# Wildlife Board results



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I just got back from the Wildlife Board meeting and it when pretty good for the most part. 

The Draw Loc was passed!!!
If you put in for a management tags and you draw then you lose your points and you have a 5 year waiting period 
Bart can tell you about his proposal.
Bookcliffs buffalo passed after a very loooooonnnnnnnnnnngggggg discussion.
Oak Creek will remain a LE unit.
Dolores Triangle hunt will start later because the deer migrate from Colorado later.


----------



## muley34 (Oct 11, 2007)

Have you heard anything about the cost increases this year I've heard that LE elk tags for residents will now be $408? Is this true?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

No, the prices are the same

Here is more info on the management tags. 

54 bulls killed had their horns broken meaning they were bigger than 5 points on one side so they werent true management bulls

3 bulls were TRUE management bulls 

1 illegal killed bull

The management tags wont work because we clearly arent killing management bulls.


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

Thats A shame, I even thought about putting in for one of those.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Touching on a few of the items passed:

1. Keep the five day rifle hunt in the Southern and Southeast region general deer hunts.

2. Keep the Oak Creek limited entry elk unit

3. Keep the Thousand Lake Mountain deer unit, limited

4. Extend the Dolores Triangle deer hunt into the first of December

5. Change the management elk tag, if you now draw a management bull tag, you lose your bonus points.

6. Start the general archery elk unit early, and close it 5 days sooner, thus giving the Trophy bull archers five days without cow and spike hunters in the field.

7. Continue to look at unit by unit deer hunting during 2008, and a year from now make recommendations for the 2009 season. 

It was a long day, started at 9:00 am and got over around 5:30 pm. Thanks to those who SHOWED UP, coyoteslayer, treehugnhntr, and Packout, kudos to you for showing up. coyoteslayer was late because a lady ran a red light and hit him on his way in, luckily he was not hurt and STILL showed up!

They also will be starting a new bison herd on the book cliffs with a end goal of 450 animals. The things I was happy to see were the management tags now being a 'true' LE type tag, as was mentioned there were 54 bulls killed on this hunt with only three being 'management' bulls, the changes to the dates for LE archery hunters on spike only units, keeping Filmore Oak Creek LE, and keeping Thousand Lakes LE.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Thanks for the report.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> No, the prices are the same
> 
> Here is more info on the management tags.
> 
> ...


I am just curious, do you mean that people broke the antlers off because they were bigger than a five point or did you mean something else. I am confused and this is an honest question from a dumb a**.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am just curious, do you mean that people broke the antlers off because they were bigger than a five point or did you mean something else. I am confused and this is an honest question from a dumb a**.


Well more than likely from fighting other bulls, but you never know maybe someone broke the antler points after they shot him.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> 54 bulls killed had their horns broken meaning they were bigger than 5 points on one side so they werent true management bulls


A "true management bull" would be a bull thats death has an impact on the high bull to cow ratios in these units.

It will be interesting to see if the 54 bulls killed have any significant impact on those ratios. I'm guessing that it didn't even make a dent.

John


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I knew the management idea wouldn't work from the beginning. A great idea, just poorly planned and executed.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> A "true management bull" would be a bull thats death has an impact on the high bull to cow ratios in these units.


Killing those bulls will have a little impact on the bull/cow ratios. but the point is.....The management tags only allow you to kill a bull that has 5 point on one side PERIOD. 54 bulls didnt meet those requirments. ONLY 3 did.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> They also will be starting a new bison herd on the book cliffs with a end goal of 450 animals.


Now that makes me very, very happy!!! In 40 or 50 years, I may even get to shoot one!!!


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

J-bass you can always go to Montana and shoot one fair prices.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1. Keep the five day rifle hunt in the Southern and Southeast region general deer hunts.
> 
> 2. Keep the Oak Creek limited entry elk unit
> 
> 3. Keep the Thousand Lake Mountain deer unit, limited


I was disappointed that the above three things didn't change...I guess it just goes to show that NOT everything the DWR proposes is passed (I hear that argument on the fishing forums all the time).

I was also mildly disappointed that the archery elk hunt season date will be changed...as a bowhunter it is nice to have overlapping seasons, BUT I would rather have that one week of just deer hunting (I like using those extra days to find the cows/spikes for the elk hunt) at the beginning and not the end.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I was also mildly disappointed that the archery elk hunt season date will be changed...as a bowhunter it is nice to have overlapping seasons, BUT I would rather have that one week of just deer hunting (I like using those extra days to find the cows/spikes for the elk hunt) at the beginning and not the end.


You will still be able to hunt them just fine and harvest one when you are deer hunting so its a great idea. Im glad it passed because most important it also helps those lucky archery hunters who have drawn a LE archery tag.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 2. Keep the Oak Creek limited entry elk unit
> 
> 3. Keep the Thousand Lake Mountain deer unit, limited


These two would be a nightmare if they were passed because guess where most of the hunters would be opening day???



> 1. Keep the five day rifle hunt in the Southern and Southeast region general deer hunts.


There is no reason to change it when the DEER PLAN will be written next year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

That's ok...wouldn't that alleviate some pressure from other areas then?

The Thousand Lakes deer unit just isn't a good LE unit...the trophy potential has proven to be minimal.

The Oak Creek Elk unit--although it holds some good elk--is pretty small and would make a good general season unit. Which would allow more mature bull hunting opportunity. :wink:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> There is no reason to change it when the DEER PLAN will be written next year.


Maybe in the long run, but we would lose 4 days next year...which seems totally unnecessary based on the data given at the RACs. And, that is just one more year when more deer will probably be shot than what it would have been...


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Concerning the management of deer and the 5 or 10 day long seasons, What was the general temperment of the board. Were they against the idea? or did they just not want to make any change now when the plan will be re-evaluated next year?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Maybe in the long run, but we would lose 4 days next year...which seems totally unnecessary based on the data given at the RACs. And, that is just one more year when more deer will probably be shot than what it would have been...


Yeah 1/2 of a day difference.



> The Oak Creek Elk unit--although it holds some good elk--is pretty small and would make a good general season unit. Which would allow more mature bull hunting opportunity. :wink:


They should issue more tags then. The landowners didnt want to deal with people tresspassing so keeping the hunters limited makes it easier to deal with than 1,000 of hunters.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

> The Oak Creek Elk unit--although it holds some good elk--is pretty small and would make a good general season unit. Which would allow more mature bull hunting opportunity. :wink:


[/quote]They should issue more tags then. The landowners didnt want to deal with people tresspassing so keeping the hunters limited makes it easier to deal with than 1,000 of hunters.[/quote]

And the landowners liked the tags they got to sell....The decision was based on the politics instead of big game management. The hunters generally loose when that is the case.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Yeah 1/2 of a day difference.


You lost me here...if they kept the season at 5 days instead of 9 days, wouldn't that be 4 less days and one less weekend?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

```
You lost me here...if they kept the season at 5 days instead of 9 days, wouldn't that be 4 less days and one less weekend?
```
The data shows that hunters are hunting 4 days on a 9 day hunt and 3 1/2 days on a 5 day hunt.

Therefore 1/2 a day differences


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Killing those bulls will have a little impact on the bull/cow ratios. but the point is.....The management tags only allow you to kill a bull that has 5 point on one side PERIOD. 54 bulls didnt meet those requirments. ONLY 3 did.


The only reason for the management tags was to impact the bull/cow ratios. It had nothing to do with removing 5 point (or less) bulls from the herd. That was added by special interest not biologists.

My point is removing 54 bulls, whether they are 6 pointers or spikes will have virtually no affect on the main reason the biologists suggested these reductions in these units and that was to reduce bull numbers and increase cow numbers, but time will tell if it worked or not.

If I read into these numbers though, does this mean that 5% of these hunters are true trophy hunters interested in keeping the integrity of the anter quality and the other 95% are opportunists? Boy if this is the case was I ever wrong because I figured those numbers to be 85% opportunists and 15% trophy hunter. Thank god for RAC meetings or we'd all have our way. :roll:

John


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> And the landowners liked the tags they got to sell....The decision was based on the politics instead of big game management. The hunters generally loose when that is the case.


The landowner SHOULD get some tags to pay him back for his losses. If you keep the landowners happy and convince them that elk are good and if they improve their habitat then they will receive more elk tags because there will be more elk.

Landowners Improve habitat which means MORE ELK which means MORE $$$ for the landowner and that is what Colorado does.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> ```
> You lost me here...if they kept the season at 5 days instead of 9 days, wouldn't that be 4 less days and one less weekend?
> ```
> The data shows that hunters are hunting 4 days on a 9 day hunt and 3 1/2 days on a 5 day hunt.
> ...


I thought this was what you meant, but I wasn't sure. This data only reflects an average...in other words, some hunters would lose more than others. Either way, we would be losing the opportunity to hunt 4 more days and one more weekend. The data also shows that we wouldn't be killing as many deer and that we would have more mature deer the following deer as a result!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The only reason for the management tags was to impact the bull/cow ratios. It had nothing to do with removing 5 point (or less) bulls from the herd. That was added by special interest not biologists.
> 
> My point is removing 54 bulls, whether they are 6 pointers or spikes will have virtually no affect on the main reason the biologists suggested these reductions in these units and that was to reduce bull numbers and increase cow numbers, but time will tell if it worked or not.


If people are going to kill 6 or 7 point bulls that have broken their horns (or the hunter broken it after he shot it) then why have management tags??? Why not just issue more tags because those 54 bulls were 6 and 7 point bulls.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JHas said:


> The only reason for the management tags was to impact the bull/cow ratios. It had nothing to do with removing 5 point (or less) bulls from the herd. That was added by special interest not biologists.
> 
> My point is removing 54 bulls, whether they are 6 pointers or spikes will have virtually no affect on the main reason the biologists suggested these reductions in these units and that was to reduce bull numbers and increase cow numbers, but time will tell if it worked or not.
> 
> If I read into these numbers though, does this mean that 5% of these hunters are true trophy hunters interested in keeping the integrity of the anter quality and the other 95% are opportunists? Boy if this is the case was I ever wrong because I figured those numbers to be 85% opportunists and 15% trophy hunter. Thank god for RAC meetings or we'd all have our way. :roll:


You make some very valid points...I agree with most of them. However, even if those 54 bulls do NOT lower bull/cow ratios, it is still better than if they weren't issued. So, in my opinion, it is still a step in the right direction...maybe they should double the number next year.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think might be more selective on a 9 day hunt versus a 5 day hunt, but Im not sure people in the Northern and Central region are more selective.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

They should issue more tags and get rid of the management tags because those 54 bulls were 6 to 7 point bulls that could have been harvested during the regular LE hunts. So if people arent going to shoot bulls that are 5 point or smaller then just issue MORE tags.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Don't get me wrong coyote, I am not defending the management bull program as I think it was a joke from the beginning. Myself and all my hunting buddies predicted this would happen.

The logical thing to have done would have been to increase the LE tags in these units and provide more... I don't know if I should say it here... ok... OPPORTUNITY.

Now I'm in trouble, I said the "O" word.

John


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The logical thing to have done would have been to increase the LE tags in these units and provide more... I don't know if I should say it here... ok... OPPORTUNITY.
> 
> Now I'm in trouble, I said the "O" word.


The "O" word is a good word


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY and OPPORTUNITY! We need more of it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I agree...we need more opportunity. It is funny, though, that the whole reason the management tag idea ever came up was because hunters have been denying the DWR of giving more opportunity...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Its because everyone is scared of increasing the tags. They say the guys who have max points will raise a big stink. Well Basically here is Utah we take the side of the few max point holders. Everyone thinks quality will go down with more tags issued. The problem we have is we kill to many baby bulls and we hunt ALL 28 LE units in the rut with a rifle. That is why I like I400 so much. It creates more opportunity for those people who would be speechless if they could just kill a 320 bull.

DWR is afraid to manage elk. Here is the big picture. Utah needs big bulls to draw people and their money from out of state. So they dont want to issue a lot of tags. They also want to keep hunters in Utah happy so they offer a spike tag hunt so they can hunt every year. They want the average joe to shut up and be happy with their family spike hunt. If they didnt offer spike tags then Utah hunters wouldnt be happy and they would want to hunt big bulls and the quality would go down to where the high rollers wouldn't buy tags for 60,000 plus dollars


----------



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, tell me more about your 6th statement on page 1, did we (hunters choice) in fact lose 5 days of the rut or are we somehow seperated from the spike hunters? I'm all ears.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

skeet4l said:


> Pro, tell me more about your 6th statement on page 1, did we (hunters choice) in fact lose 5 days of the rut or are we somehow seperated from the spike hunters? I'm all ears.


I hope that is what he is saying.

It sounds like deer and elk open at the same time, but elk ends 5 days prior to deer on limited entry units, thus making LE tag holders able to hunt without the distraction and BS associated with sharing their once in a lifetime hunt with the general public.


----------



## Caddis36 (Oct 26, 2007)

It is not just the LE units, it is the all General Archery Elk hunts end five days earlier what a bunch of BS, taking away the best days for archery hunters and adding them on at the start of the Hunt. It is all about the LE hunters


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It is not just the LE units, it is the all General Archery Elk hunts end five days earlier what a bunch of BS, taking away the best days for archery hunters and adding them on at the start of the Hunt. It is all about the LE hunters


Your not losing any days and the last 5 days arent the best 5 days. You can hunt spikes and cows every year, but if you draw a LE tag then you dont want interferences from some guy with a spike tag.


----------



## Caddis36 (Oct 26, 2007)

I know I didn't lose 5 days they added to the begining of the hunt when it's to hot anyway. Trust me where I hunt the last 5 days are the best.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Maybe you will like it if you draw a LE archery tag someday


----------



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

Somehow I knew this would be the outcome and this is why I asked very specific questions on an earlier thread. I would be interested in knowing how it was presented, all or nothing. It's been said that we need to take baby steps and I agree to some extent but I'm not interested in taking back seat to the LE hunts. I have put my time in through the years just like the LE's scouting and locating what I consider quality animals in places that have very little to no pressure and pefer to hunt later in Sept in the high Uintahs where it DOES make a difference. I don't mind starting with the deer hunters and will probably purchase a "bonus" permit myself, something I haven't done in years. IMO the five days should have been given to the LE's but not at our expense. If I thought my voice would make a difference I'd find time to attend the meetings but through the years it has always seemed to come down to money or someones hidden agenda so by choice I do not and will deal with the changes set forth. Many years ago when the DWR stumbled by initiating the draw and people could no longer hunt with their friends and families I was one to pull back and hunt elsewhere and it appears I may be headed in this direction again. While the initial cost of hunting out of state is high the time given in the field has proven to be worth it many times over. 
There are alot of I's in my statements but in the end it is "I" that will decide when and where to spend my money and put forth my efforts based on the decisions made by the DWR. In the overall scheme of things this would mean that other states would benefit in not only tag purchases but local business income revenues and while there needs to be profit to remain in business I hope some consideration to our local economy is part of the decision process.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

They proposed everything but having an extra 5 days on the Anybull units because it would conflict with the Any Bull Youth Elk Hunt/Disabled Elk hunt thus archers would be required to wear orange on those 5 days so they left that part of the proposal out.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

So I'm confused Is the anybull general archery affected. or not. I agree it does kind of suck if the close it five days earlier. Because the end of the hunt is just right when they start to get hot, now it will be even further away. I really can't complain however cuz I never made my voice heard.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I believe the anybull hunt is the same as it always has been


----------



## legacy (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm grateful they kept Oak Creek and LE unit. Yeah, If they opened it up to general season it would be a good....for about 2 years! As for the landowners on Oak Creek, I call BS! The elk aren't causing that much damage in Leamington, if any! Maybe some minor problems in McCornick. Not enough to jusitfy 5 permits!


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I like the idea of moving the gen archery elk hunt up.....meaning later in the year. I know this wasn't the idea or the outcome but the bulls are barely bugling during this years hunt....if that hunt is changed, moved to earlier in the year that doesn't give the gen archery elk hunters much hope at all........I don't like the new move of that hunt to earlier in the year and closing 5 days earlier.....don't like it one bit!


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Well put Skeet and Uzabow!!!!!!!!!!! Sounds like the archers got p****d on again..........


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Yeah, I do think that we have been P****d on......however did any "archers" show up for the meetings? I know I didn't....every time I've heard that there is a meeting it is always at such an inconvienent time....9:00 AM on a Thursday? I guess it is convienent for those who can leave work or don't work....but what about the workin' man? Don't they know that this is right in the middle of a workin' day? Or maybe they do know that and that's why they do it. Whatever, I'm just disappointed and think that archery hunters get forgotten or looked over.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I don't see why you guys are saying that archers got screwed when archers are the ones who made the proposal. Its easier to find spikes with the cows before the rut starts, but once it gets towards the rut then those spikes are kicked out of the herd and chased off.

If you drew a LE archery tag then you wouldnt want some retard messing up your hunt because he can hear a elk bugle so he goes to investigate and the spike hunter spooks your bull.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

CS....obviously you didn't hunt this years archery gen elk hunt. The elk were barely in the rut. IMHO the archery hunt is in the wrong time of the year. Since the rut is a big part of the Archery season, moving it to an earlier part of the year would be pointless. It might as well be in June! C'mon....I have to sacrifice my hunt so some spike hunter can go plug an animal that could really be hunted any other time of the year? If the people who made the proposal were smart they would have made the spike hunter hunt the earlier hunt and moved the Gen Archery Elk season more into the prime time of the rut....Just my opinion. And yes I do think that the archery guys get looked over! ! ! !


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Well the LE archery hunt is 28 days instead of 23 like it use to be so you didnt lose any days and the LE archery ends the same day as it always has been. If you want more days in the rut you need to fight the rifle guys for that. I400 is going to make that approach to have some units with the archery hunt more in the rut.

Archery hunters need to be more unified and they need to educate people.

The spike hunt starts earlier and ends easier


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Archery hunters need to be more unified and they need to educate people.


I agree with you there.....however, like I said before, these meetings need to be at a reasonable time so that people can attend....not in the middle of a work day! However, all of that still doesn't change the fact that if the Gen Archery Elk hunt was moved earlier in the year and closes later in the year then the Archery hunters get screwwwwwwwd! ! ! !


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

So you against the proposal having the archery spike hunters hunt starting 5 days earlier and ending 5 days earlier so that LE archery hunters have 5 days to themselves without the spike hunters?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

This doesn't apply to GEN ANY BULL ARCHERY? My bad if that is not the case...........I thought it was GEN ANY BULL ARCHERY.....Anyway, even if it isn't GEN ANY BULL ARCHERY I still think that GEN ANY BULL ARCHERY hunters get srewed and the hunt should be pushed back to be more in the prime of the rut and still feel that archery hunters are over looked and placed on the back burner.....if this isn't what ya'll are talking about, I'm sorry for the miscomunication. I don't care what they do with the SPIKE ONLY ACHERY HUNTERS.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think you are WAY CONFUSED. The general season Anybull will still be the same. Spike/cow hunters will start hunting the same day as the archery deer hunt and ending 5 days earlier so that people who draw a LE archery tag get to have the last 5 days to themselves.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

OIC.....gotcha....like I said, my bad!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

There has also been talk about getting rid of the Anybull units and going to a Statewide Spike hunt and LE elk hunt so it will screw those people who like to hunt the Anybull units


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

FYI, The original proposal included extending the archery hunt in any bull units by 5 days. It got shot down because the youth hunt would be going on during this time and concerns about hunter orange, so it was ammended. My understanding is that IT IS ONLY IN SPIKE ONLY UNITS. It would be pointless to cut the any bull season back. If I am confused on this, than I am upset as well.


----------



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks for all the input, I had asked if the spike hunters were seperated from the gen hunters and from what I'm hearing it appears that they are. I'd hate to see the gen archery any bull pushed to the left (earlier) any more than it already is. It seems we have special hunts here and special hunts there but lack enough days in the year to get them all in and on top of that we still have the rut to contend with. I'd like to see some hunts consolidated giving us more time in the field, not sure how to do it though. Is there a way to create different areas and move the hunts/dates around so that a guy/gal could still hunt another area while a special hunt is going on in his/hers? I'm becoming more interested in trying to find a way to make things work rather than sitting back, taking my lumps and bit$%#@ about it. In the future I'll try to do my part and pass on ideas as to try to make things better.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

People are reading way too much into this. Here is what really passed; on LE that issue SPIKE tags ONLY the opener is moved back 5 days to open the same day as archery deer. LE units w/o spike tags and Any-bull units will remain UNCHANGED. The archery spike/antlerless hunt will end on the fourth Sunday after the opener on September 7th, the LE hunters on the spike only units will end their hunt on September 12th, the SAME day as LE units w/o spike hunts and Any-bull units. NO other changes occurred as a result of the UBA proposal. Thank you for your time, and thank you to those who SHOWED UP!

PRO


----------



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, thanks for the reply and clarification.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skeet4l said:


> Pro, thanks for the reply and clarification.


No problem. It was a long day, and was hard to keep track of many of the issues passed, amended, and turned down.

PRO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

So can people hunt the spike only, Five days earlier, then when it closes move to the any bull hunt for 5 extra days?????


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> So can people hunt the spike only, Five days earlier, then when it closes move to the any bull hunt for 5 extra days?????


Same question?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> So can people hunt the spike only, Five days earlier, then when it closes move to the any bull hunt for 5 extra days?????


YES!!!

PRO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Well this deal actually sounds pretty darn good. 1 for the archery hunters. Thanks pro.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fixedblade, you now get an extra 5 days to archery hunt elk, for a total of 28 days as opposed to 23 days. Believe me when I say it was not easy to get accomplished.

For those of you not happy with this going through, where were you BEFORE this was proposed? Also, why are you against giving the LE archery bull hunters 5 days w/o having to compete with spike/antlerless hunters? I believe that moving the hunt to open earlier benefits spike hunters as well, the spikes are easier to pattern and locate in August than in mid-September when they have been chased off from the herds, and are jumpy as a cat. Hunting water in August is much more productive than chasing bugles in September for spikes. Bottom line is there where MANY hunters who requested this change, there was very little input by those opposed to the change, so UBA went forward with it. NO change/proposal will please every hunter, that is a given, so we did what we believed made sense and was beneficial to the majority of archery elk hunters, AND kept in mind the LE archery bull elk hunters as well.

PRO


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Thanks Pro for the clarification and all that you do at the meetings. I wish I could have been there. It sounds like everything played out well though. I totally got confused earlier and once again appreciate the clarification.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I know this is just the first small step, but I would like to see the whole LE archery elk hunt pushed forward a week or two. My cousin drew a LE archery tag this year and the last few days the elk finally started rutting just in time for the LE rifle hunters to come in and clean house. Where is the challenge in that for rifle hunters? Oh well I can wish can't I.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> I know this is just the first small step, but I would like to see the whole LE archery elk hunt pushed forward a week or two. My cousin drew a LE archery tag this year and the last few days the elk finally started rutting just in time for the LE rifle hunters to come in and clean house. Where is the challenge in that for rifle hunters? *Oh well I can wish can't I*.


I am right there with you, I see it year after year. When you or someone else comes up with a plan that will be able to get pushed through that will move the rifle hunt back/out of September, let me know, I will gladly be there to support it! Rifle hunters enjoy 90% success rates year in and year out, yet they are quick to say archers get too many perks. :?

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

+1 well put Pro and jahan.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

You poor archery hunters!  Your always getting the short end of the stick. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> You poor archery hunters!  Your always getting the short end of the stick. :roll:


What a well thought out and logical post. :? :wink:

PRO


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> You poor archery hunters!  Your always getting the short end of the stick. :roll:


Tell me how hard is it to kill a bull from 100+ yards during the rut with a rifle? How is it fair or even logical to put the rifle hunters in the middle of the rut? These are all honest questions.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Rifle hunters enjoy 90% success rates year in and year out, yet they are quick to say archers get too many perks.


So what do you want PRO? Do you want to move the Archery hunt into the rut so success rates get up to almost 80-90% then all the rifle hunters will take up archery and then you can wait 20 years to a lifetime to draw the tag?

Archery is what it is, primative weapon! (= low success for most)

You guys are given possibly 4 to 5 times the opportunity that rifle or even muzzleloader hunters are given during the hunting season but that is not enough is it. You got to have it all.

Sorry to sound pissy but geeezz......Realize most hunters preffer and chose to hunt with rifles and muzzleloaders. Make their season and LE hunts sukk bad enough and they will flood your weapon of choice.

Then we can limit your general deer and elk seasons down to 5-9 day hunts

No more either sex opptions

No more extended hunt

1000's more putting in for your LE hunt (during the rut)

Make you choose a unit to hunt on (have to wait 2 years to draw any unit but Northern).


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

What I learned in the Wildlife Board meeting is the fact that archers need to educate rifle hunters because rifle hunters lack a lot of knowledge about archery hunting.

Rifle hunters think that archery hunters get all the perks because they are uneducated. Archery success rates are 4 times lower than hunting with a rifle. How could you miss a 600 plus bull elk with a rifle and a scope at 200 plus yds? Rifle hunters have the best time of the year to hunt, but they dont like it hear it from archers because they're ignorant and look down on archers.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Tell me how hard is it to kill a bull from 100+ yards during the rut with a rifle? How is it fair or even logical to put the rifle hunters in the middle of the rut? These are all honest questions.


My uncle just drew the Boulder unit this year and spent about ten days hunting. Never pulled the trigger. You guys are not the only ones who hold out for trophy animals.

Now how is this fair? Well I don't know the exact numbers but I would think rifle hunters out number bow hunters 4 or 5 to 1. Majority rules.

Is it logical? Probably not, I am a big fan of making more opportunity but am not for putting you stick flippers in the rut and doubleing your tag alocation. Take the riffle hunters out and for the decrease in success rate, give all the added tags to the riffle hunters before and after the rut.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> What I learned in the Wildlife Board meeting is the fact that archers need to educate rifle hunters because rifle hunters lack a lot of knowledge about archery hunting.
> 
> Rifle hunters think that archery hunters get all the perks because they are uneducated. Archery success rates are 4 times lower than hunting with a rifle. How could you miss a 600 plus bull elk with a rifle and a scope at 200 plus yds? Rifle hunters have the best time of the year to hunt, but they dont like it hear it from archers because they're ignorant and look down on archers.


No the problem is you guys think your so dam smart and because I choose to hunt with a rifle or muzzleloader I'm half the hunter you are.

I know your season dates, I know your Limited Entry draw odds, I know your succes rates.... You don't need to educate me or any other rifle hunters.



> Archery success rates are 4 times lower than hunting with a rifle.


Do you guys have a problem with this? Is it not how it is supposed to be? Is it not why your are given all the added opportunity????????

Do you think if we raise your success rates we are just going to keep pouring on the opportunity??????

You guys want the cake and the pie.

I think it would be a good think to move the rifle out of the rut personaly to lower success rates for rifle but only do add more tags to rifle hunters to drop our LE wait down to more in line with the archey guys.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

10,000ft, its a shame that you are making Clint Eastwood look like a loser


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> So what do you want PRO? Do you want to move the Archery hunt into the rut so success rates get up to almost 80-90% then all the rifle hunters will take up archery and then you can wait 20 years to a lifetime to draw the tag?


You can have the archery hunt year round and I doubt you would EVER see 80-90% success rates.


> Archery is what it is, primative weapon! (= low success for most)


This makes sense, except when seeing it follow a 80-90% success rate comment. :?



> You guys are given possibly 4 to 5 times the opportunity that rifle or even muzzleloader hunters are given during the hunting season but that is not enough is it. You got to have it all.


What are you talking about?



> Sorry to sound **** but geeezz......Realize most hunters preffer and chose to hunt with rifles and muzzleloaders. Make their season and LE hunts sukk bad enough and they will flood your weapon of choice.


More people hunt with rifles/muzzys BECAUSE archers do NOT have all the perks. Look at surrounding states, EVERY one has 4-6 weeks of archery hunting, Montana issues almost as many archery tags as rifle tags. Why? Because they have figured out archery is a great way to provide opportunity w/o hurting quality/quantity. I would LOVE to see an increase in bowhunters, I believe it is the ONLY real way to provide more opportunity in this state w/o hurting quantity/quality.



> Then we can limit your general deer and elk seasons down to 5-9 day hunts
> 
> No more either sex opptions
> 
> ...


If harvest numbers are low, why would season lengths need to be shortened?

If either sex harvest numbers are low, why would they need to be removed as an option for archers?

Can you think of a more effective way to manage the WF than archery extended hunting?

Rifle/muzzy hunters are required to chose a region to prevent over-harvest in certain areas. Can you name ONE instance where archers have over-harvested?

Archers harvest few animals, are more selective because of the need to be at close range, can be a great management tool, get shorter seasons and fewer tags percentage wise here in Utah than in surrounding states, yet *you* for whatever reason(s) believe archers have it too good. Please explain. :?

The DWR is considering making it statewide spike, doing away with any-bull areas. This would make EVERY LE archery hunter have to compete with spike hunters, so I am guessing in the interest of 'fairness' you have no problem with LE rifle/muzzy hunters having to contend with spike hunters during their seasons, is that correct? I can see it now, some lucky hunter, after applying for 20+ years, has his hunt buggered up by a spike hunter bumping the bull he has scouted all summer on the Pahvant. That will go over well, don't you think? Yet, that is what anti-archery hunters like *you* apparently have no problem having occur during LE archery hunts. What gives? Are we all hunters, that SHOULD be on somewhat of a level playing field? Or, merely a 'rifle' state that throws a few scraps to the 'primitive' hunters?

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Who has ALL the pie right now? Every LE elk unit has the rifle hunt in the rut. There is a Late Season rifle hunt. If you move the rifle hunt in October like other states then the rifle success would go down and more people could hunt elk.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

A rifle state that throws a few scraps to the primitive hunters.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

JK on that last post.

First, I am not against archery. I have almost taken it up the last few years the only thing stopping me is all my hunting buddies have no intrest. I still may do it anyways.

Second, as of late I have hunted way more with my smokepole (primative weapon) than I have my rifle in recent years. 

Pro I hear most your points and some are very valid. Yes, we would have more opportunity if everyone was an archer because success rates would be so low but I would not hunt ever again with my brothers. Nor would alot of other hunters who enjoy many diffrent aspects of hunting get to hunt with their friends and family.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> A rifle state that throws a few scraps to the primitive hunters.


Are my other questions too tough for you? 8) :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Who has ALL the pie right now? Every LE elk unit has the rifle hunt in the rut. There is a Late Season rifle hunt. If you move the rifle hunt in October like other states then the rifle success would go down and more people could hunt elk.


Slayer, The LE rifle elk hunt during the rut is a very small slice of the hunting pie!

95% of us rifle hunters have not experienced this and probably 70% of us never will. That is why this is a loosing argument for you guys. I don't see it as a hudge perk for us.

On that same note again I agree we should move the rifle out of the rut to create more opportunity for rifle hunters since they are the majority.

If it really bothers you that success rates are for times as low as a rifle and that you can't shoot an animal at 100 yards and archery is to hard for you....buy a rifle.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Slayer, The LE rifle elk hunt during the rut is a very small slice of the hunting pie!
> 
> 95% of us rifle hunters have not experienced this and probably 70% of us never will. That is why this is a loosing argument for you guys. I don't see it as a hudge perk for us.
> 
> On that same note again I agree we should move the rifle out of the rut to create more opportunity for rifle hunters since they are the majority.


LE rifle hunting in the rut is a HUGE piece of the pie because it doesnt get any better than hunting them in the peak of the rut with the bulls screaming.



> On that same note again I agree we should move the rifle out of the rut to create more opportunity for rifle hunters since they are the majority.


[/quote]

No they need to give more tags to primative weapons. A lot of people put in for rifle hunts because the success rates are higher and its pretty hunt a Once in a Lifetime hunt.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. I think there is a middle ground that no one is talking about. I would think many would be happy if they maybe bumped the archery 5 days, and swapped the muzzy hunt with the rifle, or something similar.

Maybe something like this:

Archery ending on the 21st ish.

Muzzy ending at the end of Sept. 

LE rifle for the first week of Oct.

Archery rates would go up a bit, rifle would go down a bit etc..

I would support a proposal taking the rifle out of the rut and giving a little more to archers, but not if it wasn't fair to all. Just like you said, rifle guys outnumber archers by a lot, probably due to the dedication it takes to be an efficient bow hunter. (Not that all rifle hunters are undedicated slobs.)

5 days without spike hunters is a step in the right direction and no, all bow hunters don't think poorly of rifle hunters.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Are my other questions too tough for you?


Don't flater youself Pro.



> If harvest numbers are low, why would season lengths need to be shortened?


Think real hard here Pro, if we move all the archery hunts into seasons where the success rates go up (maybe not to 80% but say a 20 or 30% increase)and we add lots of archers into the pool Harvest rates will go up. Once X amount of animals are killed and there are still lots of hunter out there with tags and lots of time to fill them something has to give.

Besides answer my last post. I am like maybe 20-50% of the rifle population who just might take up archery to continue hunting if that was my only option. But what do you say to the rest of them and my brothers and other life long hunting friends who have no intrest at ALL? To bad! If you don't like bow and arrows then quite hunting! You really are looking out for the best intrest of all hunters and trying to unit them aren't you Pro.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > Who has ALL the pie right now? Every LE elk unit has the rifle hunt in the rut. There is a Late Season rifle hunt. If you move the rifle hunt in October like other states then the rifle success would go down and more people could hunt elk.
> 
> 
> Slayer, The LE rifle elk hunt during the rut is a very small slice of the hunting pie!
> ...


I like your avatar by the way! Almost as good as mine, almost :mrgreen:

I agree the LE hunts are a small slice of the pie, that is why I am confused by the opposition to giving LE archers five days w/o spike hunters. :?

You are right on the rifle hunt NEEDING to be moved out of September, but I have little faith in that happening anytime soon. It would increase opportunity by lowering success rates, allowing MORE hunters (of ALL weapons) the chance to hunt mature bulls on LE units.

I am NOT bothered by low success rates as an archery, I simply see 90% success rates for rifle hunters as a HUGE reduction of opportunity for everyone else. coyoteslayer IS a rifle hunter by the way, just look at the great animals he 'slayed' with a rifle in 2007. I neither own a rifle, nor have any intention of acquiring one, I WILL be LE hunting in 2008 with my Hoyt.

Good post Ty.

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

And yes, There are MANY bowhunters that do not put in for LE archery for these reasons. I am one of them.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Nice post Tree,


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Think real hard here Pro, if we move all the archery hunts into seasons where the success rates go up (maybe not to 80% but say a 20 or 30% increase)and we add lots of archers into the pool Harvest rates will go up. Once X amount of animals are killed and there are still lots of hunter out there with tags and lots of time to fill them something has to give.
> 
> Besides answer my last post. I am like maybe 20-50% of the rifle population who just might take up archery to continue hunting if that was my only option. But what do you say to the rest of them and my brothers and other life long hunting friends who have no intrest at ALL? To bad! If you don't like bow and arrows then quite hunting! *You really are looking out for the best intrest of all hunters and trying to unit them aren't you Pro*


Don't make me think, that could be dangerous. :twisted: I have NEVER seriously suggested doing away with rifle/muzzy hunts altogether. I am saying, an increase in archery tags would increase opportunity w/o having negative effects on quality/quantity. Nothing more.

If there is an increase in archers and a decrease in rifle hunters, wouldn't that be a good deal for the rifle hunters who stay rifle hunters? Again, I have NEVER proposed or considered proposing doing away with rifle hunts, I am saying increase archery hunt options and ALL hunters benefit and so does the critters we hunt. This SHOULD NOT be archers vs rifle hunters, this should be about ways to increase opportunities w/o hurting quality/quantity. That is what I get perplexed by, why is this over weapon choice, instead of ways to improve opportunity and give MORE options to hunters to chose from?

I have no idea what your last sentence is saying or trying to say, help me out. :?

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I seen on the internet where rifle hunters can be well educated about archery issues so that rifle hunters won't have as many conflicts with archery hunters. Its a free online course


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Your not a gun man PRO! The duke was always shootin at the stick flipers :lol: .

Coyote, good on you, I've seen the nice line up of animals from this year.

I think we all agree on more than you think but going back to my main point. I don't even like hinting at making rifle hunters have to choose between having hunting opportunity and switching to a bow or giving it up. Many of us have family and friends that would just give it up and as much as I love to hunt I love hunting with these people. 

I'm not against adding archery tags or moving season dates around if it helps all hunters I just think more needs to be done from September all the way to November to improve opportunity for rifle hunters as well.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Your not a gun man PRO! The duke was always shootin at the stick flipers :lol: .
> 
> Coyote, good on you, I've seen the nice line up of animals from this year.
> 
> ...


I agree with this whole post, even the comment on John Wayne. He secretly used a long bow when not on film trying to impress Hollywierd. :twisted:

PRO


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

I just can't understand what all the fuss is about!!! We have a well established group of government officials who were appointed to make these decisions for us. That's what they're there for, so we should all just take a deep breathe and leave these matters for those who know best. Sure, it's great fun to pretend that we know about this and that, but let's face it, we're just simple citizens and those great and worthy officials are the ones to worry about such things. I say, thank the heavens for Government and the fine job they are doing!!! Hooray for BIG GOVERNMENT!!! And with that, let's let this topic go and que sera, sera.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Tree, that was a great post!! I really liked the idea of switching muzzy and rifle. That shouldn't be as hard to get passed. Baby steps!


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Great discussions every body!

let me rant a little:

3rd time is a charm - tried to Post but am having technical (or could that be technician difficulties)

IMO the extended season for the LE Elk hunting bowhunters is great. 
*BUT kicking back the regular bowhunting season into Mid August really BITES - regardless of if it is on a spike unit or not!*
I did a quick survey of westerns states and this is what I found concerning BOWHUNTING:

ARIZONA - Varied start and end dates
9/14 - 9/27, 9/28 - 10/11
COLORADO
8/25 - 9/23
IDAHO
8/30 - 9/30
MONTANA
9/1 - 10/14
OREGON - Varied start and end dates
8/25 -9/23, 11/24 - 12/9
NEVADA
8/25 -9/14
NEW MEXICO - Varied start and end dates
9/1 - 9/10, 9/1 - 9/15, 9/1 - 9/22, 9/3 - 9/9, 9/13 -9/22,
9/11-9/18, 9/16 - 9/24, 9/19 - 9/24 
UTAH 
8/23 - 9/14
WASHINGTON - Varied start and end dates
8/1 - 1/30, 9/8 - 9/21 (majority of early season areas),
10/1 - 10/31, 11/20 - 12/8, 11/19 - 12/15, 12/9 - 12/31
12/9 - 1/30
WYOMING - Varied start and end dates
9/1 - 9/30, 9/1 - 9/19, 9/1 - 9/25

1 OF 10 STATES STARTED HUNT BEFORE 8/23 (but it allowed hunting through the end of January.

5 OF 10 STATES HAD MORE THAN 1 BOWHUNTING SEASON

7 OF 10 STATES HAD BOWHUNTING SEASONS THAT LASTED LONGER THAN 28 DAYS.

1 OF 10 STATES HAD A BOWHUNTING SEASON SHORTER THAN UTAHS

We really ought to start ALL BOWHUNTING - after September 1st

In my opinion regardless of the weapon that we hunt with we as hunters need to voice our opinions and allow the biologists to do their job with respect to our hunt-able wildlife. We need to:

1.	*Get rid of the law that mandates the date for the rifle hunt to start. Why can't seasons be staggered or spread out over time - *

2.	*allow the biologists to have more control over hunt dates (allow them to manipulate populations via data*.
a.	*Requiring reporting from All hunters after their hunt*. - allowing for more accurate information on harvest.
b.	*Conduct early spring head counts every year *- allowing for more accurate post winter date -

3.	*set license sales, and season dates based on biological data.* (this could be a win / win situation for the state - IMO they could raise and lower the number of weapon tags based on this data - some years they would issue more rifle tags, other years they would issue more muzzle loader & archery tags - keep the number of tags up but reduce the success ratios via the use of weapons)

4.	*require mandatory service hours for tags*

5.	_*Get the rifle elk hunt out of the rut*_

6.	*In some areas where a species may be at risk close hunting seasons November 1st (all species).* - An example might be the states northern deer herd (allow the bucks time to get the job done early - better recruitment.)

There are lots of other things that could be done - thanks for letting me rant. CARRY ON


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good post Rich, I believe it was Big Brother that was blocking you earlier. 8) 

A couple of questions for you my friend;

1)Of those 10 states you are comparing, how many have spike only hunting for archers occurring at the same time as mature bull hunts?

2)If there are any, what are the season dates.

3)How do you propose getting the deer rifle opener date mandated by LAW changed? I do know for a fact that there will be legislation introduced on the hill in January to try and change this, but it is the LIVESTOCK folks who strongly and very powerfully block/deter such a change, so how do we overcome that MAJOR problem?

4)How do you suggest getting the rifle hunt out of the rut? As you know, I am a strong advocate of such, but getting it done is the hard/impossible part. That is why I like I400, it is only 'messing' with a few units, but WILL show how effective such action WILL be.

5)Do you believe it is easier to hunt spikes in August when they are still with the herds and consistently coming into water, or in mid-September when the rut is getting going and the spikes have been chased off from the herds and are skittish and scattered?

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Good points first arrow. How come you didn't stick around at the northern RAC? I think there are a lot of beneficial changes that could be made, presentation is everything. A lot of times on these threads, people are saying the exact same thing, yet disagreeing because the presentation is unclear. 

We are ALL hunters, therefore we should be concerned about ALL hunters. One day I may want to rifle hunt in Utah again, I have friends and siblings that rifle and muzzy hunt, so it would be stupid of someone like me to push some kind of selfish agenda with no one else in mind. 

You who have made comment on this thread would do very well to show up to RAC/board meetings and find out what really goes on there. For you that already do, keep it up. The spike only/archery issue was passed because a few people stood up and did something about something they had passion about. Based on results, you do have a voice, so pipe up.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> You who have made comment on this thread would do very well to show up to RAC/board meetings and find out what really goes on there. For you that already do, keep it up. The spike only/archery issue was passed because a few people stood up and did something about something they had passion about. Based on results, you do have a voice, so pipe up.


Well said Ty, if I can get something passed through this process, anyone can. The catch is, you must *SHOW UP* and have a proposal that makes some sense and has some reasoning behind it. The BULK of the changes accomplished at the WB meeting came from the 'public', not from the DWR. This shows that people SHOWING UP can/do make a difference.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Well said Ty, if I can get something passed through this process, anyone can.


 :lol:



> The catch is, you must SHOW UP and have a proposal that makes some sense and has some reasoning behind it.


Agreed but you do such a good job of showing up for me. :shock:


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

> 1)Of those 10 states you are comparing, how many have spike only hunting for archers occurring at the same time as mature bull hunts?
> 
> 2)If there are any, what are the season dates.
> 
> ...


1) As far as I know UTAH is the only state that has the spike hunt - until it was proposed it had NEVER entered the mind of any biologist of State Wildlife Board. *My understanding (as you know) is that it was proposed by a passionate elk hunter who looked at the out of wack herd on the Hardware during the winter, and dreamed it up*. As I remember he saw age classes that were WAY out of wack, plenty of dry cows (ie: low calf recruitement), and I think bull cow ratios that were out of wack (too many cows). IMO The Spike hunt has done it's job and brought back the herd on several units, and should be retired on those units. There may be a few units it needs to stay on and some others that it should start in.

2) I really didn't look for the dates - the spike banner I will leave to Wyo2...

3) That is a tough one rumor has it those stockmen are as hard headed as many of us on this forum :shock:. 
My opinion again - (Darin D - the biologist might shoot me for voicing it) :lol:

This may take a while but let me start here: If you look at the history of the deer in Utah (or the west for that matter). There was some pretty intensive grazing starting early in the year, that carried late in the year. Simply put, the deer herds grew as a result of that grazing, and the elk herds deminished. 
About 20 yrs ago the Forest service revamped their grazing strategy (and the state revamped it's elk strategy) With increased grazing available the elk herd has increased significantly, and the winter deer habitat especially has been reduced, causing the deer herd to crash. I look at Blacksmiths fork, the bitter brush and sage brush on the mountain has been either very old or very dead. On the face in Cache valley you have only junipers, and cheat grass. Neither are very conducive for deer (I won't go into the studies).

Something needs to change here goes:My understanding is that the cattle grazers have been limited as to when they can get the cattle on public land (how early in the year) but have been able to keep the date that they take their cattle off of the land. I also believe that their alotment (read # of animals) is down from what it was 20 years ago. They the cattle and sheep men are fighting for as much time on the mountain as they can get, and as a result are Fighting the deer hunt tooth and nail. This tooth in nail fight is 2 part:
1) Keep on the mountain as long as possible. 2) Traditionally they wanted to be off the mountain prior to the deer hunt _*due to ALL of the hunters*_, but now if you look at it. There may be MORE hunters in ELK camp than in deer camp since many of the hunters 20 years ago looked at getting an elk as a near miracle, deer were common place. Any way that reason for the season start may no longer be valid.

Any way back to what can we do about it? On the Hardware there has been an intensive grazing study, the cattle were put on it I believe April 1st, and allowed to do some VERY intensive grazing in various sections, while they let other sections set, and rotated grazing on others. This has drawn much debate - most against the grazing. My opinion of it is that the study is a good thing (I think it will rest this year then resume at a later date) when we did one of our shoots up the canyon I had many people comment on the yellow flowering bushes up the canyon, the people had never seen them. The 'flowers' were bitter brush - where the cheat grass had been kept to nubbins. The site was truely amazing - then in the fall the new growth was OUTSTANDING....(they also put $30,000 in native seed along the canyon, and pounded it in the ground via the cattle's hooves. We will have to see what it looks like in the spring of 2008)...

Oh yea back to my point, we as hunters need to team up with the cattlemen and help them get their cattle on public land earlier - they will eat the young cheat grass (not when it gets old). And have them follow the cheat grass up the montain. In theory they could be on the forest longer. If they do TRUE rotational grazing I believe that it can be a REAL WIN, WIN situation for both cattle and sheep men and hunters.

With this strategy the deer hunt could change and the cattlemen could have even more time on the mountain.

HOLYCOW that made me tired...

4) Getting the rifle hunt out of the Rut is a Tough one...As I posted earlier, the hunts should be based primarily on Biology. The facts are that the RIFLE HUNT in the rut success rates are too HIGH. There may be units in the state (micro units - another topic) that should be managed for the 400+ bulls and the Rut Shoot. Most units can't handle a RUT rifle hunt and continue to allow high numbers of hunters to hunt the remaining herd UNLESS those hunters are restricted to Primative weapons... In a nut shell I don't know how we get past the mentality many have of DESERVING a BULL / DESERVING the RUT hunt. The truth is that it is better for the majority of he hunters if it is taken out of the rut.

5) My experience with spike is that they are vulnerable at all times of the season. As you put it earlier in the year they are in the herd. Later (during the rut) they hang on the fringes of the herds. Both times they run recklessly into water just before or after the herd waters. How is it that Coyote slayer puts it? *"they are baby elk"*.

Having said that I think that it is IRONIC that there are die hard rifle hunters who insist on hunting a spike elk.
In a herd of 100 elk there are no more than 5 to 12 spikes. The odds of the spike rifle hunters getting a spike aren't ones I would take to Vegas.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Truth be told - I was surprised that Bart's / UBA's proposal concerning the last 5 days of the elk hunt make it through. Good for you.

The issue with the RAC system is that, many come to it voicing their emotion - this never works. 

They have not taken time to contact RAC members, to discuss their agendas, and they do not have a well though out presentation, nor do they have numbers to back up their theories.

Tree - I had to bail due to other commitments. (Burning the candle at both ends!!!) The Big Game RAC is alway entertaining.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Truth be told - I was surprised that *Bart*'s / UBA's proposal concerning the last 5 days of the elk hunt make it through.


Me too. :shock:

Good posts Rich, I look forward to working with you on future issues/ideas/proposals in the coming months. Thanks for your answers and info, much appreciated.

PRO


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Great posts Firstarrow!!!


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Some food for thought

*A Quick look at some laws*
Current law for deer hunt


> Utah Code -- Title 23 -- Chapter 16 -- Big Game
> *23-16-5
> Commencement date of general deer season.*
> The general deer season shall commence the Saturday on or nearest to October 20th.


Current law for deer and elk managment plans


> Utah Code -- Title 23 -- Chapter 16 -- Big Game
> * 23-16-7.  Deer and elk management plans -- Division to confer with others -- Target herd size objectives -- Completion date -- Reports.*
> (1) The Division of Wildlife Resources shall:
> (a) prepare a management plan for each deer and elk herd unit in the state; and
> ...


I view point 7 of the Managment Plan as ultimatly conflicting with the legestated season dates in that the plan is hindered / limited by the set date.

Some current duties of the wildlife board


> Utah Code -- Title 23 -- Chapter 14 -- Division of Wildlife Resources and Wildlife Board
> *23-14-18. Establishment of seasons, locations, limits, and regulations by Wildlife Board.*
> (1) To provide an adequate and *flexible system *of protection, propagation, introduction, increase, control, harvest, management, and conservation of protected wildlife in this state and to provide for the use and development of protected wildlife for public recreation and food supply while maintaining a sustainable population of protected wildlife, the Wildlife Board *shall determine the circumstances, time, location, means, and the amounts, and numbers of protected wildlife which may be taken.*
> (2) The Wildlife Board shall, except as otherwise specified in this code:
> ...


IMO the Legislated start date is in conflict with the law passed establishing the duties of the Wildlife Board


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good point Rich.

On another point that your post brings to mind. It states:


> (1) The Division of Wildlife Resources shall:
> (a) prepare a management plan for each deer and elk herd unit in the state; and
> (b) submit the plans to the Wildlife Board for their approval.
> (2) Upon approval of a plan by the Wildlife Board, the herd unit shall be managed in accordance with the plan.


I pointed out last week how the WB asking for the division to come up with a statewide spike plan was NOT in line with the Elk Management Plan, one of the Board members stated, "the EMP is a guideline, not something we are required to follow and adhere to". I wonder if all those who have made comments regarding I400 and other proposals are aware of this. :?

Your showing a possible conflict in two laws may just be a loophole that will allow the division to 'fix' the outdated law regarding the timing of the rifle deer opener. Let's hope.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> 4) Getting the rifle hunt out of the Rut is a Tough one...As I posted earlier, the hunts should be based primarily on Biology. The facts are that the RIFLE HUNT in the rut success rates are too HIGH. There may be units in the state (micro units - another topic) that should be managed for the 400+ bulls and the Rut Shoot. Most units can't handle a RUT rifle hunt and continue to allow high numbers of hunters to hunt the remaining herd UNLESS those hunters are restricted to Primative weapons... In a nut shell I don't know how we get past the mentality many have of DESERVING a BULL / DESERVING the RUT hunt. The truth is that it is better for the majority of he hunters if it is taken out of the rut.


I can't believe this nonsense is still coming up...pinpointing the season dates as the prime reason the rifle hunt success rates are too high is stupid. Our LE rifle elk success rates will not change more than just a couple percentage points if it is moved out of the rut. The amount of opportunity that would open up is abosuletly minimal and would be nullified by the increase in opportunity archery hunters would see if their hunt were moved into the rut.

The largest reason the success rates for rifle hunters is so high is because of the inflated bull/cow ratios. The only way that success rates for rifle hunters will go down significantly is if those bull/cow ratios come down.

I think you all significantly overestimate the difference moving the season dates would make!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This year will be a perfect example of what I am talking about...in most units snows didn't come before the late LE hunts...yet, despite the elk being scattered over the entire units, the late LE success rates will still be really high.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

To say that having the rifle hunt in the middle of the rut is not A factor in the extremely high success rates is....what is the word I am looking for.....ah yes, STUPID. Hunting bull elk when they are MOST vulnerable, when they are MOST vocal, when they are MOST 'braindead', and then having the 'resident' biology 'expert' say it is NOT a factor in the extremely high success rates, is comical. I will agree that the high bull/cow ratios are A factor as well, but I see the success rates on some of your spike only units that have MUCH lower bull/cow ratios have similar success rates, how is this so? I also see 'trends' on some of the units of the success rates DROPPING on the late-season hunts. I believe this due to weather, and the bulls becoming 'educated' during that time frame. I do NOT see such 'trends' during the early(rut) hunt, because the bulls ignore their survival instincts and primarily listen only to their instincts to pass on their genetics.

I believe we should LOWER bull/cow ratios AND move the rifle hunt out of the rut ASAP. The 'trends' of harvest ages increasing yearly, bull/cow ratios getting worse yearly, is NOT healthy for the elk nor the elk hunters.

I am curious what people think about the data coming in from the 'management tags'. I was told at the WB meeting that 54 bulls were killed, with *THREE * being what the division considers 'management' bulls, the other 51 were 6 and 7 point bulls that were busted. I believe the change in making successful applicants lose their points and go on the 5 year wait is a good step. I still believe that the number of 'non-management' bulls harvested with this tag will remain high, so why not simply issue more 'real' LE tags?

I am also curious to here wyo2ut's response to Mr Johnson's comment that the Board is NOT required to follow the EMP, that they can opt to follow or ignore it. My take, what is the point in having a management plan if we are NOT going to follow it?

PRO


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> Our LE rifle elk success rates will not change more than just a couple percentage points if it is moved out of the rut...I think you all significantly overestimate the difference moving the season dates would make!


It is hard to say how much of a difference it would make in the success rate, but there may big difference in the quality of the animal hunters take (a possible solution to the management dilemma) because hunters may have to actually HUNT for their bull. I have been on these LE units during the rut. All a rifle hunter has to do is listen for the bugle, get to a good vantage point where they can see the elk, determine if it is the bull they want; if not they just walk over the hill to get a look at the next bull bugling and so on. They then have the option of taking a 400-500 yard shot if they want. There is little HUNTING involved. A Utah LE rifle elk hunt with the hunt in the rut is not much different than a fenced in farm hunt IMO. For archers and even ML, they are required to stalk to within an ethical shooting distance, which can be difficult because the bigger bulls typically have a herd with them, which is a lot of eyes to bust the hunter. Primitive weapons don't have the luxury of a "long shot".

W2U, I think your opinion on the matter is due to your bias toward archers (and PRO).

Here's an idea, change the rifle deer to a month long state wide hunt starting Nov. 15. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> To say that having the rifle hunt in the middle of the rut is not A factor in the extremely high success rates is....what is the word I am looking for.....ah yes, STUPID.
> 
> I am also curious to here wyo2ut's response to Mr Johnson's comment that the Board is NOT required to follow the EMP, that they can opt to follow or ignore it. My take, what is the point in having a management plan if we are NOT going to follow it?


1) That's why I didn't say it...I said it isn't as big of a factor as you make it out to be. At most, as I said, moving the rifle hunt out of the rut will only lower success rates by a few percentage points...that ISN'T going to move people through the system or give any more opportunity than what the management tags did!

You make it sound like this would open up a ton more opportunity; it won't. You make it sound that we would drastically reduce hunter success if we move the hunt; it won't. It is stupid to think that with the hunting technology out there, the posses chasing the animals, and the increasingly diminishing amount of hard to reach land that success rates will drop a bunch just because of timing.

Compare the LE elk hunting stats to the LE deer hunting stats and you will find success rates similar. Why?

2) My response is this: The Wildlife Board is the policy and rule establishing board in Utah...they DON'T have to follow the plan if they deem the plan isn't working. Like it or not, that is how things work.

With that being said, any plan devised and passed, should be followed unless the strategies within the plan are determined to NOT be working. Then and only then should new strategies be devised.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Double post.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> There is little HUNTING involved. A Utah LE rifle elk hunt with the hunt in the rut is not much different than a fenced in farm hunt IMO. For archers and even ML, they are required to stalk to within an ethical shooting distance, which can be difficult because the bigger bulls typically have a herd with them, which is a lot of eyes to bust the hunter. Primitive weapons don't have the luxury of a "long shot".


There is also little hunting involved when these LE rifle hunters get a posse of guides/outfitters out chasing the animals months before the hunt...and then when the hunt starts showing their client the animal and allowing him to kill it. How is this any different?

It kills me that you guys want to move the rifle hunters out of the rut and move the muzzy and archery hunters more into the rut...isn't that going to increase their success rates? Won't the increases in their success rates help offset any gains made by the reduction in the success rates of rifle hunters?

FWIW, I rarely, if ever, hunt with a rifle. I am a bowhunter...but, I also recognize that rifle hunters make up the majority of our hunting populous.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You must feel real strong about your posts, since you keep double posting. :? _(O)_ :wink:



> With that being said, any plan devised and passed, should be followed unless the strategies within the plan are determined to NOT be working. Then and only then should new strategies be devised.


So, are we at that point now? Apparently Mr Johnson believes so, I contend if the WB would FOLLOW the EMP opportunity would be greatly increased, quality would still remain world-class on LE units, and spikes would be allowed to live long enough to have the milk dry on their noses. Funny, here in Utah the elk most in danger is the spike, while in states like Colorado it is the elk in the least amount of danger during hunting season. 180 degrees difference in game management/biological mindsets, yet you say we should basically NEVER question the management plans from the division. What gives?

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You must feel real strong about your posts, since you keep double posting. :? _(O)_ :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right now, every time I post, it automatically is double posting...I don't know why. It is not done intentionally...

I believe that Mr. Johnson and the DWR are trying to do what needs to be done--lower bull/cow ratios. The public has not allowed them to do it, so they are coming up with a different method.

I also contend that if the Board would allow the DWR to give out more LE tags and lower spike tag numbers, we could increase opportunity and make more people happy. Funnny...isn't this what I said a long time ago? Haven't I argued a lot in the past that we should be giving out more LE tags and doing what the EMP states? This is what I believe...I believe we should follow the EMP to the letter until it runs out. I don't believe we should come up with all these new strategies--like I400 or a statewide spike hunt--until the current plan's time frame is over.

Also FWIW...the state said specifically that they will NOT eliminate the general season any-bull hunts. You guys keep trying to bring this up, but it isn't being considered.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

again doube post...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> There is also little hunting involved when these LE rifle hunters get a posse of guides/outfitters out chasing the animals months before the hunt...and then when the hunt starts showing their client the animal and allowing him to kill it. How is this any different?
> 
> It kills me that you guys want to move the rifle hunters out of the rut and move the muzzy and archery hunters more into the rut...isn't that going to increase their success rates? Won't the increases in their success rates help offset any gains made by the reduction in the success rates of rifle hunters?
> 
> FWIW, I rarely, if ever, hunt with a rifle. I am a bowhunter...but, I also recognize that rifle hunters make up the majority of our hunting populous.


How often do *you * really think "when the hunt starts showing their client the animal and allowing him to kill it" happens? I have been guiding for going on 20 years, I can count on ONE hand the number of times this has happened to me, and EVERY time it did was in Colorado on PRIVATE LAND. :roll:

It kills me that you think archers will ever have success rates approach rifle success rates, regardless of season dates.

Do you think part of the reason that rifle hunters make up the 'majority' of our hunting populous is because of season dates/times/SUCCESS RATES? Look at surrounding states, why does Utah have a lower percentage of archers than them? I doubt it is because most Utahans are simply 'rifle' hunters. I believe hunters migrate to where their parents hunted and use similar weapons, and as long as Utah remains, IMHO, unfriendly to archers in comparison to other states, the bulk of hunters will remain 'rifle' hunters. Make the archery season dates/times more appealing, give hunters the realistic hope of drawing a LE tag more than once, and MORE hunters will become 'archers'.

PRO


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Also FWIW...the state said specifically that they will NOT eliminate the general season any-bull hunts. You guys keep trying to bring this up, but it isn't being considered.


In the link *YOU* gave us from the August WB meeting, Mr Johnson was very clear in wishing to have the any-bull units included in the spike ONLY state wide idea. He also rebuffed the DWR last week for leaving the any-bull areas out of their informational presentation, and made it clear he wants the any-bull areas INCLUDED in the ACTION item passed by the Bard for the DWR to draft, I was there, I saw and heard what he said, and how he said it. The fact he is unwilling to ENFORCE the current EMP, yet wants to go in a 'new' direction, that has PROVEN to be unpopular, is troublesome. The DWR recommends more tags, and the Board restricts them, so I out this 100% on the Board.

I believe I400, as I have mentioned many times, complies with the current EMP, and I believe would PROVE to skeptics like yourself how much the rut plays a role in harvest numbers, and as pointed out by flyfish247, the age/size of bulls harvested. What would it hurt? Quality would not be 'wiped out', opportunity would be increased, it may even wake the Board up on how if they would allow the division to manage to objectives, opportunity AND quality can be obtained. It sure in the hell is a better option than statewide spike hunting. If this goes through, EVERY LE archer owes UBA a MAJOR thank you for giving them 5 days w/o spike hunters in the field. THey should thank UBA for giving them an extra 5 days to hunt as well!!

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> How often do *you * really think "when the hunt starts showing their client the animal and allowing him to kill it" happens? I have been guiding for going on 20 years, I can count on ONE hand the number of times this has happened to me, and EVERY time it did was in Colorado on PRIVATE LAND. :roll:
> 
> It kills me that you think archers will ever have success rates approach rifle success rates, regardless of season dates.
> 
> Do you think part of the reason that rifle hunters make up the 'majority' of our hunting populous is because of season dates/times/SUCCESS RATES? Look at surrounding states, why does Utah have a lower percentage of archers than them? I doubt it is because most Utahans are simply 'rifle' hunters. I believe hunters migrate to where their parents hunted and use similar weapons, and as long as Utah remains, IMHO, unfriendly to archers in comparison to other states, the bulk of hunters will remain 'rifle' hunters. Make the archery season dates/times more appealing, give hunters the realistic hope of drawing a LE tag more than once, and MORE hunters will become 'archers'.


1) What the heck is the point of the guide then? Aren't you there to make it "easier" for someone else? If you aren't helping someone kill an animal, you are a crappy guide!

2) I don't think archers will have success rates similar to rifle hunters...i think that moving the archers and muzzy hunters into the rut will increase their success rates enough to offset any difference moving the rifle hunt out of the rut would make...

3) My odds as an archer are much better already than rifle hunters in drawing a tag...isn't this incentive already? For me it was...also, I plan on drawing more than once. I am sure I will!

4) Why are our LE rifle deer hunt success rates so high? Why are they virtually identical to the LE rifle elk hunts? You can't blame them on the rut, can you?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I believe I400, as I have mentioned many times, complies with the current EMP, and I believe would PROVE to skeptics like yourself how much the rut plays a role in harvest numbers, and as pointed out by flyfish247, the age/size of bulls harvested. What would it hurt? Quality would not be 'wiped out', opportunity would be increased, it may even wake the Board up on how if they would allow the division to manage to objectives, opportunity AND quality can be obtained. It sure in the hell is a better option than statewide spike hunting. If this goes through, EVERY LE archer owes UBA a MAJOR thank you for giving them 5 days w/o spike hunters in the field. THey should thank UBA for giving them an extra 5 days to hunt as well!!


I don't believe I400 complies...I also believe that by moving the rut out of the hunt would PROVE to skeptics like yourself how much the rut doesn't play a role in harvest numbers.

I also don't believe it is a better option than changing all the LE units to allow spike hunting!

The archers should also rebuke UBA for changing the opening weekend of the deer hunt and increasing the number of hunters and decreasing the quality of our deer hunt. Archers should also be upset that the spike hunt has been moved further out of the rut...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I disagree with your last statement professor. "*Should* be right"? I think that it's speculation based on your need to be right and flood unsuspecting ears with your values. I'm open to the possibility of being off here, but I don't think that's the case.

I asked Jim Karpowitz the question about why they don't manage to the plan/ratios at the WB meeting. He laughed and basically told us that every year they try and every year they are denied by the board because of fear.

I think it's the church's fault. They need to stop controlling our elected officials.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I believe I400, as I have mentioned many times, complies with the current EMP, and I believe would PROVE to skeptics like yourself how much the rut plays a role in harvest numbers, and as pointed out by flyfish247, the age/size of bulls harvested. What would it hurt? Quality would not be 'wiped out', opportunity would be increased, it may even wake the Board up on how if they would allow the division to manage to objectives, opportunity AND quality can be obtained. It sure in the hell is a better option than statewide spike hunting. If this goes through, EVERY LE archer owes UBA a MAJOR thank you for giving them 5 days w/o spike hunters in the field. They should thank UBA for giving them an extra 5 days to hunt as well!!
> ...


1)How does I400 'not' conform with the EMP?

2)Why?

3)The deer opening date was NOT changed. I doubt the number of hunters will be increased by much, sense MOST spike hunters also are archery deer hunters already, now they can hunt BOTH on opening day. "Archers should also be upset the spike hunt has been moved further out of the rut...", now that is funny stuff right there. How will spike hunters succeed w/o being able to call spikes in during the rut? :roll:



> 1) What the heck is the point of the guide then? Aren't you there to make it "easier" for someone else? If you aren't helping someone kill an animal, you are a crappy guide!


Make it 'easier', maybe. Improve their odds of taking a 'world-class' animal, yes sir. Don't worry none to much about me being a "crappy guide", as long as my clients are happy I consider myself 'competent'. :wink:



> 2) I don't think archers will have success rates similar to rifle hunters...i think that moving the archers and muzzy hunters into the rut will increase their success rates enough to offset any difference moving the rifle hunt out of the rut would make...


This is based on as much/more speculation on your part as mine.



> 3) My odds as an archer are much better already than rifle hunters in drawing a tag...isn't this incentive already? For me it was...also, I plan on drawing more than once. I am sure I will!


How can you be sure? I am 40, I'll be 41 when I draw, add in a five year wait before I can apply again puts me at 46 before I can even apply again, by then I will most likely need 10+ points to draw, that puts me at the earliest 56 before I would draw again under the current rate. Late fifty's isn't the best age to be out chasing bulls with archery gear on Dutton, and I seriously doubt I will draw again before I hit 60. MANY archers don't believe they would draw again, so they apply for rifle tags instead. I personally have talked with dozens who do this very thing, to dismiss it because *you* believe differently is "silly". To expect to draw with one or two points again is stretching it.



> 4) Why are our LE rifle deer hunt success rates so high? Why are they virtually identical to the LE rifle elk hunts? You can't blame them on the rut, can you?


I'll be honest, I haven't looked as closely at the deer success rates that close, so I can't answer that at this time. I'll look into it for you though. 8)

PRO


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Man, Pro I didn't realize you were such an old man. :lol: Just kidding, I'm just about to the big 40 myself.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I think one of the reasons the LE deeer hunts have higher success rates is because people have a lower standard as far as the quality of animals they are persuing. My brother and I had the opportunity to hunt the Vernon LE this year. Opening morning my brother and I sat back and watched every hunter in our surrounding area shoot the first small 4pt. they seen. On our way back to camp on opening day we were following behind a truck who had already harvested their deer, when they stopped, asked us what qualtiy of deer we were looking, and proceeded to show us a 22-24" 4pt. off the side of the road. We opted to pass on the buck and they thought we were crazy. I seen over a dozen deer shot and none of them were near the quality of the deer my brother and I took, and ours weren't "monsters" by any means. 

My point is, most LE deer hunters put in for LE hunts because it is roughly the same price as the general season yet they have great potential to harvest a deer, regardless of the size. Consider how frustrating the general season can be, most hunters are lucky to see a dink and shoot the first buck they see and still only average about a 25% state wide success rate. 

With the LE elk hunt, hunters know that if they can find a herd (which is not difficult during the rut), there is likely going to be a big herd bull, plus the number of hunters in the field are minimal, so hunting pressure is not an issue. Quality animals can consistenly be taken with minimal effort and with so many bulls to chose from due to the bulll/cow ratio, success rates will be high.

So in summary, while the success rates are roughly the same, the quality of animal and the amount of effort to take a quality animal is far different. Move the hunt out of the rut, success rates may drop, but the quality of harvested animals will go down significanlty giving the ability to issue more tags and still maintain high quality.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> So in summary, while the success rates are roughly the same, the quality of animal and the amount of effort to take a quality animal is far different. Move the hunt out of the rut, success rates may drop, but the quality of harvested animals will go down significantly giving the ability to issue more tags and still maintain high quality.


 This ranks among the all-time great "summaries" I have been HONORED to read on this forum. KUDOS!

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> So in summary, while the success rates are roughly the same, the quality of animal and the amount of effort to take a quality animal is far different. Move the hunt out of the rut, success rates may drop, but the quality of harvested animals will go down significanlty giving the ability to issue more tags and still maintain high quality.


The success rates are roughly the same despite lower buck/doe ratios than bull/cow ratios. The quality of the animals may differ but that is because there are more bulls to choose from....if the hunt is moved out of the rut, the quality of harvested animals may drop but that doesn't change how many tags can be issued. Each unit has only a certain number of animals that can be harvested...quality doesn't come into play when determining that number.

Also, your difficulty theory doesn't compute. If you look at the numbers of days that these LE deer hunters hunted and compare it to the number of days the LE elk hunters hunted, you would find that the time is almost exactly the same. In fact, in 2005 LE deer hunters spent on average 4.1 days in the field...LE elk hunters spent 4.1 days in the field as well.

The truth is that rifle hunting just isn't that difficult. With todays technology and the presence of numerous helpers, locating the quarry and killing it with a rifle isn't hard. Changing the season dates won't reduce hunter success very much at all...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Another prime example is the Bookcliffs. You can see dozens and dozens and dozens of 4 points all day long, but they are only 20 inches wide. I saw dozens of people shooting 2,3,4 points on the very first day that were only 18 inches wide. 

Can you imagine the slaughter of our deer herds if we hunted them with a rifle in the rut? The tags would be reduced 

The Henry Mtns is managed more like our elk units.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Flyfishn247 said:
> 
> 
> > So in summary, while the success rates are roughly the same, the quality of animal and the amount of effort to take a quality animal is far different. Move the hunt out of the rut, success rates may drop, but the quality of harvested animals will go down significantly giving the ability to issue more tags and still maintain high quality.
> ...


You are contradicting yourself AGAIN. You said earlier that the main reason success rates are so high is because of high bull/cow ratios, now it doesn't apply to deer, WTH?

Another 'circle dance' is you saying, "Each unit has only a certain number of animals that can be harvested...quality doesn't come into play when determining that number.", you have, MANY times, stated there are EXCESS bulls on EVERY unit, again WTH? I submit the reason for the desire to have excess bulls is to keep the quality at maximum levels, if more of the bigger bulls have higher escapement odds due to hunters having to 'hunt', increasing the odds of 'lesser' bulls being harvested, the 'top-end' bulls would be there w/o the need for excess bulls. If it is more difficult to locate bulls, hunters WILL be less selective, making the odds of the bigger bulls escaping and being around the ensuing years HIGHER, making the 'justification' for under-harvesting on these units weaker.

PRO


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> locating the quarry and killing it with a rifle isn't hard


You are 100% correct with this statement, particularly hunting elk with a rifle during the rut. I never said LE deer hunts pose a challenge to harvest an animal. But, I guarantee you that locating and harvesting a trophy mule deer is much more of a challenge than harvsting a trophy bull. Look at the age statistics of harvests. Most elk units have an average age harvest age of 5 -7 years, some are even higher. This has no comparison to the mule deer harvest. I'm willing to guess that most deer harvested on LE units are 3 years or less. But if you go onto any of these LE deer units during the rut, you can see numerous trophy animals. Why, because the last thing on their mind is survival. You would see a completely different harvest trend if the LE deer hunts occured during the rut, and vice versa moving the LE elk hunt out of the rut.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> You are 100% correct with this statement, particularly hunting elk with a rifle during the rut. I never said LE deer hunts pose a challenge to harvest an animal. But, I guarantee you that locating and harvesting a trophy mule deer is much more of a challenge than harvsting a trophy bull. Look at the age statistics of harvests. Most elk units have an average age harvest age of 5 -7 years, some are even higher. This has no comparison to the mule deer harvest. I'm willing to guess that most deer harvested on LE units are 3 years or less. But if you go onto any of these LE deer units during the rut, you can see numerous trophy animals. Why, because the last thing on their mind is survival. You would see a completely different harvest trend if the LE deer hunts occured during the rut, and vice versa moving the LE elk hunt out of the rut.


But, that doesn't matter...every unit only has so many animals that can be killed. It doesn't matter if the animal is trophy quality or not...the quality of the animal harvested doesn't matter.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

To continue the line of thinking 24/7 has brought up, by shifting more of the tags to primitive weapons, MORE of the bigger bulls would escape/survive due to primitive weapon hunters taking younger/lesser bulls on average than rifle hunters. This again would allow for fewer bulls be 'required' to obtain the desired quality level from 'trophy' hunters, allowing for LOWER bull/cow ratios, which per Dr wyo2ut would LOWER success rates. Double bonus!

Don't duck the question wyo2ut, is there or is there not 'excess' bulls on all/most LE elk units? 

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> the quality of the animal harvested doesn't matter


Oh yes it does matter. Do you think people put in the Henry Mtns because they love the terrain or they love hunting on the Mtn. NO, It because they are after a trophy animal.

Do you think people who put in for the Pahvant dont care about quality??? Why do you think a lot more people put in for that unit even if the odds are terrible.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You are contradicting yourself AGAIN. You said earlier that the main reason success rates are so high is because of high bull/cow ratios, now it doesn't apply to deer, WTH?


Key word, Pro, "main". Talk about not making sense...you are claiming that the "main" reason our LE elk hunters have such a high success rate is because of the rut or timing of the hunt...but, the timing of the hunt hasn't made such a huge impact on the LE deer hunt (in 2005 LE deer hunters killed at an 85% success rate....that same year LE elk hunters killed at an 86% success rate).



proutdoors said:


> Another 'circle dance' is you saying, "Each unit has only a certain number of animals that can be harvested...quality doesn't come into play when determining that number.", you have, MANY times, stated there are EXCESS bulls on EVERY unit, again WTH? I submit the reason for the desire to have excess bulls is to keep the quality at maximum levels, if more of the bigger bulls have higher escapement odds due to hunters having to 'hunt', increasing the odds of 'lesser' bulls being harvested, the 'top-end' bulls would be there w/o the need for excess bulls. If it is more difficult to locate bulls, hunters WILL be less selective, making the odds of the bigger bulls escaping and being around the ensuing years HIGHER, making the 'justification' for under-harvesting on these units weaker.


We do have excess bulls...we have more bulls that need to be harvested. It doesn't matter whether the harvested bulls are trophy or no (this was my point--quality is surely affected by the number of animals killed)...it doesn't matter what quality of bull is killed; we just need to kill more bulls. To say that we could give out more tags because lesser-quality bulls would be harvested is nonsense...regardless of the quality of bull harvested only so many bulls can be harvested from any given unit.

We can give out more tags because we are above our bull/cow ratio objectives...killing more of these bulls and lowering these ratios will lower quality simply because of numbers.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

According to your logic, Pro, our LE deer hunts should have much lower success rates than our LE elk hunts because they are NOT held during the rut...

...and, if we lower bull/cow ratios (which WILL lower quality) our success rates will not change because hunters will shoot the first little bull they see.

How come deer hunters are so much different than elk hunters?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > the quality of the animal harvested doesn't matter
> 
> 
> Oh yes it does matter. Do you think people put in the Henry Mtns because they love the terrain or they love hunting on the Mtn. NO, It because they are after a trophy animal.
> ...


Biologically speaking it doesn't. That's where we get objectives from. Desired hunter harvest is derived from a combination of things, one being the amount of ANIMALS taken off a unit, not MATURE animals.

Age class and quality are used to keep the economy of hunting going in the state, but without sound management based on biological data, there would be no deer to manage for quality. Just the stragglers that got lucky the previous fall and winter.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks, Treehugnhuntr, that was my point...you made it better than I could.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Biologically speaking it doesn't. That's where we get objectives from. Desired hunter harvest is derived from a combination of things, one being the amount of ANIMALS taken off a unit, not MATURE animals.


But we dont manage our herds based on Biology. The DWR is afraid to step up to the plate to manage based on Biology. After going to the WB meeting I doubt seriously that anyone on the board knows about biology. OK maybe there was 1 or 2.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> The DWR is afraid to step up to the plate to manage based on Biology.


Quotes like this kill me....what in the heck has the DWR been trying to do the last few years? They have been trying to show the public that biologically we need to lower bull/cow ratios...but, who hasn't allowed the DWR to do this? The public and the Board. Remember, Wile E. Coyote, the Board is not the DWR nor are they appointed by the DWR!

So, how is it that the DWR is "afraid to step up to the plate"?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The only reason we hunt bulls in the rut is because rifle hunters want a kick ass awesome experience to kill bulls in the rut. There is nothing biologically sound to hunt bulls in the rut.

The LE season rifle hunt will be high the first few years until the animals adjust to hunting pressure


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> How come deer hunters are so much different than elk hunters?


Funny, I remember asking you the same question months ago when talking about antler restrictions, so I say follow your own words of 'wisdom'.  I'll let you recall what your answer was to me.

If escapement rates are high, or higher than now, quality is 'less' affected by lowering of bull/cow ratios. Let's take a scenerio of making a LE unit like Monroe and it being made an ARCHERY ONLY unit. I contend the bull/cow ratio could be cut in half from where it is now, and quality would remain/increase under such a plan. Why/how? Because a significant percentage of the older/bigger bulls would escape and be able to get BIGGER. I dare say, this unit could have a 3 month season, and quality would still remain/increase from todays level, while the bull/cow ratio would be lower. Proof is the WF for deer, the quality is as high as the LE deer units, all while being an OTC unit. Because escape rates are high, and archers are willing to harvest 'lesser' bucks by and large.

Objectives for LE elk units are based MORE on hunter demand than biology, there is little/no biological benefit to having the harvest age average over 7 years of age. There is also little/no biological benefit to having bull/cow ratios over 60/100, it actually LIMITS the number of cows/calves on a given unit at the expense of having more older class bulls for hunter desires, not for biological purposes.

PRO


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

No one is disputing the success rates, they are what they are. What can be disputed is the quality of animals being harvested. The reason people harvest a less than trophy deer on LE units is out of fear of not seeing anything better becuase trophy bucks are difficult to find on most units, plus they aren't willing to exercise the patience and effort required to potentially harvest a trophy animal. But with elk, due to the timing of the hunt (the rut), trophy bulls are far more vulnerable. There is no equalibrium in the elk herd. The only bulls being killed are the largest, most mature bulls unless there is a spike hunt on the unit, but still leaving all the bulls inbetween. For instance, I saw a herd up SF canyon last winter that had 32 bulls and 20 cows. Of the bulls, one was a 350+ bull , 3 were spikes, and the rest were raghorns. Of those raghorns, how many do you think were shot during the past hunting season? Not nearly as many as there should have been if any at all. Not to mention the spikes are now added to the "untouchable" bulls. Now how does this help the herd health, hunter opportunity, or the FUBARed draw system we currently have in place? Not at all. We need serious change, and that why I respect people like PRO and others who are working passionately to bring changes to this system.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Funny, I remember asking you the same question months ago when talking about antler restrictions, so I say follow your own words of 'wisdom'.  I'll let you recall what your answer was to me.
> 
> If escapement rates are high, or higher than now, quality is 'less' affected by lowering of bull/cow ratios. Let's take a scenerio of making a LE unit like Monroe and it being made an ARCHERY ONLY unit. I contend the bull/cow ratio could be cut in half from where it is now, and quality would remain/increase under such a plan. Why/how? Because a significant percentage of the older/bigger bulls would escape and be able to get BIGGER. I dare say, this unit could have a 3 month season, and quality would still remain/increase from todays level, while the bull/cow ratio would be lower. Proof is the WF for deer, the quality is as high as the LE deer units, all while being an OTC unit. Because escape rates are high, and archers are willing to harvest 'lesser' bucks by and large.
> 
> Objectives for LE elk units are based MORE on hunter demand than biology, there is little/no biological benefit to having the harvest age average over 7 years of age. There is also little/no biological benefit to having bull/cow ratios over 60/100, it actually LIMITS the number of cows/calves on a given unit at the expense of having more older class bulls for hunter desires, not for biological purposes.


1) No, I said the biology between deer and elk are different...aren't we talking about hunters. Is the biology between elk and deer hunters that much different?

2) Sorry, but, biologically, what you are saying doesn't work. Ask any big game biologist and they will tell you that when you increase harvest, quality goes down. In fact, this was a part of the DWR's presentation given at RAC meetings in August. If you increase escapement, you can increase tag numbers, but harvest stays the same. Quality would still go down even if escapement is increased if harvest goes up!

3) Ok...bull/cow ratios are built around social principles--at least in part. But, that doesn't change the fact that only so many animals can be killed to maintain a bull/cow ratio and that it doesn't matter the quality of the animal biologically to maintain that ratio.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) No, I said the biology between deer and elk are different...aren't we talking about hunters. Is the biology between elk and deer hunters that much different?
> 
> 2) Sorry, but, biologically, what you are saying doesn't work. Ask any big game biologist and they will tell you that when you increase harvest, quality goes down. In fact, this was a part of the DWR's presentation given at RAC meetings in August. If you increase escapement, you can increase tag numbers, but harvest stays the same. Quality would still go down even if escapement is increased if harvest goes up!
> 
> 3) Ok...bull/cow ratios are built around social principles--at least in part. But, that doesn't change the fact that only so many animals can be killed to maintain a bull/cow ratio and that it doesn't matter the quality of the animal biologically to maintain that ratio.


1)No, that was NOT your answer, think about it for a bit. It had to do with all the 'so-called' illegal kills of deer under antler restrictions vs the 'so-called' lower illegal kills of elk under antler restrictions.

2)Yet, you support/advocate spike hunting. :roll: If escapement increases, quality WILL be HIGHER, this is because a percentage of the bigger bulls ESCAPE!

3)If bull/cow ratios are high (50+/100) quality will/must be high, to imply otherwise is nonsensical. The bull/cow ratios are way high, critically high on some units, so why are *you* know suggesting we should keep them high? Or are you not clear on where you stand on this, and just like to disagree?

I will continue to fight for more opportunity, but continue to oppose managing the state elk herd with spike tags being the primary management tool. I believe there are better/more desirable ways to manage allowing for quality and opportunity. I will work with those willing to find/strive for BALANCE. If you want to oppose EVERYTHING I/others suggest/propose, so be it. I can sleep well knowing I am doing my part to make hunting better for my children. No thanks is needed/desired, having the ability to look my kids in the eye when talking about their futures as hunters is reward enough.

24/7 and all interested, we will be getting a meeting lined up shortly on I400, it is NOT dead as far as I am concerned.

PRO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro and w2u when are you two going to give up. You're never going to change the others mind. I do however, enjoy the witty banter so I say keep it up...


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Wyo2 -

It is OK to admit that an ARM CHAIR BIOLOGIST was right about initiating the spike hunt (another arm chair biologist might be right about other things) when the REAL BIOLOGISTS didn't think of it.

Then again, just because it worked on the specific units doesn't mean it is the answer for solving the mysteries of life or perpetuating every elk herd in the west, any more than *A)* is the correct answer on all multiple choice tests.

We NOW understand that you don't like I-400 :shock: , We understand that you don't think taking the rifle hunt out of the RUT will help.

Why is it that any time anyone posts an epistle, you pick out ONE thing out and HAMMER at it and never seem to be able to discuss the other 99.99999% of the post that MIGHT be Right or good for Wildlife?

What items CAN you agree on that have been discussed?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> No one is disputing the success rates, they are what they are. What can be disputed is the quality of animals being harvested. The reason people harvest a less than trophy deer on LE units is out of fear of not seeing anything better becuase trophy bucks are difficult to find on most units, plus they aren't willing to exercise the patience and effort required to potentially harvest a trophy animal. But with elk, due to the timing of the hunt (the rut), trophy bulls are far more vulnerable. There is no equalibrium in the elk herd. The only bulls being killed are the largest, most mature bulls unless there is a spike hunt on the unit, but still leaving all the bulls inbetween. For instance, I saw a herd up SF canyon last winter that had 32 bulls and 20 cows. Of the bulls, one was a 350+ bull , 3 were spikes, and the rest were raghorns. Of those raghorns, how many do you think were shot during the past hunting season? Not nearly as many as there should have been if any at all. Not to mention the spikes are now added to the "untouchable" bulls. Now how does this help the herd health, hunter opportunity, or the FUBARed draw system we currently have in place? Not at all. We need serious change, and that why I respect people like PRO and others who are working passionately to bring changes to this system.


Ok...dispute that the quality of animals harvested would be lower. But, that still doesn't change the fact that success rates wouldn't change much and that it doesn't matter biologically which animals are harvested. Even if lower quality animals are harvested, when bull/cow ratios are lowered, quality will decline as well.

I don't think we need some drastic change...we simply need to manage elk the way the EMP outlines them to be managed.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)No, that was NOT your answer, think about it for a bit. It had to do with all the 'so-called' illegal kills of deer under antler restrictions vs the 'so-called' lower illegal kills of elk under antler restrictions.
> 
> 2)Yet, you support/advocate spike hunting. :roll: If escapement increases, quality WILL be HIGHER, this is because a percentage of the bigger bulls ESCAPE!
> 
> ...


1) ok...then show me my answer.

2) are you seriously saying that lower bull/cow ratios will result in higher quality? come on...if you increase harvest, quality goes down. It all comes back to harvest. The more animals you harvest, the lower quality you have.

3) Exactly...that is why you can't expect to lower bull/cow ratios and increase quality! I am not suggesting we should keep them high; I think we should lower bull/cow ratios. I have always said this; I have never changed this thought. If our bull/cow ratio objective is 35/100, we have the same number of bulls each year available to be killed--if we kill more bulls than what we should and the bull/cow ratio goes down, quality goes down. But, if we kill less bulls than what we should and the bull/cow ratios goes up, quality goes up! You aren't going to decrease bull/cow ratios and increase quality!

Why not come up with a plan, then, that increases total opportunity and number of tags...I want to look my kids in the eye and be able to tell them that they have yearly hunting priveleges and that those priveleges weren't taken away because people became so trophy oriented that they had to shoot a big one. I want my kids to have MORE opportunity than I have had...I hope that big game hunting will remain a yearly opportunity and not some one time every 10 years event.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Why not come up with a plan, then, that increases total opportunity and number of tags...I want to look my kids in the eye and be able to tell them that they have *yearly hunting priveleges *and that those priveleges weren't taken away because people became so trophy oriented that they had to shoot a big one. I want my kids to have MORE opportunity than I have had...I hope that big game hunting will remain a *yearly *opportunity and not some one time every 10 years event.


+1

If it could work I would love to see the whole state go to general season anybull, devided into a handful of units to prevent overcrowding and over harvesting, let the chips fall where they may and may the best hunter win!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) ok...then show me my answer.
> 
> 2) are you seriously saying that lower bull/cow ratios will result in higher quality? come on...if you increase harvest, quality goes down. It all comes back to harvest. The more animals you harvest, the lower quality you have.
> 
> ...


1)Selective memory loss???

2)Don't twist what I said/mean. Get real. I said, "If escapement increases, quality WILL be HIGHER, this is because a percentage of the bigger bulls ESCAPE!" Where does it say ANYTHING about bull/cow ratios?

3)I am 100% in favor of lowering bull/cow ratios, just not with spike harvests, but with mature bull harvests.

4)I say I400 does exactly what you claim to desire, yet you not only oppose it, you call it stupid. I400 would INCREASE opportunity to hunt elk, and make improvements on bull/cow ratios, and give MORE hunters the opportunity to hunt mature bulls.

10000ft, read my signature, that is my desire for deer/elk management in Utah. To be like wyo2ut, and oppose EVERYTHING proposed by EVERYONE not lock stock in line with him, accomplishes what? What is the saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results", that is what wyo2ut is advocating by trying to approach things the same EVERY year.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)Selective memory loss???
> 
> 2)Don't twist what I said/mean. Get real. I said, "If escapement increases, quality WILL be HIGHER, this is because a percentage of the bigger bulls ESCAPE!" Where does it say ANYTHING about bull/cow ratios?
> 
> ...


1) Selective memory loss? I have no clue what you are even talking about...again, show me what I said, under what context I said it, and under which thread.

2) If we increase the escapment of bulls on an LE unit, doesn't harvest go down? If harvest goes down, what goes up? You can't lower bull/cow ratios and decrease harvest. Again, quality is a product of harvest.

3) I think bull/cow ratios should be lowerd by the strategy outlined in the EMP--if we are under harvest age objective we should increase LE tags until we meet objectives. We aren't doing this as quickly as it should be done. We need to educate the public as to why this is necessary so that we can do it.

4) I400 would not at all increase general season hunting opportunity, it would unnecessarily complicate Utah hunting regulations, and it opens the door to eliminating opportunity.

5) Pro, I think your moniker is BS. Weren't you in favor of totally eliminating spike elk hunting? Don't you keep putting up these posts about how we should stop killing spikes? How in the world would that increase general season opportunity?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> Why is it that any time anyone posts an epistle, you pick out ONE thing out and HAMMER at it and never seem to be able to discuss the other 99.99999% of the post that MIGHT be Right or good for Wildlife?
> 
> What items CAN you agree on that have been discussed?


That is a double-edged sword you are wielding, Mrarrow. Do you honestly think that if I posted an epistle outlining what I think should be done with Utah's elk hunt that you and others wouldn't "pick out" the one thing and "HAMMER" at it and not discuss the other portion of the post that "MIGHT" be good?

What items CAN you agree on with me that have been discussed?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

wyonut, you can agree that you talk in circles


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

You ALL talk in circles to a point. Here is the thing, wyo2ut's points are just as valid as the rest, his just lie on one part of the pie and pro/coyote on the other. You *ALL* make good points and make up the whole pie.

Is sound biology required to sustain huntable numbers in this state? *Yes*

Do we need quality animals to hunt in order to sustain hunter interest and keep a constant flow of cash into management, habitat improvement etc. *Yes*

So who is right here? ALL OF YOU!

If we can get over the "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff, you will all notice a group of people who are passionate about the wildlife in our state and that *most* of the beliefs thrown out on the table are similar. You guys are arguing small points and probably playing the devil's advocate most of the time.

Is a small change in the general archery season going to impact anyone to any great extent. I would speculate no. If I am a LE archer on a spike unit, is 5 days without everyone else going to make a difference in my experience and result? Absolutely.

Do we ned to be careful how we manage our resources and consider ALL points of view? Absolutely.

There is a happy middle ground and the powers that be AND the little guy need to figure out where that is, without arguing over points that move us away from that middle ground.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> You ALL talk in circles to a point. Here is the thing, wyo2ut's points are just as valid as the rest, his just lie on one part of the pie and pro/coyote on the other. You *ALL* make good points and make up the whole pie.
> 
> Is sound biology required to sustain huntable numbers in this state? *Yes*
> 
> ...


Who are you, Doctor Killjoy? :roll: :wink:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I prefer 'Senor Killjoy.'


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Hola Senor Killjoy porque tienes problemas conmigo? Yo creo que tu eres muy malo. -()/>-


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Estoy un gran pendejo. No tengo problemas con tigo. Yo pienso, hay personas que tienen cabezas duros en este lugar. Na hay pedos amigo.


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

Just wanted to use the *bold *code; hadn't done so in awhile. :wink:

Oh and speaking of circles....what kind of circle am I thinking of? :lol: (I'll give ya hint...its 10 o'clock and I'm randy :shock: )


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Zim, tu eres un payaso y tambien un frito. Yo se que tu eres muy diferent y te gusta hombre sin embargo tienes que usar to cabeza. Es un ley que los hombres se casan con las mujeres.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Estoy un gran pendejo. No tengo problemas con tigo. Yo pienzo haveces, hay personas que tienen cabezas pesas en este lugar. Na hay pedos amigo.


Jajajaja eres bien loco


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Zim, tu eres un payaso y tambien un frito. Yo se que tu eres muy diferent y te gusta hombre sin embargo tienes que usar to cabeza. Es un ley que los hombres se casan con las mujeres.


Dude I don't speak french or whatever... :wink:


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

It's bad enough that I can't order a meal without speaking it, and they have taken over the Bud Light sign on redwood road. But now you go and bring it to the forum. -oOo- 

Lort, min lille drenge, du skal snakke enlisk. Fordi vi er i america.............


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

utfireman said:


> It's bad enough that I can't order a meal without speaking it...


It's also bad enough that I need to keep updating the profanity filter here without also having to worry about Spanish and Danish. Can we please keep it civil?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

I am on the right forum? Becuse I sure have no clue what your saying tree and yote? :?: :?:


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> I am on the right forum? Becuse I sure have no clue what your saying tree and yote? :?: :?:


this might help some of us to decipher the babbling

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

still do not know what Utfireman said


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Coyote and I were't going at each other, just so we're clear.

lo siento.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Coyote and I were't going at each other, just so we're clear.
> 
> lo siento.


NOTHING you and coyote said during that nonsense was 'clear'. :?


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

InvaderZim said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > Zim, tu eres un payaso y tambien un frito. Yo se que tu eres muy diferent y te gusta hombre sin embargo tienes que usar to cabeza. Es un ley que los hombres se casan con las mujeres.
> ...


That's good stuff there. Zim you look alittle like Seth Green. From the hit movie Austin Powers.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> this might help some of us to decipher the babbling
> 
> http://babelfish.altavista.com/


This website doesnt translate very well. I learned spanish from spending two years in the Mexican Jail.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > this might help some of us to decipher the babbling
> >
> > http://babelfish.altavista.com/
> 
> ...


That's how I met coyoteslayer, My sentence was a bit longer. For some reason they didn't believe that those were bails of hay??????

I still get the warm and fuzzies when I smell urine, vomit and clothing that's been worn for eight weeks in a row. Not to mention the way my mouth waters when I think of smothered sewer rat quesadillas. Mmmmmmm! :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> That's how I met coyoteslayer, My sentence was a bit longer. For some reason they didn't believe that those were bails of hay??????
> 
> I still get the warm and fuzzies when I smell urine, vomit and clothing that's been worn for eight weeks in a row. Not to mention the way my mouth waters when I think of smothered sewer rat quesadillas. Mmmmmmm!


Boy those were the days!!! I miss the times when we went out on the chain-gangs to farm marijuana. Treehugger posted a recipe on how to cook antelope, but people dont know that recipe came from eating sewer rats. Sometimes when I go to Mexican places to eat then I always get the urge to order some smothered sewer rat quesadillas.

By the way if you drink the water in Mexico it definately gives you montezuma's revenge.


----------



## J-bass (Oct 22, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> By the way if you drink the water in Mexico it definately gives you montezuma's revenge.


Yes, but it's such a good way to get rid of those last few stubborn pounds that I highly recommend it as a weight loss program. Nothing like dysentary and roundworms to give you that body you've always been wanting.


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> InvaderZim said:
> 
> 
> > coyoteslayer said:
> ...


Glad somebody got it. 8)


----------



## FC2Tuber (Oct 26, 2007)

J-bass said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > By the way if you drink the water in Mexico it definately gives you montezuma's revenge.
> ...


LOL :lol:


----------

