# Front Page News



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, the Trumpeter killers made the front page of the Trib this morning. Way to go!!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Dangit, I'm dying to read this. They don't sell the Trib in Evingston anymore, I can get a month subscription to the Trib for $1 but get hit for $7.99 a month every month until eternity. There's the "Cancel anytime" clause of course...if I could remember to cancel...yeah, ha ha.

I can't read the Trib's 2021 Trumpeter article also.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Dangit, I'm dying to read this. They don't sell the Trib in Evingston antmore, I can get a month subscription to the Trib for $1 but get hit for $7.99 a month every month until eternity. There's the "Cancel anytime" clause of course...if I could remember to cancel...yeah, ha ha.
> 
> I can't read the Trib's 2021 Trumpeter article also.


We thinks it's important to support local journalism. You won't read stuff like the swan story anywhere else. Think of it as costing less than half a box of shells/month.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Ya need to run down to the Maverick and buy a paper. Do they still sell papers at the Maverick and 7-11 stores?

I hate it when you have to subscribe to read a article


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Subscriptions make local journalism possible. You guys also missed a large article on the water we use to grow alfalfa. Alfalfa makes up 0.2% of our GDP, but uses 68% of our water, 450,000 gallons per ton.









One crop uses more than half of Utah’s water. Here’s why.


Alfalfa and other types of hay are by far Utah’s most valuable agricultural crop, worth nearly half a billion dollars last year. But that represents just 0.2% of the state’s gross domestic product — on par with revenue generated by amusement parks.




www.sltrib.com


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Probably Government subsidies on that alfalfa also. 

Post up a link on the swans.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

The knuckleheads give all hunters a bad name:









As the West’s trumpeter swans recover, more wind up shot in Utah


Despite several measures aimed at discouraging the killing of trumpeters during Utah’s 73-day swan season, the swan harvest notched its 20th trumpeter on Nov. 17.




www.sltrib.com


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

wyogoob said:


> Dangit, I'm dying to read this. They don't sell the Trib in Evingston antmore, I can get a month subscription to the Trib for $1 but get hit for $7.99 a month every month until eternity. There's the "Cancel anytime" clause of course...if I could remember to cancel...yeah, ha ha.
> 
> I can't read the Trib's 2021 Trumpeter article also.


Tell me about it, I just called one newspaper this morning as I got dinged $170 for a year. I don't even remember signing up for the promotion last year. Luckily most are forgiving and offer a refund if you are nice & honest.

I gotta stop falling for those things as they count on you forgetting & not reconciling your accounts.

Wish I could justify a subscription but I never use any newspaper for more than an article or two a month.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

paddler said:


> We thinks it's important to support local journalism. You won't read stuff like the swan story anywhere else. Think of it as costing less than half a box of shells/month.


The swan article in the Trib is important to me, Although, living in Evanston the content of the Salt Lake Tribune is not "local" for me. I wish they still sold the Trib here in town. I would walk by the Trib vending stand often, see something on the front page that caught my interest and then would buy it.

I support the local newspaper here, as-a-matter-of-fact the publisher of the local paper is my duck hunting buddy and we enjoyed the Utah swan hunt together this year.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

paddler said:


> Subscriptions make local journalism possible. You guys also missed a large article on the water we use to grow alfalfa. Alfalfa makes up 0.2% of our GDP, but uses 68% of our water, 450,000 gallons per ton.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. You have to have a subscription to read the article so not all of us can read it..


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Thanks for the link. You have to have a subscription to read the article so not all of us can read it..


I wondered about that. It comes up for me no problem. We've subscribed for 40 years, and will continue our support. But we make our own coffee, so we're way ahead money wise.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Do they still have the Big Nickle ads?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Haven't seen the Big Nickel in years. 
Had forgotten all about it.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

paddler said:


> I wondered about that. It comes up for me no problem. We've subscribed for 40 years, and will continue our support. But we make our own coffee, so we're way ahead money wise.


Yeah, I make my own coffee too, ha ha. 

I have subscribed to my *local* paper for 42 years and will continue to support them.


----------



## DREW_22 (Dec 23, 2020)

THIS HAS BEEN YOUR MUPPET NEWS FLASH


----------



## DREW_22 (Dec 23, 2020)

I've got the article screenshots for anyone interested..? 
Not a sub, maybe duckduckgo knows their formula?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

DREW_22 said:


> THIS HAS BEEN YOUR MUPPET NEWS FLASH
> View attachment 154694


Thank you for highlighting the most important part of the article, for those who conveniently overlook or refuse to acknowledge the key points in a topic.

.................................................

........................................


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

The article was balanced, if one read to the end. But I think the takeaway for non-hunters is a negative impression of all hunters. 

Regardless of the population studies and the apparent increase in numbers of swans, knuckleheads shot at least 20 Trumpeters, either by mistake or intentionally, thereby reducing opportunity for other tag holders. Selfish hunters think that's fine, many disagree. The "I got mine, screw you" mentality amazes me.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

paddler said:


> The article was balanced, if one read to the end. But I think the takeaway for non-hunters is a negative impression of all hunters.
> 
> Regardless of the population studies and the apparent increase in numbers of swans, knuckleheads shot at least 20 Trumpeters, either by mistake or intentionally, thereby reducing opportunity for other tag holders. Selfish hunters think that's fine, many disagree. The "I got mine, screw you" mentality amazes me.


No I think it’s more along the lines of “we all knew the rules when we applied to play the game and we all had equal opportunity to go hunt swans during the length of season that it was open for”.


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

paddler said:


> The article was balanced, if one read to the end. But I think the takeaway for non-hunters is a negative impression of all hunters.
> 
> Regardless of the population studies and the apparent increase in numbers of swans, knuckleheads shot at least 20 Trumpeters, either by mistake or intentionally, thereby reducing opportunity for other tag holders. Selfish hunters think that's fine, many disagree. The "I got mine, screw you" mentality amazes me.


If the topic sparks a conversation like we had on this forum amongst hunters, how can it not be viewed negatively by non/anti hunters.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Hopefully with the changes being discussed it will be a moot point next year.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

DREW_22 said:


> I've got the article screenshots for anyone interested..?
> Not a sub, maybe duckduckgo knows their formula?


Thanks, I'm interested.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> No I think it’s more along the lines of “we all knew the rules when we applied to play the game and we all had equal opportunity to go hunt swans during the length of season that it was open for”.


It's not a game. The intentions aren't for it to be a Trumpeter hunt.
Utah waterfowlers are way too stupid to have the privilege of a swan hunt.
It's way too bad there's not enough law enforcement to clean the marsh up.......not just in regards to swan issues, but in regards to all waterfowl. With infractions being federal, it would take in some good revenue I'm sure


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Not much officers can clean up with swans unless they decide to ban trumpeters, and I think they'd run into some friction with that. However we can make it very painful for such selfish behavior without creating too much pain for those who accidentally harvest non-target species.

SL Tribune has been one of the first to publish such stories each of the last few years. And they are more "balanced" as they present the broader range of complexity of the subject, ie possible/likely rebound of species. But others are going to publish less favorable material over the coming months. And savvy activists will easily use these 20+ hunter's behavior to paint the community into a corner. It would be smart and effective strategy for their aims. So don't forget the few celebrating this own goal.

Fingers crossed the management response is measured and the long term studies eventually present favorable findings for the species and therefore hunters. With enough patience we could be out of this mess soon enough.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

With the pics on Facebook, and the idiots talking about it, there were likely a bunch of swans that weren't checked.
People's attitudes and lack of respect.....even in jest is nauseating.
Folks traveling somewhere in the grey I could easily see being influenced by this deplorable behavior and garbage talk.
It's past time for some consequences.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

“Local journalism.” The Trib? Ha! That’s a very loose use of the term “journalism.” 

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

1BandMan said:


> With the pics on Facebook, and the idiots talking about it, there were likely a bunch of swans that weren't checked.
> People's attitudes and lack of respect.....even in jest is nauseating.
> Folks traveling somewhere in the grey I could easily see being influenced by this deplorable behavior and garbage talk.
> It's past time for some consequences.


The thought that occurred to me just now is that those that are anti are most often always going to be anti - whether it’s trumpeters or tundras. Those that don’t have an opinion or don’t care about the subject aren’t going to be searching Facebook posts to become outraged on a subject they don’t care about. You, as a hunter, may have strong opinions on the matter, and therefore go pell mell searching for posts to justify your feeling, but Joe Schmo? He could care less.

What this really comes down to is outrage among hunters who feel cheated by getting a tag and then not being able to use it the entirety of the season due to the quota being met early. Think about this - would the Trumpeter “outrage” out there be as pronounced if the quota were met the day before the season closed? Would there be all this doom and gloom about swan hunting prospects if that were the case? IMO, I really don’t think so.

And remember, it isn’t illegal to shoot a trumpeter with a swan tag. Only discouraged. The haters are always going to hate, but in this case, they’re hating on an action that is completely legal…which they do on a myriad of levels anyway. For example, wolf hunting has been legalized in some areas - has that stopped the haters even though it’s completely legal? Nope…. Want a less publicized example? Stopping dove hunts in the Midwest.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m glad I don’t hate hunting as much as some of the “hunters” on this forum!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

DREW_22 said:


> I've got the article screenshots for anyone interested..?
> Not a sub, maybe duckduckgo knows their formula?


I can't thank you enough for sending me the article....interesting, and I agree with Paddler, "balanced".

I've been hunting Utah swans for a long time, before a lot of you were born. Also been an avid birdwatcher all my life and hang with a number of non-hunting swan lovers. Two things we avoid talking about are politics and bird hunting. ha

If you're a birdwatcher and want to get into some trumpeters you Goggle "Trumpeter Swan" of course. Geeze, you're gonna get some Trumpeter Swan hunting hero shots and Trumpeter Swan hunting videos. To waterfowlers it's all cool. To the birdwatchers it's disgusting...adds fuel to their "fire" 
And then there's those that are Photoshopping away the yellow lore on Tundra bills to make their kill look like a Trumpeter. That's just dumb, again adding fuel to the "fire".

Anyway, I can remember back in the 90s when the bird lovers would harass the swan hunters out in the WMAs, especially on the loop at the BRBR. Just don't see that anymore. Most of them now realize that the WMA they were on was established with Duck Stamp money, bird hunter's money if I may.

I was a member of a big SLC birdwatching club and a swan hunter at the same time. A number of my birdwatching buddies, the same people that were protesting the swan hunt, have settled down, "got educated". Many even purchase duck stamps annually. I think that says a lot of positive things about Utah waterfowlers, the refuges, the US Fish n Wildlife and the Utah DWR. I hope this Trumpeter thing doesn't ruin it.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> The thought that occurred to me just now is that those that are anti are most often always going to be anti - whether it’s trumpeters or tundras. Those that don’t have an opinion or don’t care about the subject aren’t going to be searching Facebook posts to become outraged on a subject they don’t care about. You, as a hunter, may have strong opinions on the matter, and therefore go pell mell searching for posts to justify your feeling, but Joe Schmo? He could care less.
> 
> What this really comes down to is outrage among hunters who feel cheated by getting a tag and then not being able to use it the entirety of the season due to the quota being met early. Think about this - would the Trumpeter “outrage” out there be as pronounced if the quota were met the day before the season closed? Would there be all this doom and gloom about swan hunting prospects if that were the case? IMO, I really don’t think so.
> 
> And remember, it isn’t illegal to shoot a trumpeter with a swan tag. Only discouraged. The haters are always going to hate, but in this case, they’re hating on an action that is completely legal…which they do on a myriad of levels anyway. For example, wolf hunting has been legalized in some areas - has that stopped the haters even though it’s completely legal? Nope…. Want a less publicized example? Stopping dove hunts in the Midwest.


I wasn't searching sh!t on Facebook. I decided to join those groups.
There's an unbelievable amount of trash on both groups with a little more on the uncut group.

I was a bit of a [email protected] dick and pushed a bit of the edge as a young adult hunter.
There's unfortunately a bunch of older guys on there and on here that can't blame their idiodicy on there youth.

Anti vs. jackass slob hunter?
I'm a through and through ANTI I guess if you would like to make that black and white comparison.
Again you are your own worst enemy if your a gamehog slob hunter and claim to be a sportsman.


----------



## RiverOfDucks (3 mo ago)

Seems to me the issue is separating the Trumpeter from the Tundra. While Trumpeters are discouraged, it isn’t illegal. This is clearly the issue.
Some fixes I can see that can help relieve some problems could be;
1. Designate the TAG: TUNDRA TAG/TRUMPETER TAG. 
2. If the Trumpeter population is a REAL concern, should be only Tundra swans allowed.
3. If Trumpeters have recovered to a what they deem to be a healthy population, remove quota and utilize separate tag name system for both species of swans.
4. Keep quota for Trumpeters through its own tag if population is concern. This quota will not effect Tundra swan hunters. 
5. If you shoot what you don’t have a tag for, bird gets confiscated, possible fine, etc. plenty of ways to handle this.
6. Clamp down on the Bird Check-in.
7. WMAs/NWRs have designated days to allow swan hunting throughout the season on their areas
Example: Tues/Wed/Sat-Sun of each week of the season.
Not needed IMO but it’s an idea.

Just a few ideas that may or may not work. This is just from very minor research on the topic. If I dived in more I’d probably have a more nuanced sheet. I have some hunting and fishing reg development insight from working with my Tribe on updating their regulations.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Super simple solution.
$10,000 fine and 3 years in jail for shooting trumpeters, *IF* it is deemed by biologists other than Vanilla that Trumpeter swans do not have numbers great enough to differentiate them from the Tundra swan hunt.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

1BandMan said:


> Super simple solution.
> $10,000 fine and 3 years in jail for shooting trumpeters, *IF* it is deemed by biologists other than Vanilla that Trumpeter swans do not have numbers great enough to differentiate them from the Tundra swan hunt.


I find this kinda unrealistic given the ineptitude of our current justice system.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> I find this kinda unrealistic given the ineptitude of our current justice system.


Fair enough. 3 years in Federal Prison.
12-16 year olds who break the law their parent or other adult with them go to prison. 16 and 17 year olds go to juvi jail for a year.
Better?


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

1BandMan said:


> Fair enough. 3 years in Federal Prison.
> 12-16 year olds who break the law their parent or other adult with them go to prison. 16 and 17 year olds go to juvi jail for a year.
> Better?


My own bad. Under the Federal Migratory Bird Act, the fine should be $5000 and a year in prison for the first offense.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

1BandMan said:


> Super simple solution.
> $10,000 fine and 3 years in jail for shooting trumpeters, *IF* it is deemed by biologists other than Vanilla that Trumpeter swans do not have numbers great enough to differentiate them from the Tundra swan hunt.


I was going to let you all have this one as the other thread showed me enough to realize some in the debate aren’t qualified to have an opinion on the matter, but if you want to call me out, I’m happy to educate you.

Here is the deal, the biologists other than me have already determined that! I didn’t make up the quota. I didn’t decide any of these regulations. Those people you’re asking to do so already have done it! It’s why there is any incidental trumpeter take allowed at all. It’s why the quota started out as 5 in Nevada and 10 in Utah, because the wildlife managers, biologists, and feds all decided many years ago that those different numbers in each state would be numbers that would not negatively impact the trump populations. And then after reviewing the data further, they later doubled the quota in Nevada to 10 and in Utah to 20. Why? Because the biologists other than Vanilla said it would be fine to do so. News flash: None of that was done by me!

All these debates about whether there are enough birds to sustain any trumpeter harvest at all have already taken place. The biologists, feds, activists, and everyone else have already weighed in and the decisions were made. We would not be having the 20 bird quota if the feds and biologists hadn’t already determined these things.

If you’d pull your head out of your rear end for 3.5 seconds you might be able to see that there is another side to this discussion besides your horribly uneducated yet very brash and strong opinion on this topic. I would wager an extremely large amount of money you won’t pull your head out for even 1 second, but I feel it my duty to at least extend the invitation.

Now just in general: I keep seeing proposals about changes to the swan hunt, I’ve got two questions-

1) What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?
2) Why are we trying to solve it?


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

"1) What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?
2) Why are we trying to solve it?"

Are you fugging kidding me with these questions?
Who's head needs to come out of who's arse?

It's ok by you to have the hunt quickly end by Trumpeter hunters? I seriously doubt that's the goal of the Utah hunt by those biologists.
The other issue I have is there's a major problem with entitled Utah hunters attitudes, values and ethics towards waterfowl and hunting. Many equate to law violations all of which are federal and equate to significant fines and also prison time if enforced correctly.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

If they start fining for shooting trumpeters. There will be a big increase of tundra's and trumpeter swans dumped or left in the marsh. People will be terrified to have their bird checked either be it a tundra or a trumpeter? 

You want to put a hurt on a guy or a group for shooting trumpeters. Make the eligibility process a lot longer 10 plus years. 

Every dip $hit wants to be a swan guide. Paid or not. They want their name recognition on the book of face. ((Example)) Billy Bob got us our swans! He had all the gear and we brought the doughnuts! Need to get your swan Billy Bob is the guy. He likes his doughnuts raspberry filled  

Everyone involved in that hunt that produced a trumpeter intended or accident looses his or her eligibility for 10 plus years. If you make it about money birds will get dumped. 

And lets get trained people at the gates daily checking birds during the swan migration. Having to drive to get your swan checked is BS. the dwr needs to get back to wma's checking bag limits. 

Just a thought.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

The problem some want to solve, like myself, are those individuals who have chosen intentional harvest when as you've stated the quota is to protect hunters who incidentally harvest. DWR and the Pacific Flyway group both have made it clear reaching this quota could jeopardize future hunts. Some of us want to avoid that outcome.

The one aspect you aren't incorporating is the fact that 20 trumpeters was an upper limit that was assumed we would not reach. By assumption I mean the built in factors every system has to justify such choices. The years in which the quota was 10 hunters never reached that limit; the season never closed early. But suddenly it's closed every season since the increase. And we know that's not just because of variables like migratory patterns and population increases; we know this because people are openly talking about intentional, targeted harvesting despite the DWR making it abundantly clear that's not the intent of the hunt.

The DWR gave these individuals enough rope and a portion of the 20 showed them who they are. I would like to avoid a group punishment, ie decrease quotas (assuming population data still supports the upper limit), and have the DWR focus their punitive consequences on these individuals who target. And I think that punishment should be harsh as the cost to hunters at large is real.

I think every hunt hopes to see the trumpeter population be stable enough for the feds to open it up to targeted hunting. Unfortunately a handful of people are jumping the gun and being selfish & justifying that by claiming we are already at that end game. We aren't. We may only be several years away or we could now never see it happen because of the lack of restraint of less than a hundred Utah hunters. Let's hope it's the first option as the latter would be highly unfortunate.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

1BandMan said:


> Are you fugging kidding me with these questions?
> Who's head needs to come out of who's arse?


Like johnnycake would say, I could explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Utah hunters are far from able to police themselves.
There's not enough fish and game cops to be a presence and deterrence nor to enforce anything. There's way, way too many Utar....well you know what's to have complex or intricate "suggestions" or laws in regards to a swan hunt.
It's got to be illegal to hunt swan or the incredibly smart Utah hunters will scoff the law or suggestions to keep the hunt open... and the pattern/issues will continue. The Utah waterfowl hunters are simply too crafty to stop shooting Trumpeters.
Make it illegal and it will at least slow down.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Like johnnycake would say, I could explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.


Awe, come on and give it a try and answer the question I asked you.
Are you ok with jackass slob hunters ending the hunt by the quota (which is a maximum not a goal) being met a month early?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

1BandMan said:


> Awe, come on and give it a try and answer the question I asked you.
> Are you ok with jackass slob hunters ending the hunt by the quota (which is a maximum not a goal) being met a month early?


I’ve answered this no less than 5 times on this forum in the last few weeks. Not my fault your head is too far engulfed for you to understand that one.

Maybe I’ll put it this way: I’m equally okay with and at the same time annoyed by jackass slob hunters ending the hunt early as I am with jackass fake hunters trying to shut down hunts entirely.

Seems like you have a lot more in common with these “Utards” (as you put it) than you realized!


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I’ve answered this no less than 5 times on this forum in the last few weeks. Not my fault your head is too far engulfed for you to understand that one.
> 
> Maybe I’ll put it this way: I’m equally okay with and at the same time annoyed by jackass slob hunters ending the hunt early as I am with jackass fake hunters trying to shut down hunts entirely.
> 
> Seems like you have a lot more in common with these “Utards” (as you put it) than you realized!


You and Moosemeat have a lot more in common than you realize.
Your annoyed AND okay with slob hunters? You may be the poster child for Utards. You must also be a part of the problem rather than part of the solution if you can't figure it out. Your a so-so politician but a terrible sportsman if you can't figure that out.
I'm a conservationalists and I do care about the game I hunt as well as game I do not hunt.
I see it as a LIMITED RESOURCE that I respect and protect.
Am I an "anti"? Hell ya if you call yourself a sportsman.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I like Jerry’s idea. 10 year wait, all guides have to register for the swan hunt to legally take clients, and if you kill a trumpeter, your guide loses his privileges too. Oh yeah…maybe let’s shut down PSG and see what that does too.

1ManBand’s loose use of “jacka$$ slob hunters” is getting old. I get it, some hunters obviously are, but painting everyone who kills a trumpeter, intentional or not, does not a “slob hunter” make. This all or nothing attitude is nothing but abrasive, and I’m sorry, but trying to club your opponents over the head with a verbal sledgehammer, all the while trying to portray yourself as virtuous to a “T” and beyond reproach kinda just smacks as silly.

And, I would love to know if there would be all this outrage if the quota was met the day before the season was to close. Those of you that are all hot and bothered by this Trumpeter quota, I’d love to hear your take on that.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Now just in general: I keep seeing proposals about changes to the swan hunt, I’ve got two questions-
> 
> 1) What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?
> 2) Why are we trying to solve it?


Have you taken the swan orientation course this year?

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources - Online Exams

It states the problem clearly:

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Flyway Council and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources do not believe the current level of trumpeter swan harvest will harm the overall population, but this view is not shared by everyone and there have been several unsuccessful legal challenges to eliminate swan hunts. However, if levels of trumpeter swan harvest continue at the levels seen in recent years, it will likely result in shorter seasons and *could possibly put future swan hunting in jeopardy*."

I haven't seen anyone on this forum who is trying to argue that current levels of trumpeter swan harvest are causing long-term harm to the trumpeter swan population (though several members, especially one in particular, keep deflecting the points we bring up and claiming that's what we're saying).

Nope, the problem is that the behavior of current hunters is resulting in diminished swan hunting opportunities now, and may result in diminished swan hunting opportunity in the future.

One aspect of this is closing the season early. This year, the actions of 20 hunters closed the season 24 days early, and served me and a bunch of others a big bowl of tag soup. I'm not happy about that, I hold those hunters personally responsible for it, and I'm not shy about saying so. Nonetheless, life goes on, and the trumpeter swan population is fine.

The aspect of this that worries me a lot more is the longer-term implication. What does this mean for the future of swan hunting in Utah? Tag cuts? Closed areas? Legal challenges that gain more ground and give us more restrictions? That should concern us all as hunters.

If anyone wants to respond to *me specifically*, address that. It seems like every response I ever get on this topic is either "it's not hurting the trumpeter swan population" or "it's legal and I'll do what I want," when I've never claimed trumpeter harvest is illegal or that current levels of it are harming the swan population in the long term.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

MWScott72 said:


> And, I would love to know if there would be all this outrage if the quota was met the day before the season was to close. Those of you that are all hot and bothered by this Trumpeter quota, I’d love to hear your take on that.


To summarize briefly what I said in my last post, there are two things that make me unhappy about the quota being met.

1. It closes the season early.
2. It give the antis ammunition to use against us in their fight to restrict us or shut us down.

That being said, I would still be unhappy based on reason #2.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

MWScott72 said:


> Oh yeah…maybe let’s shut down PSG and see what that does too.


The trumpeters don't just stop at PSG. However, PSG offers an opportunity for hunters to go up and shoot a swan earlier in the season than they might have historically. Two years ago, my dad and I shot both of ours there before Halloween. This year, they were in thick by early November and they were getting hammered. It's a consequence of the fact that huge numbers of them stage on the BRBR earlier in the year and then start moving south later. Before PSG was open, it seems like Dad and I didn't even start seeing good numbers of them in huntable areas further south until mid-November.

I was at Farmington Bay on Thanksgiving and I saw a pair of trumpeters that almost definitely would have gotten shot if the season were still open, and another small flock on the clubs that probably would have gone out and gotten shot at at some point.

Based on my personal experience, my best guess is that closing PSG would probably prolong the season somewhat, but that the quota would still be met.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

MWScott72 said:


> I like Jerry’s idea. 10 year wait, all guides have to register for the swan hunt to legally take clients, and if you kill a trumpeter, your guide loses his privileges too. Oh yeah…maybe let’s shut down PSG and see what that does too.
> 
> 1ManBand’s loose use of “jacka$$ slob hunters” is getting old. I get it, some hunters obviously are, but painting everyone who kills a trumpeter, intentional or not, does not a “slob hunter” make. This all or nothing attitude is nothing but abrasive, and I’m sorry, but trying to club your opponents over the head with a verbal sledgehammer, all the while trying to portray yourself as virtuous to a “T” and beyond reproach kinda just smacks as silly.
> 
> And, I would love to know if there would be all this outrage if the quota was met the day before the season was to close. Those of you that are all hot and bothered by this Trumpeter quota, I’d love to hear your take on that.


For me the issue has many aspects, not in an order of priority:

1) Behavior of a minority knowingly reduces opportunity for many
2) It takes years or generations to build respect & trust between agencies and stakeholders. It can take weeks to undermine it. And it's harder to repair when individuals are brazingly ignoring the thoughtful warnings of the agencies looking out for our best interest, ie keeping this hunt open.
3) The most powerful ammunition against any stakeholder group is that group's worst behavior because there is no real defense against it.
4) The trumpeter swan could have been a near perfect success story for modern hunting. Instead it's now blemished. 

I got into hunting because of my developing interest in conservation. It was the thoughtful mentoring of educators that were either hunters or very friendly to the tradition that made me realize it can not only be an effective tool in the field but an honorable tradition. It's easier to maintain that platform when the community polices itself. When we provide cover for those that blemish that record and who increase the need for heavy handed oversight that claim becomes a lot harder to defend.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Clarq, thank you for a level-headed and rational post!

I agree with problem #1, and think that is a somewhat easily solvable issue that doesn’t require a $17 billon fine and a lifetime prison sentence. It probably doesn’t even require cutting off one’s leg and posting it at the entrance to BRBR as a warning to all future swan hunters!

Close PSG and take the swan area back to where they were pre-2019. Yes, the trumps do span out beyond there, but there is zero argument to say opening PSG hasn’t made hunting trumps easier for more people. I think it would be interesting to go back to 2017-18 and see who was really pushing for PSG to open for swans. (And why…)

The 5 year wait period plus closing of the main place where these birds are killed (like it was just 4 years ago) seems like a REALLY good start to trying to fix problem #1.

I honestly could not care less about problem #2. I don’t concern myself with how I hunt or how you hunt based upon the opinions of those that would take every hunting opportunity away from us if they could. There is no middle ground between me and them, and I’m completely disinterested in trying to appease them in any way.

I hear the point that it is those in the middle we are trying to keep. I think that hand is overplayed. When those people read “20 birds were killed, the season was cut short as designed if that happened, and it isn’t going to negatively impact swans at all,” they aren’t rushing to the ballot box to end hunting entirely. I don’t see the blemish on the record. I see a species that continues to increase in numbers even when some have been legally shot. I don’t view that as a blemish. Just my opinion.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> I like Jerry’s idea. 10 year wait, all guides have to register for the swan hunt to legally take clients, and if you kill a trumpeter, your guide loses his privileges too. Oh yeah…maybe let’s shut down PSG and see what that does too.
> 
> "1ManBand’s loose use of “jacka$$ slob hunters” is getting old. I get it, some hunters obviously are, but painting everyone who kills a trumpeter, intentional or not, does not a “slob hunter” make. This all or nothing attitude is nothing but abrasive, and I’m sorry, but trying to club your opponents over the head with a verbal sledgehammer, all the while trying to portray yourself as virtuous to a “T” and beyond reproach kinda just smacks as silly."
> 
> And, I would love to know if there would be all this outrage if the quota was met the day before the season was to close. Those of you that are all hot and bothered by this Trumpeter quota, I’d love to hear your take on that.


"1ManBand’s loose use of “jacka$$ slob hunters” is getting old. I get it, some hunters obviously are, but painting everyone who kills a trumpeter, intentional or not, does not a “slob hunter” make."

What does it make them then? Obviously a hero with their posts on Facebook with hero pics and taxi mounts.

I'm not virtuous, but I believe I give back more to the sport than I take. That's the measure I like to use right or wrong in your eyes.

Again,
*Utah hunters are far from able to police themselves.*
*There's not enough fish and game cops to be a presence and deterrence nor to enforce anything. There's way, way too many Utar....well you know what's to have complex or intricate "suggestions" or laws in regards to a swan hunt.
It's got to be illegal to hunt swan or at minimum kill a Trumpeter or the incredibly smart Utah hunters will scoff the law or the suggestions the DWR or Feds make to keep the hunt open... and the pattern/issues will continue. 
Utah waterfowl hunters are simply too crafty to stop shooting Trumpeters.*
*Make it illegal and it will at least slow down. *


----------



## GoosesNightMare (Dec 7, 2017)

JerryH said:


> If they start fining for shooting trumpeters. There will be a big increase of tundra's and trumpeter swans dumped or left in the marsh. People will be terrified to have their bird checked either be it a tundra or a trumpeter?
> 
> You want to put a hurt on a guy or a group for shooting trumpeters. Make the eligibility process a lot longer 10 plus years.
> 
> ...


I agree with you…
I did not get any info for 2022 season, but one such guide told me he had 37 swan tags to be filled In 2021.
Word of mouth travels quickly were to hunt if your not a dedicated hunter. and does try to keep his spot’s secret.
Facebook is changing hunting, were to go get a swan, photos, vids. So and so can get you a swan.
This guide said he would get there at 3:30 am to get to his spot and 7 vehicles would already be there.
Do you think the other waterfowl enjoy being pushed out of their roosts at this time of morning, and when do they feed. Many waterfowl in some areas have become nocturnal in feeding.
Simple solution close PSG 17 out of 20 were shot there.
This swan hunting has become a joke in my opinion the spread of getting a trophy swan on Facebook and other forums feeds the fuel.
There are other waterfowl to hunt, but when a area gets bombarded by hundreds of Swan hunters shooting at everything that flys.. I think you get my point.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Did they release the information on where the trumpeters were harvested?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Moose got banned? Where have I been and what did that rascal do now?


----------

