and even the elk survey was so poorly written that i could take the data and say just about anything i wanted to and have data to support that.

So my question is, what do you think people really want? Did the survey really say they would rather have lesser quality bulls and hunt every 10 years or did it say something else?

Like I said that survey could be interpreted so many ways by so many people and until you really have someone with a strong statistical back ground look at it instead of someone with a wildlife degree it's just pissin in the wind.

Or 'fighting' amongst ourselves as sportsman which makes the RAC BOARD and UDWR want to laugh or cry.


Todd


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Todd is right,,,Unless 15,000 sportsmen show up at the state capital......well,,

The new EMP is a done deal.


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

What about passing information out at the expo about an online survey/petition.

By doing it online we could provide information on what is being proposed and our counter proposal. 

Those against the current proposal could sign an online petition.....and if they are interested they could provide an email. That way if it's decided a protest is in order we have a way to inform the 'masses'.....

Just a thought.....


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

This is starting to sound like the health care thing (no i don't want it)

but-- another question. How many of those of you who are actually going to 'stand up and fight' have actually taken the time to read through the draft management plan?


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> This is starting to sound like the health care thing (no i don't want it)
> 
> but-- another question. How many of those of you who are actually going to 'stand up and fight' have actually taken the time to read through the draft management plan?


Good point, just to say you don't want something accomplishes very little.

That's why I think the online survey would be a good thing. We could determine what the average Joe wants through the survey and then represent that in a counter proposal. (Maybe we could get the data from the DWR survey...)

A protest could be used to get 'them' to take the proposal seriously.

By the way, I have 8 elk points and I would give them all up to fix this......for me and my kids.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

BB, I have and what you are saying makes sense. For me, I guess "fight" isn't the correct nomenclature. Based on experience, I am inclined to think that this plan isn't indicative of a cross section of the populace. 

I am not interested in doing this if it isn't on a large scale, as goofy eluded to. If in the end awareness is brought to the majority of hunters and the result is the same, at least we have a proper reflection.

To much of this is done behind closed doors and under the radar and I conclude that many times this is intentional. I'm not saying it isn't prudent to keep certain things 'in house', armchair biologists can be a pain in the ass and halt progression, but this isn't about biology, it is a correlate of politics, which we should all have a say in.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

A survey was already done by the UDWR who had a much bigger sample size (many of you took that survey) of 'everyone' then could ever be hoped to accomplished on line. IMO

And again how the survey is worded would need to be so specific that i doubt it would get at what you were trying to get at....

Which BTW---pro, i'm still waiting for that one sentence as to what we are 'fighting' for exactly.

Todd


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Tree-



> Based on experience, I am inclined to think that this plan isn't indicative of a cross section of the populace.


I don't ever think you will get there. You will always have a few that will yell loud for one thing or another that is different and you will NEVER have a management plan that will be a true 'cross section of the populace (hunters, watchers, farmers, ranchers etc). The best you could hope for is to make everyone mad and then know you are about where you ought to be with the 'populace'


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

So how did you vote?

Honestly, I'm having a hard time swallowing a reduction in tags when a slight increase is what I thought would end up happening and it has absolutely nothing to do with my selfish motives. Actually, I would gain more financially if there were more big bulls on the mountain and more conservation tags given out. Anyone in the Utah hunting industry would benefit by every unit being managed like the San Juan, other than client #'s would suffer slightly.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Tree-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree there is no such thing as a plan that will make everyone happy, but don't you think they should at least strive to make a majority happy? This plan that the committee is proposing isn't going to make the majority happy. This plan is going to take away opportunity using IMO managing techniques that are ineffective. Numerous surveys have been done and the general concensus almost always comes down to people want opportunity with an opportunity to get a nice bull every now and again, not every 20+ years. I believe there are effective ways to allow people who just would like to get a chance at a 300 class bull and opportunity to do it every 5 years or so and still keep some Premium units for people like 22 who wants a toad. The problem is the slaughter fest of the rifle hunt in the rut, if they move it out of the rut, more opportunity is created. Also if they go away from age classification and stop killing so many cows and spikes. Once again I agree it is not possible to make everyone happy, but they need to start managing for the majority and not the minority.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Blanding_Boy said:


> A survey was already done by the UDWR who had a much bigger sample size (many of you took that survey) of 'everyone' then could ever be hoped to accomplished on line. IMO
> 
> And again how the survey is worded would need to be so specific that i doubt it would get at what you were trying to get at....
> 
> ...


Is that survey Published?


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

jahan said:


> Blanding_Boy said:
> 
> 
> > Tree-
> ...


More opportunity for WHO though? And who gets less? No way to please everyone for-sure


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Simply moving the rifle hunt 2 weeks later would give quite a bit more opportunity than there currently is for RIFLE hunters.

Why not hunt them on winter range? The net result would be pretty much the same as the current structure of hunting them with a rifle during the peak of the rut.

(Don't misconstrue this as being what this thread is about, just pointing something out.)


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Wasatch--
> 
> I don't doubt that youth and hunting is critical, i'm in the same boat. And with this generation if there isn't a harvest (not just opportunity) in a year or 2 of hunting my guess is they are out.
> 
> ...


Todd, I think you're crazy. This isn't about them getting a trophy. This is about them getting more than the opportunity to chase a spike. This about the fact that the bulls on our units are already way past what most of us would ever consider a "trophy". Most of the hunting community measures a bull in terms of "yep that's a damned big elk" and never get them scored.

This is about the fact that in 2009 alone 4638 youth hunters new to the fold, applied for a meager 283 youth any bull tags. This as about the fact that there are several thousand youths every year that complete their hunters safety, and that more of them are graduating and becomeing eligible to apply for tags than the total number of tags allowed to them.

I agree that the youth have a better chance of drawing than you or I, but it's still a pretty meager shot. And if they don't draw in the first 6 years of eligibility, they get dumped into the regular pool with the rest of us. This is about the fact that you have 41,000 people applying for 2200 permits, and that it would take 20 years to clear out the number of people applying for permits today, much less the number of new hunters that will be added to the fold over the next 20 years.

This is about the fact that my kids are going to inherit a system where we keep adding more new hunters to the in door than we are letting through the out door. You to your credit Todd, yes, youth do have a better chance of drawing than adults. But not that much better. And then once the youth years are up (a maximimum of 6 years, only four of which they are eligible to apply for the "big boy tags") they have to face the harsh reality that if they haven't pulled a tag, they probably never will.

If limited entry elk is meant to be a once in a lifetime tag, why isn't it treated as such? and if it's not supposed to be one of your once in a lifetime species, than we'd damned well better fix the system so that you might be able to draw at least once in your lifetime.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Simply moving the rifle hunt 2 weeks later would give quite a bit more opportunity than there currently is for RIFLE hunters.
> 
> .)


WE CAN"T DO THAT!!!! Then I cant guide my rich old clients to 10 bugling bulls!

Just making a point here,,,I love the rifle LE rut hunt,,,I get to see it every year and thats 
why I like it........If that were not the case, I would hate it and want it changed.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I would just like to see the rifle hunt out of the rut and put the archery in the rut. Sent they have to get close to the elk and with rifle we can shoot them at 500 yards with out a problem.


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Simply moving the rifle hunt 2 weeks later would give quite a bit more opportunity than there currently is for RIFLE hunters.
> 
> Why not hunt them on winter range? The net result would be pretty much the same as the current structure of hunting them with a rifle during the peak of the rut.
> 
> (Don't misconstrue this as being what this thread is about, just pointing something out.)


I know I have a long way to go to understand all of this, but seems to me if management is based on balancing bull/cow ratios, there will still only be so many bulls that can be taken each year regardless of whether they are taken during the rut, out of the rut, depredation, with a rifle, with a bow, or whatever.

I guess I don't understand the definition of opportunity pertaining to this particular topic. If it means more tags issued/more hunters for the same amount of elk, I would think it equals less opportunity overall.

Just still trying to understand whether to agree or not with what is being discussed in this thread - sorry if a bit off topic


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

wapati said:


> I guess I don't understand the definition of opportunity pertaining to this particular topic. If it means more tags issued/more hunters for the same amount of elk, I would think it equals less opportunity overall.


It doesn't take 6 bulls to breed 10 cows...we could issue twice as many bull elk tags and it would not destroy opportunity...long term or short term...


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

wapati said:


> I guess I don't understand the definition of opportunity pertaining to this particular topic. If it means more tags issued/more hunters for the same amount of elk, I would think it equals less opportunity overall.


Opportunity to hunt and opportunity to kill are different. I see your point, but opportunity to me is having a tag in my hands - regardless of what success rates are associated with it. I would like the opportunity to hunt branch antlered bulls on a regular basis in areas that offer reasonable success rates. Be that every 2, 3, or 5 years, that's what I'm after. I would love to be able to draw a Wasatch tag every 3 years and expect to harvest something every third hunt or so. That's a harvest every 9 years, well within the current harvest statistics for bull elk. Tell me why that's not possible. Maybe I could draw every 5 years and expect 50% success. An elk every 10 years is still less than hunters are harvesting right now. But at least I'd get to hunt 2, 3, or 4 times within that 10 years.

By lowering success rates, we increase the number of tags that can be issued. To me that means more opportunity. I'd love to see tags split 33% across the board to rifle/muzz/archery and give out enough of them that it's actually a challenge to harvest a 6 point. Make it similar to Colorado where you can't kill spikes.


----------



## Eastwillow (Jan 28, 2010)

Count me out - with what I have heard I am in support of the EMP that will increase overall elk numbers in the state and reduce rifle rut hunts to 60% of overall unit specific tags. Still plenty of "opportunity" for anyone who wants to hunt a branch antlered bull on the general units. Pick up a bow or smokepole if you want to better your odds of drawing a LE unit!

My opinion is that you dont have to have a tag in hand to enjoy these great LE units. Get out with your kids and family and enjoy the experience. I havent had an elk tag (LE or General) for more than 5 years now, but I have spent good quality time each year on local LE units with friends that have drawn tags. Seems the experience has gotten worse each year - too many hunters on the units I have hunted.

I will keep my mind open.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

East--

Good post. I guess I just have a hard time believing we don't have enough opportunity in this state.

We have general season elk units for all weapons and all seasons (over the counter)

We have spike hunts state wide (a cap but basically over the counter)

Tons of cow hunts (granted they are not bulls but they go under-subscribed every year)

Special Youth only hunts

Where are we missing opportunity?

Bottom line is this, we all love to hunt, we don't have enough of an elk population on our LE units so that we all can hunt there, we would deplete the resource on many of these units. Those that are complaining are simply unwilling to go out and hunt in those areas where opportunity exist. We all want our cake and we all want to eat it and guess what, we can't. 

Oh and BTW--I have yet to see that one well thought out sentence we are standing up and fighting for--sorry Bart

And least i forget to give you all my personal opinion. I don't put in for elk i hunt a cow or 2 here and there, and yes i do guide elk hunters but personally i would just a soon see about 1/4 of the number of elk we have in this state and have 3 times as many mule deer. 

Todd 

Todd


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

> Blandingboy wrote
> last question--to all you 'fighters'
> How many of you that are in the 'fight' have drawn a LE elk tag (lets say in the past 8 years), just state yes or no. I ask this because what this fight will really boil down to is those that have and those that have not and have 10+ points give or take. IMO


No i have 11 NR bonus points and will be in the max point pool for the unit we hunt in 6 years but it could be as much as 8 years before I'm guarantied a tag. Here's what worries me my son has 2 NR bonus points and it will take him 62.66 years to get to the maximum point pool. He will most likely never get to hunt a branch antler bull on the unit his late grandfather, father, and uncle have hunted for years. This is on a unit which the DWR says has 40 bulls to 100 cows ( i see with my eyes about 50/50 split bulls and cows). Now the new plan is to cut bull tags to make the wait longer and increase the bull to cow ratio even more? This same unit my brother had a LE bull tag he waited 15 years to draw. He killed a nice 6X7 bull and is the happiest guy that ever hunted that unit. I doubt his bull was more than 5 or 6 years old (i'm no expert though). I Also saw a guy that killed a 4X4 bull on the same unit and he was the happiest guy on the mountain because he killed it near the road. How old is a 4X4 bull? 
Age class was a bad idea to start with, increasing the age class is worse. Manage to bull to cow ratios is much better. Big bulls will still be out there for the guys that work for them and the guides to take there clients too.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

yak4fish

With regards to your son, you are right it could take him for ever to draw a tag but the beauty of Utah's system is he could draw this year. I have 3 kids in the same boat--and i take that gamble every year.

But, remember there is opportunity for your son to draw and be hunting a special youth hunt every year until he turns 18. 

If you don't think your son has a chance now or in 60 years you shouldn't put him in. Invest that money that you spend on him every year (70/year) in a good investment and buy him a tag on one of those units in 25 years--again the beauty of Utah's system of opportunity.

Todd


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Again,Todd is spot on! I to believe there is a TON of opportunity for youth hunters.

This thread is less than 24 hours old and there is 7 pages of different opinions all over 
the map..........

I personally think the elk comity did a fairly good job with there recommendations,,,
It's a ruff situation to deal with , and no matter what they come up with, they will never
please the majority..

I've seen this for many years now,,,Its just how it is,,Learn to adapt or find a new hobby.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm so last on this one and all of the other ones.What I'm getting at is you guys want to take the spike hunting away and make all of the unites a Le.So that it will back up the draw even more and take away from the people that want to hunt spike. I can't see how you are going to make people go throu the draw faster with out giving out a couple 100 more tags of each unite and whip out the elk herds. Im I wrong on this ? O yea I don't even get the draw thing ether.


Here a idea. they might do this already I don't know.Ok so let say they give out 100 tags on the Wasatch unite.Give 30 tags to the max points,then you go down from there. so a person with 0 points just starting out can draw say one tag so you will get him out of the draw sooner and so on.I hope that make sent. is that how they do it now ?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I've seen this for many years now,,,Its just how it is,,Learn to adapt or find a new hobby.


bullbutter...I pay taxes in this friggin state...if I have a chance to have things my way then I'm gonna be heard! Then after I've shared my piece then I'll adapt if I need to.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

yak4fish said:


> No i have 11 NR bonus points and will be in the max point pool for the unit we hunt in 6 years but it could be as much as 8 years before I'm guarantied a tag.


These are the types of comments that bug me....if you have 11 bonus points, you are virtually guaranteed a tag in any number of LE elk hunts in the state. BUT, you *choose* to limit yourself to one unit and one weapon. IF you were really interested in hunting branch-antlered elk so much, why don't you open up your options, choose a different weapon or unit, and draw a tag? YOU are limiting your own opportunity...

....with that being said, I still wish we weren't as concerned with keeping "trophy" elk on each LE unit. Why not severely lower the quality on some of the units and give lots more tags?


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Wyoming---



> Why not severely lower the quality on some of the units and give lots more tags?


Presently Utah does not have a way they measure quality and with this current plan, it still does not exist.

Good point on Yak4fish with the 11 points--he does have opportunity where he sits now doesn't he.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Special Youth only hunts
> 
> Where are we missing opportunity?
> 
> Todd


Our special youth only hunt consists of 283 tags. I just got an email from Blanche Smith, the Hunter Education Secretary for the state of Utah. She informed me that roughly 10,000 i repeat TEN THOUSAND new hunters graduated from hunters safety last year and that the number goes up every year. The youth only hunt is every bit as big of a bottleneck as the regular draw. We have opportunity for youth hunters in this state. Roughly 2.8% of them.

I think that there are some valid statements on here though, specifically what it is we want.

Me personally, I'd like to see half (and I know that to many of you this is total blashpemy) and I literally mean half of the limited entry units in this state managed for a much younger age class of bull with a lot more tags given out. I'd like to see half of these units be the type you could draw out on every 5 to 7 years and have a good chance at a branch antlered bull. I'm not talking some 350+ bull, I'm talking decent little bull, instead of once in your life if your really super lucky.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Pro/Bart
> 
> In one sentence please tell me what this 'fight' is about. What do you hope to accomplish? If you have said it say it again because i missed it. The opportunity to hunt mature bulls will a decent chance (higher than 5-10%) of harvesting a mature bull more than once every 15-50 years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Levy (Oct 2, 2007)

> By lowering success rates, we increase the number of tags that can be issued. To me that means more opportunity. I'd love to see tags split 33% across the board to rifle/muzz/archery and give out enough of them that it's actually a challenge to harvest a 6 point. Make it similar to Colorado where you can't kill spikes.


Opportunity is relative to the individual. The opportunity to hunt and hold a tag becomes less and less appealing if the opportunity to harvest (success rates) decreases. They can't be seperated. I think there are certain points to consider on both sides. But I do find it presumptuous to suggest that increasing bull tags on our elk units will have an absolute positive outcome. I am not completely against increasing tags either, but to assume the majority of hunters all want the same type of "opportunity" is naive. Put yourselves in the shoes of the hunter who has 13+ points. The view is very different from the hunter, who has drawn a LE tag and is in his/her waiting period.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Presently Utah does not have a way they measure quality and with this current plan, it still does not exist.
> 
> .


I realize that...but we are measuring the age of harvested elk which assures quality. Instead of increasing the average ages virtually across the board, why not lower those average ages on a couple of units to levels that guarantee more tags? Say a harvest age objective of 2-3?


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

The EC can recomend all they want. SFW can recomend all they want. The part Im more fed up with then anything thing is they give this the recomendation out on a basies that thing will get better. example-we ended up with LE elk hunting in the first place as a way to incress herd size and over all age of bull elk. Look where we are now. We have elk everywhere. We have older age class of animals and yet we have little oppertunity to hunt them. The number of LE tags as slowly gone up and then all of a sudden they want to cut tags so we can try and "produce 15,000 more elk. Or is the real reason that the 400 bulls weren't around every corner. Other states make it work what the Heck is wrong with Utah. What is wrong with getting rid of spike hunting and incressing oppertunity for an older bull. IMHO if all you care about is just shooting something GO KILL A FRICKEN RABBIT. WHen will enough be enough. WE give all this oppertunity to youth and thats great but why not let them have spike tags to start out. WE may have some general any bull units but there really is no management for them. Its just kill every elk on it. There is a high demand for branched elk and yet the tags are not set up or given in a manner to try and best fill that demand. In stead it is with held. The spike hunts only have 17 percent fill rate. Why should the big bull tags have to be higher. 
why should someone who chooses to kill a spike get a point for a LE Tag, they go out and hunt a bull. :evil: Ive been in general elk areas in WY and find elk. I have been in General areas in CO and find elk. I have been in general areas in ID and find elk. Its not easy. But it is a heck of alot easier then finding one on a general bull area in Utah. Now they are talking about cutting tags. Many of us have put up with this crap for along time. When are they going to give back like they said they would from day one?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> East--
> 
> Good post. I guess I just have a hard time believing we don't have enough opportunity in this state.
> 
> ...


Ask anyone if they would rather hunt a branched bull or a spike? I will bet well over 90% would choose branched bull. Most people want an opportunity at shooting a decent branched bull. Most people settle for a spike tag because they couldn't draw a branched bull tag. The point that is being made is that this could be a possibility if things were managed better. I guess like many have said it comes down to what your definition of opportunity is. I won't hunt spikes during the rifle hunt, you couldn't pay me money to mess around with the zoo of hunters out there; in fact, to me it isn't even a hunt. Where I hunt it should be called "whoever can pull the trigger the fastest and claim the animal." Also how do they expect to grow the elk herd (which I agree with), still give out cow and spike tags, lower tag numbers and not expect things to back up worse, it is Al Gore fuzzy math to me.

Goofy, your situation is far different than the average Joe's situation. Hunting isn't most people's livelihood it is a hobby, so you might want to take that into consideration.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Eastwillow said:


> Count me out - with what I have heard I am in support of the EMP that will increase overall elk numbers in the state and reduce rifle rut hunts to 60% of overall unit specific tags. Still plenty of "opportunity" for anyone who wants to hunt a branch antlered bull on the general units. Pick up a bow or smokepole if you want to better your odds of drawing a LE unit! Again, I am waiting for someone to explain how increase the number of bulls in the herd will help the herd grow FASTER. And as for the, "reduced rifle hunts to 60%", claim, we issue LE tags RIGHT now at 60% to rifle, 25% to archery, and 15% to muzzy, there is only a proposed change on ONE-THIRD of the Wastach unit that would be different than the current tag allotment percentages, and I am guessing it was floated out there simply as a distraction and I doubt it will ever see the light of day.
> 
> My opinion is that you dont have to have a tag in hand to enjoy these great LE units. Get out with your kids and family and enjoy the experience. I havent had an elk tag (LE or General) for more than 5 years now, but I have spent good quality time each year on local LE units with friends that have drawn tags. Seems the experience has gotten worse each year - too many hunters on the units I have hunted. I get to enjoy time with others on their hunts as well, but that has NOTHING to do with wasting a resource, or at least not using that resource to it's full ability/potential for HUNTERS.
> 
> I will keep my mind open.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Levy said:


> Opportunity is relative to the individual. The opportunity to hunt and hold a tag becomes less and less appealing if the opportunity to harvest (success rates) decreases. They can't be seperated. I think there are certain points to consider on both sides. But I do find it presumptuous to suggest that increasing bull tags on our elk units will have an absolute positive outcome. I am not completely against increasing tags either, but to assume the majority of hunters all want the same type of "opportunity" is naive. Put yourselves in the shoes of the hunter who has 13+ points. The view is very different from the hunter, who has drawn a LE tag and is in his/her waiting period.


You're going with a all or nothing mentality, we are NOT. Those that want what you say can STILL have it, just not in 93% of the LE units.



jahan said:


> Goofy, your situation is far different than the average Joe's situation. Hunting isn't most people's livelihood it is a hobby, so you might want to take that into consideration.


And, do we really want to manage our elk based on an outfitters ease at putting bulls on the ground? :roll:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> yak4fish said:
> 
> 
> > No i have 11 NR bonus points and will be in the max point pool for the unit we hunt in 6 years but it could be as much as 8 years before I'm guarantied a tag.
> ...


I agree with your last statement.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Thanks Bart--
Now I'm sure if you have read through my myriad of post today you will know my point is that we all see things differently. What one sees as 'opportunity' (whatever that means, someone else won't). I'm sorry I just don't think you will ever 'unite' everyone to one cause when it comes to management. Sure we all like to hunt and we all want a 'realistic' opportunity to harvest a 'trophy' bull (whatever that is) but lets be truthful, unless we make 'em all over the counter tags we won't have that opportunity and then when and if that 'opportunity' happens we are likely not going to even have a resources in some areas-we would kill 'em all.


> The opportunity to hunt mature bulls will a decent chance (higher than 5-10%) of harvesting a mature bull more than once every 15-50 years.


 This opportunity already exist in my opinion.



> In 2009, 2800 tags were issued on LE units. The EPC wants to issue 2200 tags for 2010, a loss of 600 tags. In order for an investment/sacrifice to be sensible it must have a greater return than what is invested/sacrificed.


 Agreed and in 5 years by raising the total population to 80,000 we should more than that 600 loss. How long it will take will depend on how many cows we kill, what is allowed for in the FS and BLM management plans and how the private landowners will be compensated as well. To that I can't provide you an answer. Best case scenario would be 3 years worst case would be never. However it is now in the plan so in my opinion we can hold the UDWR to that and by hell we should receive a reporting each year and how we are doing getting closer to that goal. You know as well as I do that a decrease in the number of bulls being harvested will increase the total population but that is now how you will grow the population. 
To the rest, I guess I think we have opportunity. We all have opportunity to go buy a 'any bull' permit. We all have opportunity to go and hunt, we all even have a 5% chance of harvesting a 'mature' bull (again whatever that is). Honestly, we have more 'hunting' opportunities than many states. So I guess I will have to jump ship if that is what you are fighting for.
Let me know when you are ready to reduce the elk heard by about 60% than I will be there for ya! :lol:

Todd


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Blanding_Boy said:
> 
> 
> > Presently Utah does not have a way they measure quality and with this current plan, it still does not exist.
> ...


Age may help increase the odds of quality, but it certainly does NOT "assure" quality. There are units with harvest age averages exceeding 6 years old that have much lower 'quality' than units with similar/lower harvest age averages. Age is only one of many factors that together "assure" quality. Genetics, available feed, escapement opportunities, all play as big of factors as age.

I vote for sacking harvest age objectives on all but the premium units and MANAGE to bull:cow ratios, which will "assure" a certain percentage of older class bulls based on the ratio. :shock:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

> I will bet well over 90% would choose branched bull. Most people want an opportunity at shooting a decent branched bull. Most people settle for a spike tag because they couldn't draw a branched bull tag


EXACTLY



> I realize that...but we are measuring the age of harvested elk which assures quality. Instead of increasing the average ages virtually across the board, why not lower those average ages on a couple of units to levels that guarantee more tags? Say a harvest age objective of 2-3?


FANTASTIC IDEA
On top of that, the current harvest age system is completely flawed. It doesn't reflect at all what the average bull on any given unit was, it only measures what it takes for a guy to cave in and pull the trigger. All you need is a couple guys that can't pass up a 3 or 4 year old bull when it walks by opening morning and your entire "harvest age" data is completely skewed. And then the unit is "no longer meeting the age objective" so we drop the permit numbers for that unit next year.



> The spike hunts only have 17 percent fill rate. Why should the big bull tags have to be higher.


Honestly think about it. Even if these units were managed for a 30% success rate on a 2 to 3 year old bull, most of the hunters in this state would be estatic.

Right now, we're managing for a niche group of extremely lucky or extremely wealthy hunters. on at least some of these units, we need a change, the current system isn't working, and I figure as long as we're the ones funding a good portion of these programs, we deserve a say in what is going on. And by a say I mean more than being shrugged off at RAC meetings


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> These are the types of comments that bug me. You act as if everyone is made of money and can just go get a bow or go to a unit that they have never hunted before. Most people have there unit they are familiar with and want to hunt. They also have what ever weapon they hunt with. Theoretically I guess you could go get a tag for some crap unit and waste your 11 years of points somewhere you are not familiar with, with a weapon you are not as comfortable with.


YOU are still the one limiting your own opportunity...also, YOU could CHOOSE to hunt the late hunt rather than the early hunt and greatly improve your odds. The bottom line is that the opportunity is out there and YOU choose not to take advantage of it.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Pro, i am still a little confused on what the plan actually calls for. I am all about more opportunity. I could really care less if i shoot a spike or a branch bull, i just want to hunt every year. Eventually i would like to shoot a nice bull and make all of these years of applications worth it. So again, i ask you- Is this about more or less opportunity?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Blanding_Boy said:
> ...


You are splitting hairs, Pro...sure many factors come into play when "assuring" quality. BUT, the point remains that high harvest age objectives will lead to older bulls and therefore quality bulls. You are right there are units with harvest ages exceeding 6 years old that have much lower quality than units with similar/lower harvest ages...BUT, those LE units still have "quality" bulls and are still "quality" hunts...especially compared to spike hunts!


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

> I vote for sacking harvest age objectives on all but the premium units and MANAGE to bull:cow ratios, which will "assure" a certain percentage of older class bulls based on the ratio.


Now i can get on board with that just tell me what the premium units are and what bull to cow ratio ensures a certain percentage of older class bulls  :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> .
> To the rest, I guess I think we have opportunity. We all have opportunity to go buy a 'any bull' permit. We all have opportunity to go and hunt, we all even have a 5% chance of harvesting a 'mature' bull (again whatever that is). Honestly, we have more 'hunting' opportunities than many states. So I guess I will have to jump ship if that is what you are fighting for.


I agree. Sure, I would like to see an increase in LE permits, but compared to other states, I like what Utah is doing much more...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Thanks Bart--
> Now I'm sure if you have read through my myriad of post today you will know my point is that we all see things differently. I'm still trying to cipher through everything I missed earlier today. :wink: What one sees as 'opportunity' (whatever that means, someone else won't). I'm sorry I just don't think you will ever 'unite' everyone to one cause when it comes to management. That's my point, we don't need everyone managed the same, give us choices! Sure we all like to hunt and we all want a 'realistic' opportunity to harvest a 'trophy' bull (whatever that is) but lets be truthful, unless we make 'em all over the counter tags we won't have that opportunity and then when and if that 'opportunity' happens we are likely not going to even have a resources in some areas-we would kill 'em all.
> 
> 
> ...


 Agreed and in 5 years by raising the total population to 80,000 we should more than that 600 loss. With the 3.3 permits per 100 cows it's an increase by the HUGE amount of 40 tags over what was issued in 2009. That means we will get our initial invest back 15 years AFTER we hit 80,000 elk. How long it will take will depend on how many cows we kill, what is allowed for in the FS and BLM management plans and how the private landowners will be compensated as well. To that I can't provide you an answer. Best case scenario would be 3 years worst case would be never. I'm betting on never. Others are betting on soon with no assurance of it ever happening. Add in the wolf factor and the likelihood of it happening in your/my lifetime is slim.  However it is now in the plan so in my opinion we can hold the UDWR to that and by hell we should receive a reporting each year and how we are doing getting closer to that goal. You know as well as I do that a decrease in the number of bulls being harvested will increase the total population but that is now how you will grow the population. Why? More cows means more elk quicker. More bulls means more elk slower. What am I missing? To the rest, I guess I think we have opportunity. We all have opportunity to go buy a 'any bull' permit. We all have opportunity to go and hunt, we all even have a 5% chance of harvesting a 'mature' bull (again whatever that is). Honestly, we have more 'hunting' opportunities than many states. So I guess I will have to jump ship if that is what you are fighting for. Why does it have to be 5% or 70%, why can't we have something in between there? 
Let me know when you are ready to reduce the elk heard by about 60% than I will be there for ya! :lol: You need to face reality Todd, deer numbers will never be like they were pre-1985. :evil:

Todd[/quote:34tqeklt]


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> > I vote for sacking harvest age objectives on all but the premium units and MANAGE to bull:cow ratios, which will "assure" a certain percentage of older class bulls based on the ratio.
> 
> 
> Now i can get on board with that just tell me what the premium units are and what bull to cow ratio ensures a certain percentage of older class bulls  :lol:


the premium units would be the some of the LE units that are in the highest age class now: The San Juan, Pahvant, S/W Desert, along with the Book Cliffs Roadless, Beaver, and Boulder units. That is 15.2% of the elk population under the LE units. Do the 'trophy' hunters/outfitters need more than that?

As for bull:cow ratios, they could vary from 25-40:100. Problem solved. :mrgreen:


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Blanding_boy

My son has got a cow tag trough the youth drawing 2 years in a row now, and killed his first big game animal last year. The cow hunt has gotten quite challenging as the bull to cow ratios have gotten worse. What I don’t understand is why the bulls are protected behind this golden curtain of quality when the bull to cow ratios are out of wack.

Has the elk committee addressed the out of wack bull to cow ratios?

It seems the bull to cow ratios would get worse with a cut in bull tags to increase quality. Or are they going to cut cow tags too? This would reduce opportunity. Right.

Actually the plan is to save money to put my son through college. Then when he come’s up with the new energy source to power autos based off the gravitational pull from the rotation of the earth and gets rich off it. He will buy all the auction tags and put them back into the drawing to help the bonus point butt plug. He will of course gift one to myself and my brother so we could all hunt branch antlered bulls at the same time.

wyoming2utah and Blanding_boy

The reason I don't use my 11 points on a unit I don't know is just that. The only reason I put in for the unit I hunt is because it went LE ,if it was a any bull unit I would still hunt there.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Bart--


> That's my point, we don't need everyone managed the same, give us choices


!

How many do we need.
we now have however many LE units we have managed at 3 different age classes times 3 or 4 for different seasons.
general season any bull units where we DO have opportunity to harvest a mature bull
spike hunts
cow hunts
youth hunts

In my book thats quite a bit of opportunity.

As to the increase, my math was different (imagine that) Here's what i posted on MM--you should catch up there as well 

If (and granted that is a stretch based on your points and many others) the whole point of increasing the population was to provide more bulls and cows to whack. Even at a 20% harvest rate (which i know we don't do and its likely 25%) and a 25/100 bull to cow ration that is 750 total more bulls.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

And sorry i do agree that it would be nice if we could all sit down and hash this out but i don't see the outcome being any different. 

UNLESS--everyone will vote me king! :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You are splitting hairs, Pro...sure many factors come into play when "assuring" quality. BUT, the point remains that high harvest age objectives will lead to older bulls and therefore quality bulls. You are right there are units with harvest ages exceeding 6 years old that have much lower quality than units with similar/lower harvest ages...BUT, those LE units still have "quality" bulls and are still "quality" hunts...especially compared to spike hunts!


I'm not splitting hairs, you stated older bulls would "assure" quality, that is not an accurate statement. And, define quality for me in regards to bull elk? I am positive my definition is different than yours, so why try and manage to an undefinable measurement? It's like the absurd plan the WB implemented last year to end statewide archery to determine if over-crowding was occurring, when EVERY one of them couldn't define over-crowding in a measurable way.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

YEAH!

someone is starting to see my point of not fighting anymore!



> I am positive my definition is different than yours, so why try and manage to an undefinable measurement?


OK--i'm done and out of here and won't catch up until after the Expo which is unlikely. Hope to see you all there. 

Todd


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> As to the increase, my math was different (imagine that) Here's what i posted on MM--you should catch up there as well  I don't do the MM anymore, not my kind of place. I don't like cronyism.
> 
> If (and granted that is a stretch based on your points and many others) the whole point of increasing the population was to provide more bulls and cows to whack. Even at a 20% harvest rate (which i know we don't do and its likely 25%) and a 25/100 bull to cow ration that is 750 total more bulls.


We are NOT issuing LE permits based anywhere close to the numbers you are using. So, I don't see how using faulty figures can reach a correct analysis. In 2009, there were 2800 permits issued with a herd of 67,000 elk. that equates to a 4.2:100 ratio. Under the proposed number of 2200 permits that drops to a 3.3:100 ratio. Maintaining a 4.2:100 ratio at 80,000 elk would result in 3360 tags being issued, but under the 3.3:100 that number drops to 2640 tags being issued, a net loss of 720 permits every year. Also, what LE unit has a 25:100 bull:cow ratio in Utah? :? And, what LE unit has a success rate as low at 25% outside Oak Creek? :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> YEAH!
> 
> someone is starting to see my point of not fighting anymore!
> 
> ...


I doubt I will be going to the expo unless we do a 'rally' there.

If you agree that we can't manage to an undefinable measurement you should be 100% AGAINST the proposal, as that is what it tries to do.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I'm not splitting hairs, you stated older bulls would "assure" quality, that is not an accurate statement. And, define quality for me in regards to bull elk? I am positive my definition is different than yours, so why try and manage to an undefinable measurement? It's like the absurd plan the WB implemented last year to end statewide archery to determine if over-crowding was occurring, when EVERY one of them couldn't define over-crowding in a measurable way.


Pro, you are arguing for the sake of arguing...you wouldn't agree that LE units have a higher quality of animal harvested on average than general units? You wouldn't agree that LE hunts have higher quality animals harvested than spike hunts? :roll: Why is it that some people are fighting to increase harvest ages...?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen this for many years now,,,Its just how it is,,Learn to adapt or find a new hobby.
> ...


Nice! I would like to adapt to more opportunity. -O\__-


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> I don't do the MM anymore, not my kind of place.


Unfrickenbelievable... we agree on something. :shock:

After visiting MM it seems to always take a day or two for the "stupid" to wear off. :twisted:

-DallanC


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

> Nice! I would like to adapt to more opportunity.


This is why you should not get points for LE if you want a spike tag.
That is how you should have to adapt. 
If you want a branched bull you put in for LE and don't hunt spikes.
If you want opportunity every year and hunt spikes then you should not get to put in or get a point for LE.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

> proutdoors wrote:
> I don't do the MM anymore, not my kind of place.
> 
> Unfrickenbelievable... we agree on something.
> ...


+1


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro, you are arguing for the sake of arguing...you wouldn't agree that LE units have a higher quality of animal harvested on average than general units? You wouldn't agree that LE hunts have higher quality animals harvested than spike hunts? :roll: Why is it that some people are fighting to increase harvest ages...?


Are you serious? Of course LE units have higher 'quality' than spike/any-bull units as far as inches go. But, I know hunters who never apply for LE because they prefer the any-bull areas for various reasons. Quality is basically the same as value/worth, everyone has different values and puts different value on things. An example is the hunter paying $200,000 for a deer tag, to him he valued the hunt more than he valued the $200,000. Some will say he was crazy, but that is because they value $200,000 more than a hunt. Neither is wrong. Quality, in regards to hunting is the same. Some put a higher priority on inches, others on seclusion/less crowding, others on putting meat in the freezer. Each does what he/she deems to be closest to his/her definition of quality, when they are allowed to by having MORE choices.

As for your question, "Why is it that some people are fighting to increase harvest ages...?" Many different reasons, I believe mostly because they put inches above all other factors. Ironically, raising the harvest ages can/does have a reverse trend on some units. Once you get to a certain point you have excess bulls, many of them not of high enough 'quality' so that they are left to compete for feed/cows with 'quality' bulls. Excess bulls means fewer cows, which means fewer 'quality' bulls being recruited into the herd each year. Having excess bulls also leads to more mature bulls having broken points (a factor when judging 'quality'), it also causes more bulls to enter the winter in poorer health, meaning they spend more energy recovering from the battles of last fall instead of using that energy on antler growth.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

It's all a balance that should equal itself out. It's exactly the same as market determining value. If you're priced to high (Or quality isn't there) you'll lose customers, Priced too low, Killing too many elk, you're giving away the farm and business won't last.

Everyone is making this black and white. For me, a simple 5% increase on non-premium units would suffice and make sense. Instead, the *good ol' boys* said their piece and counted to ten.


----------



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

Who in their right mind would want to see less tags/opportunity to hunt just so they might get to harvest in the future a 7x7 or bigger bull elk!!! If a hunter desires to hunt with a specific weapon and wait several years to hunt a certain unit, that is their choice, but again why make them wait even longer. Stop spike hunting on LE units during archery season, make these hunts a draw and hold them in November/ December with the hunter choosing their weapon. I personnally have spoken to several resident elk hunters who have waited over 14 plus years for a tag, which for the older hunters is way too long. If all of you got together, I'm sure that you could come up with a better proposal to benefit both the elk herds and the hunter.


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> Me personally, I'd like to see half (and I know that to many of you this is total blashpemy) and I literally mean half of the limited entry units in this state managed for a much younger age class of bull with a lot more tags given out. I'd like to see half of these units be the type you could draw out on every 5 to 7 years and have a good chance at a branch antlered bull. I'm not talking some 350+ bull, I'm talking decent little bull, instead of once in your life if your really super lucky.


+1 I just bought a tag in Wyoming and would be elated to take a 3 year old bull.

*We don't have to increase the number of elk to create more opportunity.*

I would add following on those units:

*Increase tags for all weapons.*

*1) Move Archery to the first half of September*
-More archers in an area will lower the success rates but still provide opportunity while maintaining quality.

*2) Move Muzzloader to the last Half*
-More hunters in an area will lower the success rates but still provide opportunity while maintaining quality.

*3) And move the rifle Hunt to the middle two weeks of October*
-Because rifle hunters are not hunting in the middle of the rut success rates will be lower. Thereby justifying a marginal increase in the number of rifle tags given but you still end up with the same number of bulls being killed.

More people could be moved through the system and they may be able to hunts bulls IN UTAH more than once in there life! Yes people can hunt the any bull units but the chances of killing a branch antlered bull are like drawing a LE tag.

Lowering the success rates for each of the respective weapons will ensure some quality and allow for more tags to be given out.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Just on a side note, if this is really how we're going to play the big game issues in Utah, why is it that a guy who draws on limited entry elk waits 5 years and then right back into the pool, but a moose tag holder is done for life? I mean the percentage of people who draw isn't that much more. A moose tag is a 1.1% chance of drawing vs only a 6% chance on elk, and significantly less on the truly premium units. They both have truly become a once in a lifetime tag in the end haven't they?

Geez groups like PETA have got to love our drawing system vs. the old over the counter tag systems. Seems like we've done a whole lot better job in the end of limiting the number of animals killed by hunters than they ever could have...


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> A moose tag is a 1.1% chance of drawing vs only a 6% chance on elk, and significantly less on the truly premium units. They both have truly become a once in a lifetime tag in the end haven't they


Along that line of thinking we are only hunting 3-4% of the total population. That's the percentage of tags that we using to manage OIL Mountain Goat tags. It makes sense for goats because they can't handle hunting pressure like elk can.....but for Elk that have 40% Calf recruitment it makes no sense.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Call me nuts, but I think that its proposterous that we're managing our elk herds this way. Most of the LE units could handle a lot more pressure and still exceed most hunters expectations of what they would consider a quality bull.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> Call me nuts, but I think that its proposterous that we're managing our elk herds this way. Most of the LE units could handle a lot more pressure and still exceed most hunters expectations of what they would consider a quality bull.


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mountain Time said:


> *Increase tags for all weapons.*
> 
> *1) Move Archery to the first half of September*
> -More archers in an area will lower the success rates but still provide opportunity while maintaining quality.
> ...


I think 15 days for muzzy is a bit long, but I like the gist of this.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, What's your buddy The Don and SFWs stance on this topic?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Pro, What's your buddy The Don and SFWs stance on this topic?


They wrote the **** thing? :evil:


----------



## MEEN (Jan 27, 2009)

Everyone realizes that BB won this battle right? His goal was to distract everyone and get everyone off the actual topic which is figuring out how to fight this thing. This is the biggest hijacking I have ever seen. So back to the question at hand. Who will stand and fight? How are we going to fight?

Facebook groups? Putting fliers on windshields at the expo? Having a blog setup so people can get more info?

C'mon people. Let's do something instead of arguing with 1-2 people that are trying to distract us. We have the majority on our side.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

i've got access to a super-fast printer. What does it say? Do we have all of the info pertinent to the subject? Are we armed with answers to anticipated questions?

I can guarantee the first line of defense from the good ol' boys will be to throw us in a corner and say that we want to turn Utah into Colorado. We need to be ultra clear in our message that it's not extreme change that we are after, just a reasonable increase and for policy to be dictated by and reflect public desire.

Lastly, represent with intelligence, the good ol' boys are steeped in the art of distraction and the silver tongue dance, so shed a good light on this and stick to whatever is decided. Emotion could be the death of this thing, so be firm and don't be drug into a conversation steered by the opposition, they've already practiced their defenses.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

You also need to pick a day when you plan to rally the troops, this needs to be done ASAP. Bart should know this from the recent tea paties, but having a rally once is ok. But to gain momentum and gain the numbers needed to have some type of power, this rally needs to happen on more then one occasion. 

Starting at the expo with some type of fliers is one way, picketing and holding signs in another. This expo coming up is going to get some media coverage, that is the first place where I would start this fight. Also keep in mind that there is going to be a special election in November. The future governor might be worried some if the sportsmans decide to vote one way or the other.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> What exactly is your stance on the elk issue Pro? If you are about increasing opportunity for the little guy(those of us who can't afford to spend $15,000 on a tag), i would love to be involved. If you are in it for decreasing tags and limiting hunters who get them, i don't want anything to do with it. I am planning on burning my points this year on a lesser unit just to have the experience of a decent(maybe 330) bull. I don't like the odds of drawing a tag in the future the way things are going. My 6 year old son will probably never get an opportunity to shoot a trophy bull elk in this state or any other animal for that matter. So which is it?


I agree and will support lunkerhunter2's position...


----------



## bigthree (Nov 28, 2009)

I will fight I have question can you find out how many people are with elk points from 0 to six just curious ? can I find those #s


----------



## MEEN (Jan 27, 2009)

bigthree said:


> I will fight I have question can you find out how many people are with elk points from 0 to six just curious ? can I find those #s


This help? http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/09_stats/01.pdf


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

So which day of the Expo sponsored by SFW are we going to picket and where do we need to meet to get our signs and flyers? I'll be there.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

for real...tell me where to be!


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Pro
I really like the words of wisdom in the quote at the bottom of your posts yesterday. :shock:


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Meen's right lets get this back on track and figure out some good ways to fight this. I saw a offer of paper and ink for fliers at the show. What should be on the fliers? I think we should keep it simple with some stats on how long it will take someone with low or no bonus points to draw a tag on a couple of popular units. Then show how the elk committee wants to cut tags and make it worse. Then a link to were they could find more info. Keep SFW off the fliers to not upset staunch SFW supporters that could be swayed our direction. I'm not a big fan of fliers on windows I like a personable person(girl)that knows the topic right at the enterance better.
Anyone one good with facebook with time to set something up on there?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

that girl BS is overplayed...only works on old dudes that can't remember when their wives' boobs didn't look like tube socks...it's transparent as hell too...
Maybe get that Rebecca Francis lady to help us...she's a cougar and younger guys flock to a hot cougar like a bum on a ham sandwich!


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

yak4fish said:


> I think we should keep it simple with some stats on how long it will take someone with low or no bonus points to draw a tag on a couple of popular units.


This would be a good attention grabber and something that the vast majority would agree is a real problem. Obviously cutting tag numbers only makes the problem worse--which is how we shoot a hole in the current proposal.

The question is where do you go from there? As has been said before to just say we don't like it only gets us so far. *What's the solution? That's what we need to present to people.* I suggested what I think is a solution, outside of the muzzloader being to long pro seemed to agree. The biggest problem with just giving out more tags--especially to rifle hunters--is that it just means more bulls are killed. Not that the population can't handle it, but if we lower success rates and give out more tags that allows for more opportunity and sustainable quality.

Tree, yak, tou, pro, stable, anyone .....what do you propose as the solution and why?


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I think that if you can get a good hard number on how many new hunters enter the drawing process each year, maybe just use the number of people who applied with zero bonus points from the last few years? And if you can pull any kind of statistic on how long it will take a kid new to the drawings to draw a tag? A lot of us have kids and for that group I think that's the hot button.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I believe that the high points should be:

1) proposal of cutting bull elk tags by 22%

2) a breakdown of bonus points required to draw a tag by a 40 y/o, 30 y/o, 20 y/o under the current system

3/ a breakdown of bonus points required to draw a tag by a 40 y/o, 30 y/o, 20 y/o under the proposed system

4) a quick breakdown of I400

5) give them the information to show up to the next RAC meeting or contact one of us for more information on how to help make mature bull elk hunting more accessible to the average hunter


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wow this thread really exploded which is a good thing. Also lots of good ideas.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Putting ideas and recommendations on a flier is not going to be a good idea. The people that you give those fliers to, will think that those idea's are yours and yours only! Remember everyone has their own idea on how things should be ran.

If you want to get people involved then you need to point out things that people don't like. For example, the new 5 day deer hunt, the loss in elk tag numbers, throw in the odds of what it will take to draw a tag. Throw in things like that and people will get more involved then if you start making recommendations right off the bat. 

Remember your wanting to make some noise! Making noise is the thing that is going to open those doors for creating a change.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

You're right, its a fine line to walk with such a flier. Remember the whole root of the problem: SFW and her bed partners are getting a huge amount of conservation tags given to them, and those tags have enormous value. Anything they can do to increase the value of those tags is what they'll push for. It's a crappy situation, but utfireman is right about making noise. SFW is supposed to be representing SPORTSMEN, not aristocrats. Drawing attention to their misuse of these tags may or may not be a good idea at the expo, but focusing on the reduction of tags and decreased drawing odds will get a lot of people riled up. Another point that gets folks chapped off is bypassing the democratic political process. Getting laws passed behind our backs is enough to chafe the willy of any outdoorsman.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I wouldn't pick a fight about the conservation tags at the expo.

I would simply use it for the media coverage. I would go there and say that the rac/wb system is broke. There is plenty of examples that can be used to fight that battle.


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Putting ideas and recommendations on a flier is not going to be a good idea. The people that you give those fliers to, will think that those idea's are yours and yours only! Remember everyone has their own idea on how things should be ran.
> 
> If you want to get people involved then you need to point out things that people don't like. For example, the new 5 day deer hunt, the loss in elk tag numbers, throw in the odds of what it will take to draw a tag. Throw in things like that and people will get more involved then if you start making recommendations right off the bat.


Some good points Ray and I agree that a flyer is not the best medium for presenting a proposed solution (earlier I suggested a website that could be passed out on the flier, it could be used to present info, gather email adresses, surveys, announce planned rallies or meetings etc...). Getting peoples attention with the facts is a great starting point. However, I think that we do need to have our ducks in a row. If someone handed you a flyer and pointed 
out all the things wrong with the current proposal/system what would be your first question? Mine would be, yes there is a problem but what are you going do about it?

If we don't want to get into the specifics of I400 or whatever we are calling it....A short answer could be:

"We are going to represent the Majoriy of sportsman with a new Elk proposal and we want everyones input. Log on to SaveHuntingInUtah.com and register to give us your input, keep informed and be an advocate for positive change."


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

But we are not "representing the majority of sportsmen". We speculate that we are, but until data is gathered, claims shouldn't be made.

I think awareness is the biggest catalyst that we have. Cody mentioned that sportsmen (people) don't like the democratic process bypassed, well **** it, it has. Time and time again PR's such as this are released, telling have truthes and ommitting all that might be unflattering or contradictory to what the good ol' boys want to achieve, which in the end is for the public to shut up and take their medecine. To me, this is what deserves exposure.

I'm going to have a few conversations before I commit to anything, just so I have more facts.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I agree 100% with that approach!!! Do people want to get together and crank out a flyer maybe tomorrow sometime? Then it could be all printed up by next Wednesday by Tree for distribution next Thursday-Sunday!
One of you have gotta be a computer geek that can handle a quick information/polling website for responses to flyer!

I think it would be better to advertise our ideas as a more generic "alternative solution" to the mess in place today and what's on the table.


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> But we are not "representing the majority of sportsmen". We speculate that we are, but until data is gathered, claims shouldn't be made.


Perhaps I should have said our *goal* is to represent the Majority. Getting the results of the DWR's survey would be a great starting point for knowing what people really want. Anyone know where we can get hold of it?


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

A website is a good idea to gather information. But you need to find a way to draw people to that website.

That is were the expo, ksl, message boards, tv shows, and radio shows will come in handy. Strength is in numbers and getting this started now is going to be the only way to win. March is just around the corner.

Stable, I wouldn't put idea's on a flier. I would use the flier to drive people to a website where they can vote on idea's and address their concerns. Myself and many others would tell you to pound sand if you handed me a flier with your idea's on it. 

Once you have a group of people united, then hash out the topics and idea's. The expo is going to have alot of non-residents there that for the most part don't care about what the rac/wb do. But there is alot of media, and I would use that to your advantage. 

I would get a facebook page going as well as a website where people can take their own poll on what they would like to see in Utah.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

good points! Umm...so I can help with the expo flyer and I've got a crap load of friends on facebook. Once we got enough people on board with a more collective decision I would be happy to do legwork to present ideas to a state congressman, etc...


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

It’s nice to see all the sportsman uniting together. We have been getting hosed by the wildlife board for way to long! 

Its time the wildlife board starts catering to the average hunter instead of all the special interest groups.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

yeah...and let's march on the state capitol sometime too...and hell, why not Washington too! :roll: 
You guys kill me.... :OX/:


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

Please see my comments here:

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23723


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

archerben said:


> Please see my comments here:
> 
> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23723


I thought you weren't gonna entertain any discussion


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I think that one of the things that PRO said is what keeps coming back to me. I think our flyer should very clearly state that we're not looking to completely unravel the system or the conservation work done so far. 

But I think it should ask very clearly for a CHOICE to hunt a handful of the units more frequently instead of the all or nothing system we currently have. Make it clear that we're not out to destroy the potential to harvest a trophy if that's what you want to wait for, but we want another choice availble to the hunter that doesn't want to wait 20 + years


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

> Make it clear that we're not out to destroy the potential to harvest a trophy if that's what you want to wait for, but we want another choice availble to the hunter that doesn't want to wait 20 + years


+1


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

Bart (Pro) is in meetings all day today and asked me to see if Gerald would let us hold a meeting at the Utah Archery Center tomorrow. Gerald was completely open to the idea and said he would let us hold a meeting after the doors close at 6:00 pm.

So, roll call, if a meeting were held tomorrow night at 6:00pm at the Utah Archery Center who would SHOW UP?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I'll be there...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Can't make it.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

I will be there in spirtit. If you do hold the meeting I would really like to know how it goes. I really wish I could make it but I will be down at fish lake.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

My vote would be a weekday evening next week, after a few discussions have been had. It's important to figure out who our constituents are before this happens. I know there are a few Con orgs that are divided on the issue. 

Maybe we can take a few folks to dinner ourselves.......


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I can absolutely make it. Remind me, thats the archery place over in Sugarhouse? 

At the same time know, that if you need to make it another time to accomdate more of us, this is an important enough issue that I'll make time for whenever this meeting is to occur. I might have a couple future hunters in tow, but hey, thats what this is about to me.


----------



## GSLHonker (Sep 8, 2007)

I will attend the meeting if it is still on.


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

If we held it Tuesday or Wednesday of Next week would that work for people? The Archery shop closes at 8:00 pm. I would think Tuesday might work better if something needs to be put together for the expo?

The Utah Archery Center address is:
60 East Gordon(4070 s) Avenue, Murray, UT?, Just look for the Big Napa Sign on state street.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I will support Bart on what ever he says. I however will not be able to make the meeting this week or the next week. I am in California.


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

I'm in Roosevelt but I support this cause


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I will support Bart on what ever he says.


Are you crazy? Don't give me that kind of POWER! :twisted:


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

What about banners or pickett signs outside the Expo... I realize many of us are planning to attend to have an albino muley chance of drawing one of the 200 conservation tags we paid for SFW to get publicity off of, but we need to have some voice there at the entrances informing of what's going on...


----------



## mr.seven (Sep 18, 2007)

my diffinition of quality, age the meat not the animal


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

When and where is this meeting??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

silentstalker said:


> When and where is this meeting??


Utah Archery Center
Tuesday February 9th 7:00 P.M.
60 East Gordon Avenue Murray, UT


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I have an archery shop to run, but will do my best to get there... today -)O(-


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I didn't make it to the meeting... so what was the discussion? or is that in another thread on here that I missed? I am ready to start the "Utah Sportsmen's Coalition" after learning that there is a "CWMU Owner's Association".

Question, how much of our general sportsmen's money is used from tag sales and these conservation tag funds to support, manage and post these privately run hunting lands that harvest publicly funded wildlife?


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

So, what is this all about?


----------



## Cold Track (Sep 11, 2007)

Something in this state needs to change. The elk hunting here is a joke! Sure there are giant bulls being taken here, but seriously to say that you get to bull elk hunt in this state isn't a reality. You can hunt for spikes, which to me is no different than shooting a cow, or you can play your odds on the very small chance you might kill a branch antlered bull on one of the few open units. IMO there needs to be a handful premium units, and a bunch of small units that take five years or less to draw a tag. I would like for my kids, and even myself to have a chance to hunt for mature bulls with a realistic chance of taking one besides the once in a lifetime chance that we have now. With the points system and the way things are now my kids will draw one big bull tag in their life and it will be when they are granparents. I'll say it again what a joke!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Someone care to get BlandingBoy into this thread now that Cold Track just posted most of my feelings? BB is part of BOU, MDF, CWMU Assn, is a guide, biologist, and proponent/opponent of SFW and their rather large gorilla... 

I am just curious to know, if you have a 900 lb gorilla living in your kitchen (one of Elk22's favorite topics), what are you going to find when you go looking for food? I only can think of one response - he'll have left you with little but scraps (EMP 2010, DMP 2011) and a pile of poop as a thank you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I've talked at length with Todd, he is NOT in favor of the proposal from the elk committee.

You're right about the gorilla, sadly.


----------



## tryme (Feb 20, 2010)

Your a piece of work pro. Ignorance is bliss, and few are blissider than your fans around here.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

tryme said:


> Your a piece of work pro. Ignorance is bliss, and few are *blissider *than your fans around here.


 -_O-


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: The word of the day is a new made up word....*blissider*

You can use it in a sentence......You're such a *blissider.* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## tryme (Feb 20, 2010)

Glad you liked it, I can wax poetic when I want too.

I didn't read through this whole thread, did you solicit for donations yet pro?


----------



## ripndrag (Mar 16, 2009)

tryme said:


> Glad you liked it, I can wax poetic when I want too.
> 
> I didn't read through this whole thread, did you solicit for donations yet pro?


he wont need to try very hard for donations alot of us have had it with SFW and will donate plenty of cash to get our public tags back into our public drawing.


----------



## Packbasket (Oct 29, 2009)

coyoteslayer said:


> :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: The word of the day is a new made up word....*blissider*
> 
> You can use it in a sentence......You're such a *blissider.* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


it's an adverb you mook.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: The word of the day is a new made up word....*blissider*
> 
> You can use it in a sentence......You're such a *blissider.* :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Can we say that here?


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

tryme said:


> Your a piece of work pro. Ignorance is bliss, and few are blissider than your fans around here.


Welcome to the forum Tryme. There are many opinionated people on this forum, and that's good. Most, however, didn't use their first post to attack another forum member. By all means, share you points of views. However, beginning with a post that simply calls somebody ignorant isn't starting out on the right foot.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

His post is a self fulfilling profecy (Ignorance is Bliss). If he knew exactly what Bart, Gary, Elk22 and some of us really discuss here and are willing to fight and put our money up for, (without having anyone ask for a donation mind you) he wouldn't make that kind of statement.

The fact that he knows not what he says makes him ignorant and the fact that he feels good about having wtitten it gives him the bliss!

I wonder if he is a member of SWF or the WLB coming in here to stir it up? -O|o-


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

tryme said:


> Your a piece of work pro. Ignorance is bliss, and few are blissider than your fans around here.


Pro has earned his respect on this forum. that's one thing money cant buy.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Yeah Besides, around here you _earn_ the right to whack pro in the knees, tastefully of course. :mrgreen:


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Petersen said:


> tryme said:
> 
> 
> > Your a piece of work pro. Ignorance is bliss, and few are blissider than your fans around here.
> ...


And you better be able to back it up. Because he is not short on knowledge. Pro that is.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Yeah Besides, around here you _earn_ the right to whack pro in the knees, tastefully of course. :mrgreen:


And your shot to the back of my good knee was uncalled for and unearned. :evil: :shock: :wink:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Your limp seemed off kilter. I did it out of love.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

:V|:


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

Just hit him in the head again...I'm sure it'll work "this" time... -O\__-


----------

