# The I400 Thread



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

As you all know a few of us members have been working on a proposal for over a year now. We have had several meetings and everyone has been welcome to join and give their .02. These meetings have mainly been in the Salt Lake valley, but some have been elsewhere. We have met with BOU, UBA, SFW, big game coordinator Anis, and many members have also been present. We have decided to call this plan Initiative 400. We have handed out flyers, been through over 400 pages of discussion about this topic and many, many hunters know about this proposal. Many agree with it's idea and it's purpose but some question it's motive and direction. There are also many hunters who do not know about this and now is the time to jump on board and learn all you can and try and keep up with this. If you are interested in keeping up with this, check in *daily* with this because this thread goes fast and you will fall behind fast. We will try to answer any and all questions, and encourage everyone to voice their opinion. If you are thinking of something, we are sure there are others who have the same hang ups, so lets hear them. With that being said here we go...
I400 initially was designed to eliminate spike elk hunting. It was designed to keep the spikes alive and let them grow a year or two so a hunter that does not want to shoot a 400 bull would not have to wait 15+ years to do so. We do not want this statewide, ever! We want to try this out on 5 units in the beginning, North Cache, Fishlake, Nebo, Wasatch, and La Sal. Since then we have changed the plan many times and think it is near perfection and ready for the RAC.

In 1989 Utah began issuing spike-only tags to increase the number of mature bulls on many of the elk units in Utah. The idea was to allow a certain percentage of the yearling bull elk population to be harvested while restricting the harvest of mature bulls. This also enabled the DWR to issue several thousand spike tags with low harvest numbers, allowing for many people the opportunity to hunt yearly with reduced harvest of the bull population. We believe the spike tag still has its place in the management of both elk and elk hunters. However, we also believe that in many areas, spike-only hunts are not the most effective management tool. Accordingly:

1) We propose limiting the issuing of spike tags on the following five units, North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and La Sal. This will allow more bulls to reach maturity on these units, increasing the number of mature bulls that can be harvested yearly. This change will also reduce the bull:cow ratios on these units which currently have an excess of mature bulls. Two new hunting opportunities will be created: increased any-bull permits for these areas, and increased cow elk tags that can be issued in the future as a result of lowered bull:cow ratios on these units.

2) We propose changing the season dates on these units to the following (these dates are for 2008)-
August 16-September 12 Limited Archery, any-bull 
October 30-November 7 Limited Muzzleloader, any-bull 
October 4-16 Limited Rifle any-bull 
All three seasons Limited any-bull

3) We propose changing tag allotments for these units from 60/25/15 (any weapon/archery/muzzleloader) to 50/30/20. Giving more tags to primitive weapons combined with the season date changes will decrease harvest success rates, allowing for more mature tags to be issued for all weapon choices. We also propose that these tags be allocated by individual sub-units on the Wasatch unit.

4)We will keep these tags under the current bonus point system used in the regular Limited Entry draw but may switch to a preference point system.

5) We propose that tooth data and harvest/hunt reporting be mandatory for all hunters in these areas. Anyone failing to report would not be eligible to apply in ANY big game drawing the following year.

SUMMARY 
We believe that by the changes in season dates, limitation of spike tags, getting bull to cow ratios in check with the EMP(Elk Management Plan), mandatory reporting, tag allotment changes on these units, more tags can be issued while maintaining quality. This proposal will allow more hunters the opportunity to hunt mature quality animals in Utah without losing yearly opportunities for OTC tags.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

In 2006 there were 8583 applicants on the Wasatch for the any weapon. 
They give out 57 permits for this premium hunt during the rut. 
Now here is the hypothetical part, IF you only allow those 8583 applicants in on this draw, the rest of their lives and they are all 12 year olds with no bonus points to apply for this hunt the math is very simple! On the first year they will give out 57 tags, the 10th year 570 tags, 40 years 2280 tags, 50 years 2850 tags!!!! 

This gives a person a 33% chance of drawing a tag by the time they are 62 years of age! 

Now everyone is complaining that we are "taking tags away from rifle hunters"! Well I am in a good mood lets give all the tags from ar chery and muzzle load to the rifle hunters! This combines the total tag # to 100 tags! This greatly improves all those kids odds to a shocking 58%! But 42% of that group will not draw a tag by the time they are 62! 

Of course this is hypothetical, but now put your 12 year old child in the drawing with those 8583 applicants where all of them have at least 1 bonus point and where does that leave his/her odds of EVER drawing a tag? 

The system is broke! I would give up my right of ever drawing a mature tag again to help fix it for future generations! This plan creates more opportunity! By moving the rifle hunt out of the rut, success rate goes down to about 40%! You can now double the rifle tags! Not shooting spikes you can issue more! This is only few examples and there are more ways to add opportunity! If I was a rifle hunter I would love this proposal! 

One other note, cow permit holders would hunt the same dates as LE holders for each weapon. This would decrease sucess rate and would be able to give out even more big bull tags.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Oh let the fun begin. 


> We propose limiting the issuing of spike tags on the following five units, North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and La Sal


Explain this better.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

One of two ways-

1-The way we are leaning toward at this moment, closing down the spike hunts on the 5 units and opening them up on different units, like the Monroe and San Juan. Allternating every other year, closing the San Juan in year 2 and reopening the Wasatch etc.

2-Limiting the amount of spike tags. Only allowing 1000 or whatever # on each unit. This # would be divided for all weapons using the new weapon allotment #'s.

I think both ways would get the same results, just in a round about way.


----------



## for fun (Sep 13, 2007)

I assume you are talking about just the 57 bonus permits on the Wasatch and not including the 57 regular permits. The one thing that puzzles me is that on the odds report it States 3583 total eligible applicants and not 8583. I am not against or for I-400. I think the dates for the muzzleloader hunt stink. There is nothing wrong with leaving them where they are in my opinion. Sept 24-Oct 2 Open the rifle hunt on the 4th. Just my .02. Change is a good thing and I know you can't make everyone happy.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

for fun said:


> I assume you are talking about just the 57 bonus permits on the Wasatch and not including the 57 regular permits. The one thing that puzzles me is that on the odds report it States 3583 total eligible applicants and not 8583. I am not against or for I-400. I think the dates for the muzzleloader hunt stink. There is nothing wrong with leaving them where they are in my opinion. Sept 24-Oct 2 Open the rifle hunt on the 4th. Just my .02. Change is a good thing and I know you can't make everyone happy.


No bonus permits, not sure where that comes from. The hunt dates you refer to are deer muzzle load dates. The elk are Oct 30-Nov 7. and the rifle would open on the 4th.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

So let me make sure I am getting this right. One year it is going to be closed to spike hunts and the next year it will be open to spike hunts? Both years you can still draw a LE tag correct? Wont that get real confuseing?


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

So is there going to be LE and Any bull hunts going on in the same unit and same time or did I just read it wrong?


----------



## for fun (Sep 13, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> for fun said:
> 
> 
> > I assume you are talking about just the 57 bonus permits on the Wasatch and not including the 57 regular permits. The one thing that puzzles me is that on the odds report it States 3583 total eligible applicants and not 8583. I am not against or for I-400. I think the dates for the muzzleloader hunt stink. There is nothing wrong with leaving them where they are in my opinion. Sept 24-Oct 2 Open the rifle hunt on the 4th. Just my .02. Change is a good thing and I know you can't make everyone happy.
> ...


Currently Limited Entry Elk Muzzleloader Hunts are concurrent with General Season deer muzzleloader hunts. General season Spike and Anybull Muzzleloader elk hunts are Oct 30-Nov 7. Page 166 of the 2006 Draw 5, Big Game bonus point Draw Results State that there were a total of 114 any weapon limited elk hunt for the wasatch hunt #17-354. 57 bonus permits and 57 regular permits. http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/bi ... tats/8.pdf


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

rac meetings start tuesday the 18. there is a 5 year elk managment plan very detailed, 188 pages with no mention of i400


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I see. I can't remeber where I got my info, no one has ever questioned it but I will find it for you. Welcome to the forum goofy elk.

Those #'s are most certainly not in check with mine.

Anyone have a link to hunt odds for Utah?? huntodds.com or something like that, can't remember.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I have read all the other threads and understand what your plan is intended to accomplish, that being said I will flat out not support anything that takes any opportunity from archery hunters, and I don’t even religiously hunt with archery equipment, that’s the deal breaker for me.

I also don’t really like the idea of a plan that displays hunters from chosen units to the others units just to get a chance to kill a few more big bulls on those chosen units. That will just crowd more people into the other units lowering the hunting experience for all hunters on those units.

I don’t buy the rhetoric of not being able to harvest good quality type bulls on the any bull units either, I see guys pull them off those units every year, it just isn’t a shoot a fish in a barrel type hunt. You have to work for them; that’s why it’s called hunting.

I agree on the mandatory reporting, I would like to see mandatory check stations, and then maybe their estimated harvest numbers might really mean something, estimating harvest numbers is kind of like a cop estimating your speed, you should be skeptical of both.

As for getting bull to cow ratios in check with the EMP (Elk Management Plan) It would seem that the DNR changes tag allotments as they deem prudent, the possiblity of too many bulls being harvested too fast would seem to be to me more detrimental than having an overabundance of bulls.

I’m sure my opinion is not a popular opinion with the I400 supporters, but that’s my take on the subject.

Sorry, Hogan I’ve lost my link to the hunt odds/numbers you asked about.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Anyone have a link to hunt odds for Utah?? huntodds.com or something like that, can't remember.


It is still at huntodds.com but it is not a free service anymore. Huntin' Fool bought them out and if your a member of huntin' fool then you can get into it, if not you are out of luck. That is Garth Carter services out of Cedar city. It costs 100 dollars a year to subscribe and get the most informative magazine around on each of the western states and each species state by state. If any one is interested in joining then go through me cause it will put me in for some chances at drawing some hunts and prizes. PM's are welcome.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> HOGAN said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have a link to hunt odds for Utah?? huntodds.com or something like that, can't remember.
> ...


I thought that Eastman's was the most informative magazine around. :mrgreen: That's why I subscribe to both, no one ever said trying to draw goat and sheep tags was a cheap endeavor. :shock:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sorry, I just went to the website because I had a spare moment and I couldn't resist because Hogan has posted something about I400. One of my favorite subjects . I just have a few questions.

1. Why do you want the LE Bull Elk ML season date to start on Oct 30th and end on Nov 7th instead of during the ML deer hunt?

2. Have you ever thought of a Youth/Disabled LE hunt on the LE units which are covered under I400? Like for example 10 tags per unit for youth hunters and 5 tags per unit for Disabled Hunters. 

3. Carry on gentlemen and the lovely ladies.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Sorry, I just went to the website because I had a spare moment and I couldn't resist because Hogan has posted something about I400. One of my favorite subjects . I just have a few questions.
> 
> 1. Why do you want the LE Bull Elk ML season date to start on Oct 30th and end on Nov 7th instead of during the ML deer hunt?
> 
> ...


I could support the Youth/Disabled LE hunt on the LE units, for that matter spread them out thru all the LE units not just the I400 ones.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks for the explanation. I have had a hard time seeing what was up with I 400 due to the arguments that always start. If the core of the proposal is - don't shoot spikes, create a larger pool of tags for the units listed than I am all for it. People only shoot spikes because they can't get tags for the older bulls. The unit I know the best is the Wasatch. Way too many bulls already in this vast unit and this would help even more. As far as I understand it, I would support it. If there is something you need signed or a way for people to show support you should point the way.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I've been out of the loop for a while on this. Seems like a few changes have been made that might help it get pushed through more easily, but I don't like some of them. Giving out any number of spike tags on I400 units is foolish in my opinion. If we need more bulls harvested, give out more bull tags. By giving out a limited number of spike tags, success rates on spikes will be much higher than they are now. No additional "opportunity" will be gained. Chances are, many hunters will choose to shoot a spike anyway if they don't take a bigger bull early in the hunt.

The late muzzleloader hunt doesn't bother me too much. It may not be as good of a hunt, but it will probably be easier to draw.

I don't mind using the bonus point drawing for it, but 5-year waiting periods should not be attached. I feel strongly that each elk hunter "deserves" a bull elk every 6-8 years. That's based on average success rates for general hunts. So depending on the success rate of a particular I400 hunt, I should be able to obtain a tag often enough to harvest a bull every 6-8 years. For archery hunts, that means a tag about every 2 years. Obviously that wouldn't be possible with a 5 year waiting period.

Maybe its not possible to make regulations that will produce the kind of hunting I dream of. It would surely require participating hunters to give up their general hunts during the years they didn't draw an I400 tag. I'm willing to do it but many aren't. The way I400 is written up right now is a huge step in the right direction though.

Try http://www.utahhuntinfo.com for odds.


----------



## 9er (Nov 12, 2007)

In 2007, there were a total of 144 Wasatch LE rifle tags, there was no late season so they all hunted during the rut!!!

There were 37 muzz tags and 62 archery tags also for 2007

9er


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Here is a link to the hunting odds.

http://www.huntinfool.com/members/states/utah.asp


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> 1) We propose limiting the issuing of spike tags on the following five units, North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and La Sal.
> 
> 2) We propose changing the season dates on these units to the following (these dates are for 2008)-
> August 16-September 12 Limited Archery, any-bull
> ...


I am against this proposal for several reasons:

1) I400 potentially would either reduce opportunity or the quality of opportunity in spike hunts. If spike hunts were changed to rotating units, we would be reducing the quality of the spike hunt for two reasons: 1) switching from units with more elk to units with far fewer elk which, in turn, would lower already low success rates 2) rotational units would eliminate a hunter's ability to establish a traditional hunting area and maintain a familiarity to this hunting area because some years he wouldn't be able to hunt the area; rotating spike units would put a dagger in many traditional hunters.

2) Changing season dates to those proposed wouldn't impact the number of tags available to be sold at a rate that would affect draw times as evidenced be similar season dates and similar success rates in other states including Arizona.

3) I400 complicates a very simple solution to the current herd problem of too many bulls/100 cows. The DWR is currently increasing the numbers of LE tags yearly and will do so until objectives are met. I400 does nothing more than make this simple solution very difficult and complicated for many hunters to understand.

So, are you I400 guys going to show up to the Southern RAC tonight and give your proposal?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> So, are you I400 guys going to show up to the Southern RAC tonight and give your proposal?


+1 is that way this topic has come back into the light?


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I have a question, how will people under the current 5 year waiting period fall into the system? Will they have to wait their 5 years to apply for a I400 unit? You mentioned that there will not be a waiting period for the I400 units. How will this work out?
I am for the proposal.
The way I see it, the current system is severely broke. In several areas. 
1st- People in the bottom end of the point class may NEVER draw. 
2nd- managed on 100% kill rates for the rifle tags. Cut your kill % and that is an incredibly simple way to up your tag numbers. ( cycle more hunters through the system, better draw odds) Example: If a given area has 100 extra bulls in it. By the current system we would issue 100 rifle tags during the heat of the rut = 100 less bulls. Problem solved! But a better way to do it would be to cut the kill % down to around 50% by moving the hunt out of the rut. Now you can issue double the tags and still remove the 100 extra bulls.
3rd- Bull to cow ratios out of control. There is only one way to keep this in check, kill more bulls! Most people would rather hunt a mature bull over a spike. Enough said.
Yes rotating the spike hunt to different units would complicate things, but trying to manage the states animals is extremly complicated. Drastic measures calls for thinking outside of the box. Couldn't you once go buy a licence from the local drug store and go out and kill a deer during any of the seasons, hunt on anywhere in the state you wanted, every year? Times are changing.
I am for it. Any change from the current system is worth a shot. We all love to hunt, why should we have to wait for 15+ years for a decent hunt for a bull?


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

#1. I would say there will still not be enough elk to even come close to the demand.

#2. If you "open" new spike areas wont you be creating on the new spike areas the issue you are trying to resolve? You would make these new spike areas go down the crapper real fast!!

# 3. The DNR needs to have more tags alloted on the current limited areas where no spike hunting is allowed.

# 4. why dont you just make it simple. Just try to start with the existing limited areas that allow spike hunting and stop doing it! If the public will go fot it then we will have more mature bulls to hunt. If they dont like it and we stay at current system, with the push to issue more bull tags.

By switching areas with or without spike make absoluty NO sense. It will not change a single thing but ruin the current no spike areas by taking all the replacement bulls of the future and the new areas will have the replacements. All you accomplished is a switch but no increase. Seems a waste of energy and effort.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

With moving the spike units every couple of years those units wouldn't go down the "crapper " fast it would just keep them in check. BUT getting the RIFLE hunt out of the RUT is the most IMPORTANT thing that MUST BE DONE! If you have to have an elk 20yds away with a rifle you don't need to be hunting.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I Like about 90% of this proposal. The other ten percent doesn't so much concern me in that I don't like it but, that I want to know how you are going to get it done. 

1. The DWR has proposed higher tag numbers for units that are over bull/cow ratios and they get shut down everytime they try. So they have to settle for small increases well below what is needed. My question is: How are you going to get tag numbers increased to what they should be for your plan if the DWR can't get the numbers they need to make the current plan work?

2.The rotating spike idea just seems a little to much to manage. Maybe the simplest approach of issuing fewer spike tags should be the approach taken.

Also I think there should be a goal or point in time that this plan is either decided that it works and adopt it across the board or that is failing and should be withdrawn. Have the plan be responsible for the outcome. That is one problem I see with the current system.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Good post as always Truemule.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

truemule said:


> I Like about 90% of this proposal. The other ten percent doesn't so much concern me that I don't like but that I want to know how you are going to get it done.
> 
> 1. The DWR has proposed higher tag numbers for units that are over bull/cow ratios and they get shut down everytime they try. So they have to settle for small increases well below what is needed. My question is: How are you going to get tag numbers increased to what they should be for your plan if the DWR can't get the numbers they need to make the current plan work?
> 
> ...


1)The DWR is bound by politics, and they also have to recommend tags for 28-30 LE units, we are looking at only 5 LE units. I believe it is much easier to make change on a smaller scale. I400 also has received great response from the different conservation groups that have had it presented to them. I see that as a validation that I400 can/should be proposed at the *NOVEMBER RAC'S *, not at the March RAC's. It can NOT be proposed at the RAC's this week, it isn't the time where it would be allowed to be proposed per the agenda that is slated for the current RAC's. _(O)_

2)I believe we have three choices on the spike issue. A)Leave it as it is. B)Eliminate spike tags on the pilot units altogether. C)Rotate the spike tags to other LE units that have extremely high bull/cow ratios every other year. The pros to A) is less confusion, and fewer people being affected by the changes, the cons are it limits the number of mature bull tags that can be issues each year. To simply reduce the number of spike tags would be of no value, as it would most likely end with the same number of spikes killed each year, but with fewer hunters getting to hunt. The pros to B) is more bulls will be in the herd mix and available to hunt each year, the cons is the loss of hunting opportunities for those who hunt spikes. The pros to C) is it does NOT eliminate ANY opportunity for spike hunters, lowers the bull/cow ratios on LE with way over objective ratios, allows more bulls to reach maturity on the 'pilot' units, the cons is the moving of hunters from one unit to another in order to hunt spikes. I myself like plan C) far and away over A) and B). C) has more pros and fewer cons, IMO.

I have a few different takes on where I400 than what was put up here at the start of the thread. I guess that shows we need to have a get together and figure out where we are on some key issues. :?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)The DWR is bound by politics, and they also have to recommend tags for 28-30 LE units, we are looking at only 5 LE units. I believe it is much easier to make change on a smaller scale. *I400 also has received great response from the different conservation groups that have had it presented to them.*
> 
> I have a few different takes on where I400 than what was put up here at the start of the thread. I guess that shows we need to have a get together and figure out where we are on some key issues. :?


Smaller scale may be easier to slide in but ultimately isn't it the DWR asking for what is being suggested. The politics will always be there. I do like that some groups are responding well to this because as I understand it they are usually the loudest voice and the ones that stike the numbers requested by the DWR to a lesser number.

Being on point with the key issues is probably a good idea. ~We wouldn't want you looking bad or saying something that isn't right on point.~ :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> C)Rotate the spike tags to other LE units that have extremely high bull/cow ratios every other year.
> 
> The pros to C) is it does NOT eliminate ANY opportunity for spike hunters, lowers the bull/cow ratios on LE with way over objective ratios, allows more bulls to reach maturity on the 'pilot' units, the cons is the moving of hunters from one unit to another in order to hunt spikes. I myself like plan C) far and away over A) and B). C) has more pros and fewer cons, IMO.


I can agree with most of what you said in your last post except this. I do believe strongly that rotating spike units will have a negative impact on opportunity. Many of your spike hunters are traditional hunters who hunt the same spot year in and year out...by changing the hunt areas or rotating units, you are going to take this traditional style of hunting away. For example, my in-laws would probably be spike elk hunters if they could hunt them on Monroe Mountain...however, since they can't; they don't. If you take away the opportunity to hunt spikes on the Manti unit, you are not displacing all the hunters; you are taking some of their opportunity away (the opportunity to hunt the Manti unit)...even if you give the same amount of tags. So, instead of moving from one unit to another, what will happen is this: Joe, from Manti, will hunt the Manti unit when it is a spike unit and Bob from Richfield will hunt Fish Lake when it is a spike unit. But, when the Manti isn't a spike unit, Joe won't hunt and when Fish Lake isn't a spike unit, Bob won't hunt. What you have done is take away some opportunity from both Bob and Joe...without ever reducing the cap on spike tags.

Also, if the ultimate goal is to give out more mature bull tags without eliminating opportunity, why not just push the DWR to give out more LE tags on the premium units to reduce bull/cow ratios? Maybe you could push the DWR to do this on only 5 LE units and thus the smaller scaled approach would help get the tags pushed through...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

truemule said:


> Smaller scale may be easier to slide in but ultimately isn't it the DWR asking for what is being suggested. The politics will always be there. I do like that some groups are responding well to this because as I understand it they are usually the loudest voice and the ones that stike the numbers requested by the DWR to a lesser number.
> 
> Being on point with the key issues is probably a good idea. ~We wouldn't want you looking bad or saying something that isn't right on point.~ :mrgreen: :lol:


Considering how the Wildlife Board back in early December said adding opportunity was a top priority for them, hence the idea of statewide spike hunting that I strongly oppose, so I see this as a great opportunity to propose other ways to increase opportunity that is more appealing than an extra 8000 spike tags.

As for being 'off point', it is possible, but that is why we need a pow wow to hammer out where we stand. It is driving me crazy that this keeps being changed on whims so often that it is impossible for the 'founders' to know what the latest proposed plan is, little lone those on the 'outside'. :? I want this simplified, but not at the expense of having a watered down proposal.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Considering how the Wildlife Board back in early December said adding opportunity was a top priority for them, hence the idea of statewide spike hunting that I strongly oppose, so I see this as a great opportunity to propose other ways to increase opportunity that is more appealing than an extra 8000 spike tags.
> 
> As for being 'off point', it is possible, but that is why we need a pow wow to hammer out where we stand. It is driving me crazy that this keeps being changed on whims so often that it is impossible for the 'founders' to know what the latest proposed plan is, little lone those on the 'outside'. :? I want this simplified, but not at the expense of having a watered down proposal.


I am not talking about the DWR or the board. I remember Anis saying something to the effect of they have tried to increase numbers on units to increase oppurtunity. But, everytime they do, the genereal public and hunting gruops alike (none specific) Shoot down the proposals and want the number to stay at or below currrent numbers. I could be remembering this wrong so, correct if I am.

At the risk of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong you may want to have a meeting soon then. It sounds as if it is greatly needed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Don't get me wrong, I like Anis, but his job is so political he has become a politician, and that is too bad. I have seen first hand the Wildlife Board ignore the public wishes at the meetings and done what they wanted to, in fact one Board member made it clear they don't have to even follow the EMP if they chose not to. So, if they are serious about increasing opportunity, and ALL of the LE units are at/over objectives, they can't turn down the recommendations w/o needlessly holding back opportunity.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Fair enough. I won't argue with that. We'll see how things play out.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Wyo2Ut,

Sorry but I have to reply to your complaint about the rotating spike hunts. I look at it from the flip side. I prefer to hunt big bulls. I hunted the Wasatch before it was made a spike only area. Now I have to travel to the Uintas to pursue mature bulls. I see I400 as an opportunity for me to maybe hunt the Wasatch for mature bulls a few more times in my lifetime, otherwise I'll be lucky if I ever draw a tag. Also, with the rotating hunts, your in-laws will be able to hunt Monroe every other year for elk because as it stands right now, they will never hunt elk there again without the coveted LE tag or cow tag. 

The way I see it, we as hunters must be willing to give a little to get a little. If I were a spike hunter with the desire to someday be able hunt mature bulls (most of the spike hunters fit this catagory, strictly spike only hunters who have no desire to hunt mature bulls are the minority), I would be willing to rotate areas. I like exploring and finding new places to hunt. Otherwise, hunters either give up the opportunity to hunt spikes at all so more big bull tags can be generated or they keep the spike hunt as is and limit their opportunity of ever drawing a mature bull tag.

The choice is easy for me and I400 is the only action I see moving in the right direction.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> Wyo2Ut,
> 
> Sorry but I have to reply to your complaint about the rotating spike hunts. I look at it from the flip side. I prefer to hunt big bulls. I hunted the Wasatch before it was made a spike only area. Now I have to travel to the Uintas to pursue mature bulls. I see I400 as an opportunity for me to maybe hunt the Wasatch for mature bulls a few more times in my lifetime, otherwise I'll be lucky if I ever draw a tag. Also, with the rotating hunts, your in-laws will be able to hunt Monroe every other year for elk because as it stands right now, they will never hunt elk there again without the coveted LE tag or cow tag.
> 
> ...


Well said!


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

Again switching areas or starting then stopping areas to be spike hunted or not hunted is just a confusing mess. You are not increasing big bulls by doing this only changing where the big bulls are or where the spikes are. If you want to increase the number of big bulls you will have to cut the spike hunter numbers and harvest numbers. It is so simple to just stop hunting the spikes on some new areas. Yes, this is a huge opportunity loss but it is the ONLY way to increase the number of mature bulls to hunt. ALL of the other "IDEA" seem to me to be Confusion wrapped in a Mess with a side plate of Mumbo Jumbo. There will be about 400 additional big bull tags this year. That is a 8% increase. I can handle an 8% increases every year. This can not go forever because the carrying capacity will be hit. I like what the state is doing now . The only thing I would like to see changed is increasing the number of tags a little more for the mature bulls.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here is my take on I400:
Move the rifle hunt out of September, keep muzzy and archery season dates as there are now, rotate spike tags with the 5 pilot units and LE with bull/cow ratios way over objectives, change the tag allotment from 60% to rifle to 50% to rifle, from 15% to muzzy to 20% to muzzy, from 25% to archery to 30% to archery, keep the draw under the current bonus point system, issue tag numbers to reach EMP objectives for harvest age and bull/cow ratios, and have mandatory reporting for EVERY I400 tag holder each year.

How this ends up remains to be seen, but this is where I currently stand. 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

drifter, two main reasons why I believe some changes NEED to occur;
1)The success rate is so extremely high it reduces the ability to issue more tags w/o deficits to the quality of animals.

2)By moving the rifle hunt out of September, and by changing the tag allotments, success rates WILL go down, allowing for MORE mature tags to be issued.

The benefits of rotating spike tags are many, but the biggest ones are it prevents a loss in opportunity, and it helps lower the bull/cow ratios on units with high ratios with out having huge impacts on the quality of bulls harvested on the LE tags.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Lets take a look at the direction we will be once we get to the ulltimate goal of 30/100.

Fishlake-a total of 4000 elk 

2800 cows
1200 bulls

55/100 of the 2800 cows will give birth-

770 bull calves
770 cow calves

So in the final hour we will need to harvest 770 bulls and 770 cows in order to maintain the herd. We could not take the 770 off of the top every year or it will hurt quality. Have a spike hunt every other year which would be unlimited in sales and we all ready know the outcome, 10-15% sucess rate. The question is how do we take 770 bulls each year and maintain quality?


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

What are the cougars going to eat?


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

EPEK said:


> What are the cougars going to eat?


Arrows and bullets are a balanced *die*t.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

The 55/100 is figured in to all of that.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EPEK said:


> What are the cougars going to eat?


Twinkies. :roll:


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

EPEK said:


> What are the cougars going to eat?


WOLVES!!! :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

truemule said:


> EPEK said:
> 
> 
> > What are the cougars going to eat?
> ...


Are you saying epek meant mountain lions, and not zoobies? How about they eat vertically challenged bow hunters who drag their bow behind the ATV?


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

They have tried many times, but I have been spit out so many times I have lost count.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EPEK said:


> They have tried many times, but I have been spit out so many times I have lost count.


I am not touching that one.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I guess that answers the old question do female coyote's spit or swallow ever see Coyote Ugly?


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Lets take a look at the direction we will be once we get to the ulltimate goal of 30/100.
> 
> Fishlake-a total of 4000 elk
> 
> ...


The task at hand...


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Here is my take on I400:
> Move the rifle hunt out of September, keep muzzy and archery season dates as there are now, rotate spike tags with the 5 pilot units and LE with bull/cow ratios way over objectives, change the tag allotment from 60% to rifle to 50% to rifle, from 15% to muzzy to 20% to muzzy, from 25% to archery to 30% to archery, keep the draw under the current bonus point system, issue tag numbers to reach EMP objectives for harvest age and bull/cow ratios, and have mandatory reporting for EVERY I400 tag holder each year.
> 
> How this ends up remains to be seen, but this is where I currently stand. 8)


I agree with everything except maybe the rotating spike hunt. I guess if thats what it takes to get it passed, so be it. But there MUST be enough spike tags issued to bring success rates down. What's the advantage to issuing 400 spike tags that have 50% success? Why not just issue 400 more any-bull tags?

For me there is one core idea that's been lost. Or at least not mentioned much lately. That is I400 needs to be a replacement for the current general/LE hunting system. Right now, we have poor quality general hunts each year as a "sacrifice" for when we will one day get the big bull tag. So we have both: general hunts each year (15% success) and a really great hunt every 20 years (50-100% success). If I400 is to be successful, it needs to completely remove the general and LE hunts, and replace them with its own hunt. By removing the LE hunts, bulls will be harvested at the age objective rather than allowed to grow way beyond it. By removing the general hunt, many more bulls will grow up to reach that objective. *Participants in I400 must be willing to sacrifice their yearly general hunt.* Using the bonus point system is good because its already set up, but it might make it harder to fairly distribute tags. If a hunter chooses to buy a general tag, he is showing that he doesn't wish to participate in I400. He should not be allowed to get a bonus point. If he chooses to sacrifice his general hunt and let his spike grow up, then he should be allowed to draw a tag or get a point. I feel that if this system is not implemented there won't be much real change. Either there will be few bulls or an overwhelming number of people applying for the tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

El Matador said:


> I agree with everything except maybe the rotating spike hunt. I guess if thats what it takes to get it passed, so be it. But there MUST be enough spike tags issued to bring success rates down. *What's the advantage to issuing 400 spike tags that have 50% success?* Why not just issue 400 more any-bull tags?


You lost me here. I am saying: In year one the I400 units would have ZERO spike tags issued on them, instead those LE units with high bull/cow ratios would have the SAME number of spike tags issued on them in year one. Year two would ROTATE the spike tags to the I400 units with ZERO spike tags issued on the LE units that had spike tags issued in year one. Year three would be like year one, year four would be like year two. The LE units used could change based on bull/cow ratios and harvest age averages. This would allow MORE bulls to be available on the I400 units, and at the same time lower the bull/cow ratio w/o direct impacts on quality on the LE units.

As for making hunters decide which pool they are in, either the LE/I400 pool or the general season open-bull/spike pool, I agree 100%. I believe we need to push this. Make it so if you get a bonus point for applying for a LE/I400 draw pool, you *CANNOT* obtain a bull elk tag for general season. A bonus point should be a reward/compensation for not getting a tag that year.

Good post as usual Mr Matador!


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Sure would like to see the archery date moved deeper into September if the rifle is moved out!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ut1031 said:


> Sure would like to see the archery date moved deeper into September if the rifle is moved out!


Me to, but we have had more objections to I400 based on it being a "pro-archery" plan than all others combined. So, in order to help get this through, I believe archery season needs to stay where it is, for now. Maybe down the road it can be adjusted. This is politics, and EVERY one involved in the decision process needs to feel this is 'fair' across the board. To ask for the rifle hunt to be taken out of the rut, and give archers more of the rut is a tough sell for non-archery folks.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> but we have had more objections to I400 based on it being a "pro-archery" plan than all others combined.


Really what was the next biggest objection then?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > but we have had more objections to I400 based on it being a "pro-archery" plan than all others combined.
> 
> 
> Really what was the next biggest objection then?


Pro-baby elk killing every year on traditional hunting grounds. :? :wink:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Pro-baby elk killing every year on traditional hunting grounds


Oh ya it is all coming back to me now. So is this going to happen in 2009?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > Pro-baby elk killing every year on traditional hunting grounds
> 
> 
> Oh ya it is all coming back to me now. So is this going to happen in 2009?


That is the goal. I see no reason why it won't be implemented for the 2009 season.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Unless baby elk killers get in the way.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Unless baby elk killers get in the way.


That is why we COMPROMISED, or are willing to COMPROMISE by rotating spike tags from unit to unit rather than just doing away with them altogether. As El Matador stated, ALL must do their part to improve elk hunting opportunities for ALL hunters, old, young, rookies, veterans, baby elk hunters, trophy elk hunters, alike!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> That is why we COMPROMISED, or are willing to COMPROMISE by rotating spike tags from unit to unit rather than just doing away with them altogether.


That is why I would support this now. I still think you can do archery spike tags but you allready know how I feel there.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Lets take a look at the direction we will be once we get to the ulltimate goal of 30/100.
> 
> Fishlake-a total of 4000 elk
> 
> ...


Until we figure out how exactley to manage this, I don't think we can move on. My idea is to maintain from the start. This formula gives us the biggest bang for our buck. But without the proper amount of elk being taken the cattlemen will host a slaughter, guaranteed. I think whatever plan is implemented it had better be failsafe and have #'s to show that. The bonus point system is good for now, but lets talk #'s. This is the only reason i am against the ellimination of spike hunting. We need it, there is no getting around it, why elliminate it every other year when it will help with lowering kill rates across the board, spike hunters, cow hunters and LE hunters all go during the same dates, all hunting different elk. All elk are being targeted at once. I believe this would lower kill rates of all weapons and all different type of elk. The result would be able to issue more tags, benefits everyone.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Well put Joey.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Well put Joey.


I disagree. I see NO way possible to issue spike tags EVERY year on I400 units w/o seriously LIMITING the number of mature bulls/tags available each year. You CANNOT issue fewer spike tags and expect the same success rates, so all that would result is the SAME number of spikes killed each year with fewer hunters, I see that as a negative. It also does NOTHING to help address the high bull/cow ratios on the aforementioned LE units. I believe I400 is bigger than just five units, I see it as a means to help manage elk to the EMP, increase opportunity, and keep quality high throughout the state.

I am willing to 'compromise' on some things, but I can't see a scenario where I will be on board with a proposal that issues spike tags on I400 units EVERY year. I see that as a 'watered down' proposal that isn't much better than what is in place today. So, for me, it is do we CHANGE things or maintain the status quo? I am for change.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Does anyone know how many spikes were killed on Fishlake last year??? That will give me a start to the solution. We see this the same way Pro, it is just I cannot see a way around it. We could keep spike and cow open to archers and we would still have to issue tags to muzzy and riflemen to kill the right amount of elk. Muzzy cow tags would win over a lot of people.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am fine with cow tags being issued during all three seasons. I believe that will be up to the DWR on that. The issue for me is the spike tags.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> The issue for me is the spike tags.


Has that not always been the issue?  I understand what you are saying Pro and will not dissagree with you, but I think Joey's thoughts IMO seam to make your plan work out better. But hey what do I know.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> El Matador said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with everything except maybe the rotating spike hunt. I guess if thats what it takes to get it passed, so be it. But there MUST be enough spike tags issued to bring success rates down. *What's the advantage to issuing 400 spike tags that have 50% success?* Why not just issue 400 more any-bull tags?
> ...


Well, having spike hunts on LE units with too many bulls is a great idea. Keeping a lot of spike tags available for guys that just want to hunt is a good idea. Not trying to disagree, but I really don't see what the advantage would be with issuing spike tags on I400 units. Maybe someone could explain it to me? Since spikes will be legal bulls under I400, many of them will be harvested by people that draw tags. The way I understand it, every advantage that could be gained by issuing spike tags on these units could be accomplished by simply issuing more any-bull tags.



> As for making hunters decide which pool they are in, either the LE/I400 pool or the general season open-bull/spike pool, I agree 100%. I believe we need to push this. Make it so if you get a bonus point for applying for a LE/I400 draw pool, you *CANNOT* obtain a bull elk tag for general season. A bonus point should be a reward/compensation for not getting a tag that year.


I'm glad we agree on this. I think it's essential for making I400 tags obtainable every few years.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Does anyone know how many spikes were killed on Fishlake last year???


Only God knows for sure since Utah has no system in place for checking in or reporting animals harvested in the general season. I've said my opinion on estimating harvest numbers before, it's the same as a cop estimating your speed; either set of numbers should be looked at very skeptically. If nothing else gets pushed this year, we should get mandatory reporting statewide for all seasons pushed thru so we have an accurate set of harvest numbers to plan from.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> If nothing else gets pushed this year, we should get mandatory reporting statewide for all seasons pushed thru so we have an accurate set of harvest numbers to plan from.


I agree. This would be a great idea.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

El Matador said:


> Well, having spike hunts on LE units with too many bulls is a great idea. Keeping a lot of spike tags available for guys that just want to hunt is a good idea. Not trying to disagree, but I really don't see what the advantage would be with issuing spike tags on I400 units. Maybe someone could explain it to me? Since spikes will be legal bulls under I400, many of them will be harvested by people that draw tags. The way I understand it, every advantage that could be gained by issuing spike tags on these units could be accomplished by simply issuing more any-bull tags.


This is all a 'compromise' for those who like spike hunting, you/I believe that no spike tags would maximize mature bulls available, HOGAN believes spikes need to be harvested to keep quality up, others want spike tags issued as they are now. So, I see rotating them a win/win/win. It INCREASES the number of bulls surviving into the mature bull status every other year on I400 units, it keeps 'quality' high, it reduces the 'opportunity' loses that some are concerned about. I also do NOT believe spike tags should EVER be issued on the LE units with high bull/cow ratios, but only on a 'as needed' basis to get ratios closer in line with EMP objectives.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> As for making hunters decide which pool they are in, either the LE/I400 pool or the general season open-bull/spike pool, I agree 100%. I believe we need to push this. Make it so if you get a bonus point for applying for a LE/I400 draw pool, you *CANNOT* obtain a bull elk tag for general season. A bonus point should be a reward/compensation for not getting a tag that year.


I'm not too keen on that idea, and I believe if you try to push that its going to cost you a lot of support statewide for this plan, you may not believe it but politics always come into play, and a lot of people who like to hunt every year aren't going to like being excluded from the LE/ I 400 draw, I'm willing to bet the DNR listens when they speak out too.

It would however do one of 2 things, either make it easier to hunt the any bull areas or clear out the BP pool a lot quicker.

Maybe it would be a better plan to have all current Bonus Point (BP) holders pick which draw (LE or I400) they wanted to participate in and go from there. I 400 BP applicants could fall under the no general season tag for getting a BP. The LE draw could be left as it now works. That would be a good compromise for both sides of that issue.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> I'm not too keen on that idea, and I believe if you try to push that its going to cost you a lot of support statewide for this plan, you may not believe it but politics always come into play, and a lot of people who like to hunt every year aren't going to like being excluded from the LE/ I 400 draw, I'm willing to bet the DNR listens when they speak out too.
> 
> It would however do one of 2 things, either make it easier to hunt the any bull areas or clear out the BP pool a lot quicker.
> 
> Maybe it would be a better plan to have all current Bonus Point (BP) holders pick which draw (LE or I400) they wanted to participate in and go from there. I 400 BP applicants could fall under the no general season tag for getting a BP. The LE draw could be left as it now works. That would be a good compromise for both sides of that issue.


A *'bonus'* point should ONLY be obtained as a reward for not acquiring an elk tag. As it is now, it is 'double dipping'. Why should someone get a tag AND a bonus point? If a hunter whats general season, have at it, if you want LE have at it, if you want to hunt general season one year and apply for LE the next year have at it.

I do NOT like the idea of separating the LE from the I400 as who can get a point and a tag and who can't, that would create all kinds of havoc and confusion, IMHO.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't foresee myself ever trying for a LE elk tag again if I400 were in place. So which pool of points is used mattereth not to me. But, the system PRO is advocating seems like it is fair. I know a bunch of people that don't hunt the general season anymore. They just apply for a LE tag, and don't hunt because they didn't draw. If the same restriction was applied to all LE and I400 tags in the drawing, it would make it easier for those people to draw their LE tag. General season hunters should still be able to apply in the drawing no matter what, but like PRO said they should not be awarded a bonus point if unsuccessful for an I400 tag, and maybe the same thing for LE tags. 

Ok, I think I see the light on the spike hunts. But, hear this: Current spike hunts allow a lot of hunters afield per elk harvested. Like 5 or 6 to 1. The same efficiency should be tried for on these planned spike hunts. If there are only a few spike tags given, success would go up and no "opportunity" would be gained. I guess it would still improve quality for those that got an any-bull tag though. Another thing to consider: If hunters fore-go their spike hunt in order to apply for an I400 tag, the demand for spike tags will go down. More spike hunts would be created on other LE units. It may be that spike hunts on I400 units would not be necessary every other year to create opportunity, maybe every third or fourth year on each unit.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I am for oppurtunity first and think this plan is a good compromise. But, I'm not sure I'm totally on board with the hole pick your hunt thing. What do you all think (I400 founders) of considering something like making mandatory reporting for all hunts and if you harvest an elk (spike or otherwise) you lose your bonus point for that year?


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think if many spikes were to be taken off of a LE unit, and hunters were settling for these animals, then quality would be pretty poor. I for one would settle for a spike on a LE unit but it would have to be the last 5 minutes of the hunt. 

And mandatory reporting is a must for I400. If you do not report, you may not apply for any unit the next year. If you claim to be unsucessful, we want to see the uncut tag. Mandatory reporting is a must for the sucess of I400.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> A *'bonus'* point should ONLY be obtained as a reward for not acquiring an elk tag. As it is now, it is 'double dipping'. Why should someone get a tag AND a bonus point? If a hunter whats general season, have at it, if you want LE have at it, if you want to hunt general season one year and apply for LE the next year have at it.
> 
> I do NOT like the idea of separating the LE from the I400 as who can get a point and a tag and who can't, that would create all kinds of havoc and confusion, IMHO.


Well we aren't going to agree on that ever.

I will quote a segment of the original post by Hogan notice the italics



HOGAN said:


> I400 initially was designed to eliminate spike elk hunting. *It was designed to keep the spikes alive and let them grow a year or two so a hunter that does not want to shoot a 400 bull would not have to wait 15+ years to do so. We do not want this statewide, *ever! We want to try this out on 5 units in the beginning, North Cache, Fishlake, Nebo, Wasatch, and La Sal. Since then we have changed the plan many times and think it is near perfection and ready for the RAC.


How can your exclude the general season hunters from the LE/ I 400 drawing when it was devised so people wouldn't have to wait 15 + years to kill a 400+ (Trophy) bull? According to the above quote I 400 wasn't devised to allow trophy bull harvest, just more good quality bull to be harvested; so why link those two drawings together?


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

> "HOGAN
> And mandatory reporting is a must for I400. If you do not report, you may not apply for any unit the next year. If you claim to be unsucessful, we want to see the uncut tag. Mandatory reporting is a must for the sucess of I400.


It's a must statewide for all seasons if you want accurate numbers to plan off, anything else is a halfa*sed measure.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

This is why we need spike hunting. nobody has proven this wrong. We would have to harvest 770 bulls EVERY year. If you take 770 off of the top every year then you would have a unit full of spikes. I400 then becomes a LE spike hunt, with waiting period. Issue quite possible the same # of spike tags, cow permits (enough to kill 770 cows) and LE tags, have all hunters afield at once and the sucess rate would not be as high as everyone thinks. You could even limit the spike tags, there would be just as many hunters out there afield (hunting cows and matures). Why elliminate anything if you do not have to. If 200-300 spikes were shot every year, that leaves 470-570 bulls that need to be shot. 500 tags is equal to a fast moving line, 500 tags with a 100% sucess rate, not even including I400 sucess formula. You could almost double that #. 800 permits would be a good guess. This is a start?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> How can your exclude the general season hunters from the LE/ I 400 drawing when it was devised so people wouldn't have to wait 15 + years to kill a 400+ (Trophy) bull? According to the above quote I 400 wasn't devised to allow trophy bull harvest, just more good quality bull to be harvested; so why link those two drawings together?


First, I haven't heard any mention of excluding people from the drawing. Only from bonus points. And having one drawing for all elk tags (except general tags) has advantages and disadvantages. The debate between having a separate preference point drawing and using the existing bonus point drawing has been going on for a while.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Having 1200 bulls on this unit and having to harvest 770 of them is quite the challenge. It is challenging because you have quality to worry about. This is the exact reason cattlemen will not allow more big bull tags! They would be replaced by cows and cows produce more elk. If the # of elk goes above the 4000 mark, the RAC's or cattlemen would issue a extermination. Fishlake is a prime example of this.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> This is why we need spike hunting. nobody has proven this wrong. We would have to harvest 770 bulls EVERY year. If you take 770 off of the top every year then you would have a unit full of spikes. I400 then becomes a LE spike hunt, with waiting period. Issue quite possible the same # of spike tags, cow permits (enough to kill 770 cows) and LE tags, have all hunters afield at once and the sucess rate would not be as high as everyone thinks. You could even limit the spike tags, there would be just as many hunters out there afield (hunting cows and matures). Why elliminate anything if you do not have to. If 200-300 spikes were shot every year, that leaves 470-570 bulls that need to be shot. 500 tags is equal to a fast moving line, 500 tags with a 100% sucess rate, not even including I400 sucess formula. You could almost double that #. 800 permits would be a good guess. This is a start?


You sold me, but I think you allready knew that. It makes sense to me. The spike units we have now have great bulls that need to be taken. Take both spike and big bulls and have a healty heard with pleanty of tags for all. Sounds like a win for all.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

The way I see it we are not compromising in any way. We are improving the current system, and less change is better and will be easier to implement. The reason we are staying with the current bonus point system is that it will be easier to implement.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> The way I see it we are not compromising in any way. We are improving the current system, and less change is better and will be easier to implement. The reason we are staying with the current bonus point system is that it will be easier to implement.


So which is the official version going to the RAC's, are you staying with the current LE bonus point system-- Unsucessful applicants for the I 400/LE draw are awarded a bonus point and then can buy a general system tag or Pros' version -issuing no bonus points to applicants for I 400/LE tags who don't draw a I 400/LE tag and then hunt the general season?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> This is why we need spike hunting. nobody has proven this wrong. We would have to harvest 770 bulls EVERY year. If you take 770 off of the top every year then you would have a unit full of spikes. I400 then becomes a LE spike hunt, with waiting period. Issue quite possible the same # of spike tags, cow permits (enough to kill 770 cows) and LE tags, have all hunters afield at once and the sucess rate would not be as high as everyone thinks. You could even limit the spike tags, there would be just as many hunters out there afield (hunting cows and matures). Why elliminate anything if you do not have to. If 200-300 spikes were shot every year, that leaves 470-570 bulls that need to be shot. 500 tags is equal to a fast moving line, 500 tags with a 100% sucess rate, not even including I400 sucess formula. You could almost double that #. 800 permits would be a good guess. This is a start?


This is a very good point Hogan. I don't see the quality going down if 770 bulls are born every year and 770 bulls were harvested every year. I think that would be awesome to have 770 bulls recruited to the herd every year and hunters harvesting 770 bulls every year.Yes many mature bulls will get harvested, but so will a lot of younger bulls. I think the harvest will be spread out throughout the different age groups.

I'm sorry, but I just dont see us killing all the mature bulls. I'm guessing a 1/3 of the bulls will be in the upper age class, 1/3 will be in the middle age class and 1/3 being in the lower age class.

If I wrong then I'm with you Hogan.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Who wants to wait 10 years to shoot a lower end bull? Right now with the way I400 is set up that is what you are saying.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

If 770 bulls are born every year then what is the total number of bulls that we are killing annually on that units?

In 2004 we killed approx. 193 spikes
2005: approx 163 spikes
2006: approx 237 spikes
2007: harvest would be around the same. 

In 2004 123 LE bulls were killed
2005: 120
2006: 125

Total number of spikes and mature bulls harvested.
2004: 316
2005: 283
2006: 362

If this is the case and 770 bull calves are born every year then we have a major bull/cow ratio problem.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

770 are not born right now. This is only the case once we get the ratio in check 30/100. Right now it is 45/100? So not as many are being born. We want the biggest bang so we can issue many permits.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Oh Im sorry I thought you were saying that 770 bull calves were born right now  I think spikes tags wont be necessary for several years because of the excessive bulls and then spikes tags can be issued on a needed basis. Maybe if the bull/cow ratio was 40/100 or higher then spike tags would be needed. So we would need to maintain the bull to cow ratio around 30/100 for maximum elk production and mature bull elk harvest.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Sounds like you just got off the phone. _(O)_


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Sounds like you just got off the phone.


 :roll: :lol:


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

1-I think spikes tags wont be necessary for several years because of the excessive bulls and then spikes tags can be issued on a needed basis. 

1-They would not, but this example is used once we get there. We need to have it all figured out, it will be easy to get there, just issue a butt load of tags but once we are there we had better have a long term plan. We need an answer for the long haul. I even agree that if we limit them sucess rate will be higher, but we are going to need them, so why elliminate them. This plan will pass much easier without making too much noise.

2-Maybe if the bull/cow ratio was 40/100 or higher then spike tags would be needed.

2-They are.


3-So we would need to maintain the bull to cow ratio around 30/100 for maximum elk production and mature bull elk harvest.

3-Yes, and maintaining includes shooting 770 bulls out of a total of 1200 without destroying quality.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Sounds like you just got off the phone.
> 
> 
> :roll: :lol:


was I right?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> was I right?


No, what makes you think I was on the phone?


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Thought you talked with Pro.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Thought you talked with Pro.


Nope. I havent talked to him on the phone for several weeks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

How on earth does Arizona pump out 400+ inch bulls year after year w/o issuing a single spike tag? HOGAN, I appreciate your intentions, you are just making this way to complicated, IMHO. If you LOWER the success rates on ALL weapon hunts, the escapement percentage goes UP for older class bulls, not down. If it is harder to put an elk on the ground, it will be harder to put an older class bull on the ground. This means hunters will have to HUNT in order to harvest a 380+ bull, not that they will all be gone. A I400 hunter will be less selective, in general, than a LE hunter, otherwise he would apply for a LE tag, and not an I400 tag. This means MORE hunters are more likely to harvest a 320 bull on a I400 unit, and be HAPPY about it, than the same hunters on LE units. This allows the quality to stay reasonably high w/o 'needing' to harvest spikes every year. Like Justin said, IF the bull/cow ratio gets too high with spike hunting every other year, adjustments can be made at that point.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> This means MORE hunters are more likely to harvest a 320 bull on a I400 unit, and be HAPPY about it, than the same hunters on LE units. This allows the quality to stay reasonably high w/o 'needing' to harvest spikes every year. Like Justin said, IF the bull/cow ratio gets too high with spike hunting every other year, adjustments can be made at that point.


I would even take this one step further. Most hunters even on LE units are not that selective, and are very happy with a 320 bull. Now assume you can get an I400 tag every few years, and they will be even less selective. A 3 year old bull is probably a 5 or small 6 point and the vast majority of elk hunters in Utah would be ecstatic to take one of those. So yeah, I agree that a lot of younger bulls will be harvested as a matter of course, without issuing spike tags. If they are in fact needed then that's fine. Look at the deer hunt for example, or the any-bull units. Most of the animals killed are yearlings because thats what the hunters are seeing. On LE hunts people hold out for a better animal because: First, they usually know there are bigger ones around. And Second, they don't want to "waste" the tag because it took so long to get. Since I400 is right in between a LE and a general hunt, I would bet the harvesting trends follow suit. That is, people will be more selective than on a general hunt, but will still shoot younger animals (including spikes) because that's what they're seeing. We'll still get plenty of escapement that will allow for some very large bulls, but they won't be everywhere. You'll have to hunt for them.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: I want a 400 point bull!!!!!! Now Dangit*

:mrgreen: So, could I presume that I400 stands for, (I want a 400 point bull in Utah,) but I ain't going to get it any time soon because Arizona kills them all? Just havin a little fun.....keep your shirt on Hogan and Bartholomew.....

Guys, I have mixed feelings on your proposal. I would agree that we are harming elk units that continually take spike bulls out of the recruitment. However I do not buy into the old BULLONEY that DWR antler biologist Ruddy Dropnick use to spue about antler growth and age, and how spike bulls and two point bucks are normal and can age into trophy animals. Yes Bucks and bulls with age can obtain four and six point racks, but fall far short of the numbers game by which most of us play the trophy prize. And yes our herds started from spike and younger bulls breeding cows, but I have also seen the other side of the coin.

I have a friend, with family that have two elk ranches in Montana. While visiting both ranches during the fall, every one of his first year bulls had six or more points per side. I asked what is up with that? I was told that they rarely ever get a bull born in their herds that do not throw six points or better their first antler growing season. I was dumbfounded! His breading bulls are B&C 445 and 465 plus bulls that are de-antlered before the rut, so that they will not harm other animals. It is amazing to see those breeder bulls without antlers charge the divider fence that contains the cull bulls and see all of the bulls with antlers run for their lives. Most of his first year bulls would score at or above 300 B&C. They credit their success to good genes and good nutrition and minerals in the animals diet. What is even more astonishing is that they put more value in the cows of the herd than the bulls. They cull and sale bulls every year for around $2500, but to buy one of their cows you are talking fifteen grand to start. This just goes to show, that if you want to hunt for the big guys, you go where the feed and genes are good.

As with the deer argument, I do not think every elk unit should be managed for trophy bulls either. I have just experience what happened a few years ago when we threw open the gates and tried to reduce the herd in Fish Lake by allowing a spike and a cow tag in the same hunt. I witnessed the mass artillery that laid hast to the herds. All elk were being shot at, not just cows and spikes, but larger bulls also. It was like seeing a shark frenzy in a gold fish tank. Elk were being shot everywhere down there and a lot of them ran off to be crippled or died without recovery. In my opinion this set the unit back ten years and it still has not recovered. I would hate to see us loose the premier elk hunting units we have built up over the last fifteen years. Maybe I am just dence, but how does your I400 proposal help kids and disabled?

Could we test run I400 on two or maybe three spike units for three years to get an idea of it's intended results?

Bigbr


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So, could I presume that I400 stands for, (I want a 400 point bull in Utah,) but I ain't going to get it any time soon because Arizona kills them all? Just havin a little fun.....keep your shirt on Hogan and Bartholomew.....


No, I400 doesn't stand for a 400 class bull. We could call this proposal anything we wanted too.



> Maybe I am just dence, but how does your I400 proposal help kids and disabled?


I threw in the fact that maybe we could issue 10 tags per unit for youth hunters and and 2-5 tags for disabled hunters. Arizona and New Mexico issue these types of tags. Its true we do have the Anybull hunts for the youth/disabled in Utah.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

This is just my opinion, but it sounds like the 'founding fathers' all need to meet and get on the same page. Sound like there are four of you with the same basic ideas, but going in four different directions and it is confusing to us who are trying to figure out exactly what is going on. It would be more presentable and professional if you all had your stuff together and in agreeance before posting it to 1000's of people IMHO. I like what you guys are trying to do, but it sounds like a bunch of bickering over some detail in a public forum. Doesn't make you guys look very good or make the proposal look very professional, IMO. Keep up the good work and get back to us after you guys have a "presentable" proposal w/ numbers and facts to back it, I am looking forward to it.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Bigbr, the "I" stands for Initiative, and 400 represents what the new hunts will be numbered: 400, 401, etc. Kind of like the AR301 hunt we had a few years ago. I think its rare in the wild for a yearling bull to grow more than 2 points per side. Wild elk have a lot more issues to deal with than those born on a farm - nutrition, stress from weather, being born later. I think its safe to say that nearly every 400" bull thats been taken in Utah started its antlerhood as a spike or 2-point.

Jahan, yeah we seem a little divided on some things. Mainly because the spike hunting issues have come up more recently. But thats the nice thing about the forum! Things get discussed and ideas come in from everyone. The reality is that every good idea in I400 has come this way. But I agree the spike issue is something that needs to be discussed and worked out in a meeting. It has come a long way since the beginning, and most people are now agreed on the topics that were being debated earlier on. Once there is a "presentable" proposal with all the facts, it will hit the RACs. 

I'm goin fishing. See you guys when I get back :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

El Matador said:


> I think its rare in the wild for a yearling bull to grow more than 2 points per side. Wild elk have a lot more issues to deal with than those born on a farm - *nutrition, stress from weather, being born later*. I think its safe to say that nearly every 400" bull thats been taken in Utah started its antlerhood as a spike or 2-point.


The wild elk also are missing all the 'juice' injected into them. :shock:

Spikes have been the majority of the yearling bull population long before spike hunting/LE units. It is NORMAL for a yearling bull elk to be a spike, and being a spike, even a 'small' spike, has NOT proven to be an indicator of the antler potential of that bull elk. I started hunting elk in 1983 when I was 16, I saw more spikes than mature bulls on the Manti unit. It is NOT a new 'trend'. Go to Colorado and tell me what size their yearling bulls are. They look exactly like yearling bulls in Utah. AN elk is an elk, unless it is a farm raised, genetically altered, juiced up antlered livestock. Elk in these farms are NOT the same animal as wild elk, anymore than a Norbest turkey from Moroni is the same as a wild Rio Grande turkey in San Juan county. I grew up in Sanpete County with an elk farm to the north, and a turkey farm to the south of my dad's ranch. I NEVER confused them for the 'real' thing. _(O)_


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Have fun fishing El Matador! Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

How does Arizona kill 400 bulls year after year with less elk and the same amount of hunters without limiting opportunity? Good question, I think we need to find out. Even though my posts may be complicated and to the point, I think they need to be addressed. And they are not that complicated, switching spike units year after year is more complicted than what I am addressing. How do you suppose we try and pass that? Every other year, odd years even years, when the bull to cow ratio gets to a certain point? 

My example is not complicated at all. I am not saying there will not be big bulls anywhere. But we need an answer. I have been hung up at this point since last year. I will start digging into Arizonas #'s as soon as I get a minute, maybe that will answer my complicated scenerio.

With I400 being under the bonus point system, there will be a 5 year wait. This will guaratee you will not settle for a young bull every couple of years. It would however guarantee you could draw every decade. It would move the line faster but a 300 bull would be a "good bull" for the unit. I will also figure out Wasatch #'s later.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

When you want to get into solutions let me know. Until then I am done with this, I am tired of going in circles. Set up a meeting, or move on, or let it lay. That is where I stand!


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I will come up with something, I have been trying to. Everyone just says the way it should be with no answer. I guess i need to see proof or an idea of how it is going to work. I know why the RAC's or cattlemen will not allow more bull permits to be distributed, because more cows will be producing more elk. And the do not want more elk. So IMHO I think we need an answer to how we plan on maintaining 4000 elk without going over. I am not set in stone on issuing spike tags, I would love to only issue big bull tags, but shooting 770 of 1200 bulls year after year will take a toll on quality. Maybe Arizonas #'s will help, anyone have a link? The main obsticle on this plan will be the cattlemen. All others that I know about are not against this.

In other words, I am asking for help. This is a huge obsticle. If I can figure out a way to do it every other year or even ever. all the better. Just need to know, not trying to step on toes or hurt anyone's feelings, just want this plan to be air tight.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

How the hell do you "hurt someone's feelings" when discussing elk? :? 

I just see this going backwards, I prefer moving forward. We seem right where we were a year ago. I am ready to move on. Let me know when everyone else is as well.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I am trying to, by myself it seems like. :? 

One solution I have thought of is scratching the 30/100 ratio. And doing this.

Fishlake-

4000 total elk-

making the ratio 50/100, pretty much like it is now

2000 bulls
2000 cows

Issue no spike tags.

550 cow calves
550 bull calves

Must harvest 550 of each having 73% of the bull population escape will help quality! But 550 would have to be harvested every year. And under I400 tag allotments, moving the rifle hunt out of the rut, being able to give out more tags, that would solve the issue. About 900 tags could be issued with a 60% success rate. Thoughts?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm ready to move to the next step. Does the DWR or SFW have any hang ups on managing our elk herds or rotating spike tags? I think its pretty simple. Elk are easy to manage like Anis said. They don't winter kill. They can survive on a larger variety of food and they rebound quicker than deer.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I'm ready to move to the next step. Does the DWR or SFW have any hang ups on managing our elk herds or rotating spike tags? I think its pretty simple. Elk are easy to manage like Anis said. They don't winter kill. They can survive on a larger variety of food and they rebound quicker than deer.


Well ok I hope these are not famous last words. Elk rebound quickly. So it is agreed No spike hunt on the 5 pilot units and we will open 5 of the other premium units, like it says on page 1.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

So this is the plan up to date, does anyone have anything they would like to add?

In 1989 Utah began issuing spike-only tags to increase the number of mature bulls on many of the elk units in Utah. The idea was to allow a certain percentage of the yearling bull elk population to be harvested while restricting the harvest of mature bulls. This also enabled the DWR to issue several thousand spike tags with low harvest numbers, allowing for many people the opportunity to hunt yearly with reduced harvest of the bull population. We believe the spike tag still has its place in the management of both elk and elk hunters. However, we also believe that in many areas, spike-only hunts are not the most effective management tool. Accordingly:

1) We propose *elliminating* the issuing of spike tags on the following five units, North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and La Sal. This will allow more bulls to reach maturity on these units, increasing the number of mature bulls that can be harvested yearly. This change will also reduce the bull:cow ratios on these units which currently have an excess of mature bulls. Three new hunting opportunities will be created: increased any-bull permits for these areas, and increased cow elk tags that can be issued in the future as a result of lowered bull:cow ratios on these units. And rotating spike hunting with 5 other regions.

2) We propose changing the season dates on these units to the following (these dates are for 2008)-
August 16-September 12 Limited Archery, any-bull 
October 30-November 7 Limited Muzzleloader, any-bull 
October 4-16 Limited Rifle any-bull 
All three seasons Limited any-bull

3) We propose changing tag allotments for these units from 60/25/15 (any weapon/archery/muzzleloader) to 50/30/20. Giving more tags to primitive weapons combined with the season date changes will decrease harvest success rates, allowing for more mature tags to be issued for all weapon choices. We also propose that these tags be allocated by individual sub-units on the Wasatch unit.

4)We will keep these tags under the current bonus point system used in the regular Limited Enrty draw.

5) We propose that tooth data and harvest/hunt reporting be mandatory for all hunters in these areas. Anyone failing to report would not be eligible to apply in ANY big game drawing the following year.

SUMMARY 
We believe that by the changes in season dates, rotating of spike tags, getting bull to cow ratios in check with the EMP(Elk Management Plan), mandatory reporting, tag allotment changes on these units, more tags can be issued while maintaining quality. This proposal will allow more hunters the opportunity to hunt mature quality animals in Utah without losing yearly opportunities for OTC tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> 1) We propose *elli9minating* the issuing of spike tags on the following five units, North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and La Sal. This will allow more bulls to reach maturity on these units, increasing the number of mature bulls that can be harvested yearly. This change will also reduce the bull:cow ratios on these units which currently have an excess of mature bulls. Three new hunting opportunities will be created: increased any-bull permits for these areas, and increased cow elk tags that can be issued in the future as a result of lowered bull:cow ratios on these units. And spike hunting in 5 other regions.


No. It can NOT be just a swap of where spike tags are issued. I think the rotating spike tags between LE units with high bull/cow ratios and I400 units is the way I still believe is best.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Well ok I hope these are not famous last words. Elk rebound quickly. So it is agreed No spike hunt on the 5 pilot units and we will open 5 of the other premium units, like it says on page 1.


Those wont be the last words because we will have mandatory harvest every year and if bull/cow ratios get higher than 40/100 then you issue spikes tags. If the bull/cow ratio drops below 25/100 to 30/100 then you cut back on LE tags.

Hogan, what I meant was if we overharvest a little one year then the elk will rebound faster if we aren't killing spikes. I don't ever see the Fishlake unit going down hill. If you have 550 to 750 bull calves born every year thats a lot of future bulls recruited in just one year.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think i fixed it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> I think i fixed it.


Much better. -/O\- :wink:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

where have you guys been? mandatory harvest reeporting has been in place sence 2003,if you dont report your not eligible to apply for any draws the following year. imo there are alredy big increases being propsed at the rac meeting thru next week. north cache 60,wasatch 360,nebo 144,fishlake 125,la sal 53, this is to help bring age class into line. i can tell you from exsperiance,i went to rac meeting in 1997 and sugested ending spike hunting where you are now.i didnt know if i was going to get out of there alive!


----------



## for fun (Sep 13, 2007)

Sounds good, but I still think your new Muzzleloader season stinks.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

for fun said:


> Sounds good, but I still think your new Muzzleloader season stinks.


Yes we will work on that. I think that will be changed.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> So it is agreed No spike hunt on the 5 pilot units and we will open 5 of the other premium units, like it says on page 1.


I do not agree, but Iguess that is why I am not a founder. Joey you have the right idea with the way your thinking IMO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I think for clarity it should be worded a little different. 

Spike tags will be issued every other year on the five pilot units, on the 'off' years spike tags will be issued on LE units with extremely high bull/cow ratios. Which LE units will be used will be determined by the Wildlife Board with input from the DWR and the public, and will be based on EMP objectives and where the LE units are at in regards to the objectives.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Rifle hunt before the muzzleloader :?: :?: :?:


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I think for clarity it should be worded a little different.
> 
> Spike tags will be issued every other year on the five pilot units, on the 'off' years spike tags will be issued on LE units with extremely high bull/cow ratios. Which LE units will be used will be determined by the Wildlife Board with input from the DWR and the public, and will be based on EMP objectives and where the LE units are at in regards to the objectives.


I understand that and like that alot better than NO Spike hunting. Just my opinion


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Spike tags will be issued every other year on the five pilot units


I think for the first few years then spike tags shouldn't be issued at all on the pilot units or maybe that is what you are saying.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> The way I see it, we as hunters must be willing to give a little to get a little. If I were a spike hunter with the desire to someday be able hunt mature bulls (most of the spike hunters fit this catagory, strictly spike only hunters who have no desire to hunt mature bulls are the minority), I would be willing to rotate areas. I like exploring and finding new places to hunt. Otherwise, hunters either give up the opportunity to hunt spikes at all so more big bull tags can be generated or they keep the spike hunt as is and limit their opportunity of ever drawing a mature bull tag.
> 
> The choice is easy for me and I400 is the only action I see moving in the right direction.


We will have to agree to disagree...

1) Who is giving? The hunters are giving are the ones who are traditional hunters who hunt the same areas year in and year out...and when these hunters are displaced, they don't find new areas, they quit hunting. These are the hunters who are giving...and, who are they giving to?

2) For those hunters who have that desire to someday draw a big bull tag, rotating spike units isn't going to increase their odds...increasing LE tags will. So, why complicate simple things? In 2003, 966 LE tags were issued...the DWR is proposing that 2506 LE tags should be issued in 2008. So, in the span of 5 years, the DWR has gradually increased LE tags by 259%!

3) Changing the season dates to those recommended in the current I400 plan will NOT lower success rates significantly enough to change the number of tags at any significant rate. In fact, if you were to compare units in Arizona with similar hunt dates as those proposed, you would find that the success rates in those Arizona units are also exceptionally high and very close to the success rates on the proposed I400 units.

Really, the only proposed I400 change that will make any kind of impact on the number of tags given out is the tag allotment change based on weapon. And, that change is so minor that it will hardly be noticed.

So, in summary, what would I400 do? 1) It would really stick it to the traditional spike hunters who would more than likely simply lose their hunting opportunity 2) It would complicate what should be simple 3) It would make minor differences in LE increases probably no different than increases already being made.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> 1) Who is giving? The hunters are giving are the ones who are *traditional hunters* who hunt the same areas year in and year out...and when these hunters are displaced, they don't find new areas, they quit hunting. These are the hunters who are giving...and, who are they giving to?


You mention traditional hunters and imply they are ALL spike hunters. That is simply NOT true. How long have they 'traditionally' been hunting spikes on these units? Is it longer than those who desire to hunt mature bulls on these units? I seriously doubt it. Let's put things into proper context when throwing out words like "tradition". For every one hunter who "quits" hunting due to change, there is a new one because of the increased opportunity.



> 2) For those hunters who have that desire to someday draw a big bull tag, rotating spike units isn't going to increase their odds...increasing LE tags will. So, why complicate simple things? In 2003, 966 LE tags were issued...the DWR is proposing that 2506 LE tags should be issued in 2008. So, in the span of 5 years, the DWR has gradually increased LE tags by 259%!


Another well done mis-information post. In 2003 you somehow left out the AR301 tags. Use like for like numbers when trying to show accurate increases, which would mean starting with 2004! But, rotating spike tags WILL increase their odds, because it will allow more bulls to reach maturity on the I400 units, and it WILL lower bull/cow ratios on the LE units w/o adverse effects on quality on the premium LE units.



> 3) Changing the season dates to those recommended in the current I400 plan will NOT lower success rates significantly enough to change the number of tags at any significant rate. In fact, if you were to compare units in Arizona with similar hunt dates as those proposed, you would find that the success rates in those Arizona units are also exceptionally high and very close to the success rates on the proposed I400 units.


More mis-information, Arizona does NOT enjoy success rates anywhere near Utah, they may have a couple of 'premium' units with high SR, but not across the board like in Utah. By putting more hunters in the hills, lowering bull/cow ratios, weapon allotment percentage changes, and the success rates WILL fall.



> So, in summary, what would I400 do? 1) It would really stick it to the traditional spike hunters who would more than likely simply lose their hunting opportunity 2) It would complicate what should be simple 3) It would make minor differences in LE increases probably no different than increases already being made.


Again, traditional spike hunters is an inaccurate definition of 'traditions', NO opportunity will be lost, it will be no more 'complicated' than what is in play now, it will make bigger differences than what you imply.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Hogan, since you like to use the "770 bulls killed" idea to decide which regulations are best, I will use it to illustrate my thoughts. If we have 1200 bulls: 770 spikes, 230 2.5 yr old, 100 3.5 yr old, 50 4.5 yr old, 50 5.5+ yr old. These ages will automatically adjust to some kind of mean depending on what hunters are willing to settle for. If nobody is happy with a spike, you will have 870 2.5 yr olds the next year. If everybody is happy with a spike, your numbers will remain basically unchanged from year to year. I believe the numbers will be somewhere in between, but I do think that a LOT of those 770 spikes will get shot by the any-bull hunters. Its hard to tell, but *I think the rotating spike hunts should be used as needed.* Its too hard to guess at when and where they might be needed on I400 units. So I think they should be implemented when and where the bull ratio gets too high. Also, its possible that the spike tags could be given out in the drawing as well. With a high success rate, spike tags would be very popular with meat hunters and with guys that just want to take a bull.

Spike tags on the premium units, that is a win-win. There's no question the ratios need to be lowered. And moving spike hunters in there will displace them from the regular spike areas. With these spike hunts in place and many hunters giving up their spike hunt for a chance at an I400 tag, we may all be scratching our heads wondering where all the spike hunters went.

The only problem I see with the 5 year waiting period is that it puts the primitive weapon hunts at a disadvantage. Many of the rifle hunts will take 5+ years to draw anyway, but you may be looking at 7 or 8 years between archery hunts. Thats too long. And if we just say no wait for archery tags, there will be the usual outcry that we are pro-archery. We should discuss it, but maybe it could be set up with no waiting period and 100% of tags given to high point holders, or maybe waiting periods could be adjusted down to 2 years for I400 tags, or something. But I really think the straight 5 year wait will make archery tags undesirable.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. My question is, on the waiting period how are we going to separate I400 from LE if both use the same bonus point system? Is this something that can be administered w/o too much headache for the DWR? Good post, as usual.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

It could get complicated depending on how it was done. But maybe not. If you are assigned a waiting period when you draw a tag, it shouldn't be too hard to assign different waiting periods for different tags. If you draw a 300 (LE elk) tag, you get 5 years. If you draw a 400 tag, you get 2 years. Or whatever numbers would work. Elk points would still be elk points. And adjusting the percentage of bonus permits from 50% to something else shouldn't be hard either if thats what is needed.

I just worry that with the 5 year wait on everything we may have the same problem we have now. That is, nobody wants to waste their once-in-a-decade tag on a short-range weapon hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

El Matador said:


> I just worry that with the 5 year wait on everything we may have the same problem we have now. That is, nobody wants to waste their once-in-a-decade tag on a short-range weapon hunt.


I agree, just how to implement it is the question. I believe many of the LE applicants will cry foul if they have a longer wait, and might keep I400 from being put into play. I was talking with HOGAN the other day on this, I believe it should remain in the same pool as the LE pool, FOR NOW. As I400 proves itself, we can then make adjustments. I envision I400 being tweaked every year or so to adjust for the different scenarios that play out.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

That's fine with me. The first few years will be great quality hunts anyway, and may "deserve" a longer waiting period. As long as we're aware that waiting periods might need adjustment in the future.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You mention traditional hunters and imply they are ALL spike hunters. That is simply NOT true. How long have they 'traditionally' been hunting spikes on these units? Is it longer than those who desire to hunt mature bulls on these units? I seriously doubt it. Let's put things into proper context when throwing out words like "tradition". For every one hunter who "quits" hunting due to change, there is a new one because of the increased opportunity.


First of all, I never implied that all traditional hunters are spike hunters...I implied that many of the traditional spike hunters will lose their tradition. It is very difficult to establish traditions when the units rotate and change...The difference between those who desire to hunt mature bulls and those who have the traditional spike hunt in your scenario is this: the traditional spike hunters are losing their tradition because you are trying to take it away...no one is trying to take away the desire of anybody to hunt mature bulls. In fact, steps are being taken on a yearly basis to INCREASE the opportunity of those who wish to hunt mature bulls. Like I have repeatedly said, some hunters will simply not hunt anymore if they lose their traditional hunting ground. To me, that is sad and unnecessary.



proutdoors said:


> Another well done mis-information post. In 2003 you somehow left out the AR301 tags. Use like for like numbers when trying to show accurate increases, which would mean starting with 2004! But, rotating spike tags WILL increase their odds, because it will allow more bulls to reach maturity on the I400 units, and it WILL lower bull/cow ratios on the LE units w/o adverse effects on quality on the premium LE units.


I will go back and check on this...I simply took my numbers from a press release from the DWR. Regardless, though, the amount of increase in LE tags over the past 5 years in considerable. Look at the jump from 2005 to 2008--1554 to 2506 And, if you look at the number of LE elk killed, it has doubled. I call that a significant increase in opportunity...Also, rotating spikes will lower the opportunity of spike hunters as I have mentioned before.



proutdoors said:


> More mis-information, Arizona does NOT enjoy success rates anywhere near Utah, they may have a couple of 'premium' units with high SR, but not across the board like in Utah. By putting more hunters in the hills, lowering bull/cow ratios, weapon allotment percentage changes, and the success rates WILL fall.


The only one giving misinformation when comparing Arizona to Utah is you. In fact, if you were to take the only units in Arizona with similar bull/cow ratios as Utah and similar season dates as you recommend, you would find that these are also the exact units with similiar success rates as Utah. Also, comparing Utah's LE units to Arizona as a whole is like comparing apples to oranges...they have completely different management strategies. But, if you want to compare Utah's success rates, as a whole, to Arizona's success rates, as a whole, go ahead--you would find that they are very close...but, comparing Utah's LE units (part) to Arizona (whole) is a poor comparison and very misleading.



proutdoors said:


> Again, traditional spike hunters is an inaccurate definition of 'traditions', NO opportunity will be lost, it will be no more 'complicated' than what is in play now, it will make bigger differences than what you imply.


Opportunity will be lost...the opportunity to hunt the same unit as in past years. And, the opportunity to hunt a unit with an equal number of elk...the opporunity to hunt a unit with the same quality.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Opportunity will be lost...the opportunity to hunt the same unit as in past years. And, the opportunity to hunt a unit with an equal number of elk...the opporunity to hunt a unit with the same quality.


As I/others have said MANY times, for every so-called lost opportunity there is at least a gained opportunity. How do you have "quality" spike hunting? Are the spikes bigger on the Fish Lake than on the Monroe? :? With spike success rates being below 20% year in year out, and unit by unit, what are you even talking about?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Like I have repeatedly said, some hunters will simply not hunt anymore if they lose their traditional hunting ground. To me, that is sad and unnecessary.


This is EXACTLY what has happened as a direct result of the spike hunt! I rarely hunt spikes, my family doesn't, and none of the 4 families I grew up hunting with do either. The spike hunt is lame, and many people are sick of it. If "tradition" is the only argument for or against I400, it would pass 4 to 1. Spike hunting is about as much of a tradition as $3.00 per gallon for fuel. We do it because we have no better option.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> How do you have "quality" spike hunting? Are the spikes bigger on the Fish Lake than on the Monroe? :? With spike success rates being below 20% year in year out, and unit by unit, what are you even talking about?


Quality in the number of animals available in a unit...if you take a unit like Fish Lake and replace it with a unit like Monroe, the quality of the spike hunt goes way down because the opportunity to find a spike goes down. The number of animals on the two units is not comparable. By rotating spike units you are going to lower the already low success rates...that is how the quality of the hunt goes down.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

El Matador said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Like I have repeatedly said, some hunters will simply not hunt anymore if they lose their traditional hunting ground. To me, that is sad and unnecessary.
> ...


You may believe that spike hunting is lame...I believe that not hunting at all is even more lame. I know many families who hunt spike elk because of family tradition...they do it because they enjoy being with their families on a hunt. Some people may hunt spikes because they have no better option...but taking that option away and replacing it with a minute chance of drawing one tag in 10 years is hardly a good option!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You may believe that spike hunting is lame...I believe that not hunting at all is even more lame. I know many families who hunt spike elk because of family tradition...they do it because they enjoy being with their families on a hunt. Some people may hunt spikes because they have no better option...*but taking that option away and replacing it with a minute chance of drawing one tag in 10 years is hardly a good option!*


You are misleading people here because we aren't taking away spike tags. There will still be 11,000 spike tags available so how will this interfere with people's "family traditions?"


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Unfortunately no matter what we do there will be *someones* tradition that is being ruined. How many hunting traditions have lasted the last 40 years of changes, I would dare say very few. How long has the spike hunt been around? I am not sure of that answer, but I believe it is around 10-15 years, please correct me if I am wrong.  That is when *new* traditions were born and old ones were broken.

My wifes entire family use to go hunt elk at the top of Huntington Canyon, now only one does, a tradition was ruined due to having to draw and a lot of the property becoming private. The fact is traditions are going to have to change because in the future there is not going to be enough animals out there for everyone to hunt every year. It sucks, I hate it, but that is the way things are going. No matter what is done someones tradition is going to be taken away, but new traditions will form in there places.

That is one reason I hunt with a bow, my opportunity to get out is greater, but I realize that someday that will change. I enjoy having the option to hunt spikes, but I would much rather hunt a mature animal. If I want meat I will go after a cow, which is also getting harder to draw, breaking some family traditions. I think El Matador made some very good points with his comment.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

True, traditions change because rules change...but, when we unnecessarily change traditions, we are making a mistake. If we were forcing people change out of necessity, that is different than when we do it unnecessarily. We could increase LE hunting opportunity WITHOUT changing the way people hunt....


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Wyo2ut, I will concede that the spike hunt is not lame for everyone. And I can certainly respect anyone who wants to keep alive the tradition of family hunting. I400 is not going to make everyone happy. There is no plan that will. However, there are a LOT of people out there that are getting tired of the spike hunts. If 50% of hunters that utilize spike areas want to adopt I400, wouldn't it be fair to manage 50% of the hunting areas under I400? This has always been my philosophy. Some people like the spike hunt, so some areas will be left alone. If, in the future, the demand for I400 areas increases, more areas should be converted.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

o-|| Sure seams like these thread go no where anymore. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> o-|| Sure seams like these thread go no where anymore. :?


I disagree. I think we are constantly making progress due to input and feedback, even from wyo2ut and you. 8) As long as all sides keep it civil, I enjoy discussing such topics.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> weatherby25 wrote:
> o-|| Sure seams like these thread go no where anymore. I disagree. I think we are constantly making progress due to input and feedback, even from wyo2ut and you. As long as all sides keep it civil, I enjoy discussing such topics.


Ok


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

WYO to UT has this one right, and all this talk of comparing utah to arizona just is"nt right. I can tell you from a lot of persnal experience thay are different worlds when it comes to elk hunting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> WYO to UT has this one right, and all this talk of comparing utah to arizona just is"nt right. I can tell you from a lot of persnal experience thay are different worlds when it comes to elk hunting.


I know, the elk in Arizona are apparently a lot smarter than elk in Utah. :roll: Or is it that Utah hunters are better at elk hunting than Arizona hunters?

Nobody, certainly not me, is saying Utah success rates will look exactly like Arizona's, the point is they are able to kill big bulls EVERY YEAR, w/o issuing a single spike only tag. I see no reason for Utah to be unable to do the same on ANY unit(s) that Utah chooses to maximize mature bull hunting opportunities on. It has been awhile since it was mentioned so I will repeat it again, on average year in and year out, TWICE as many spikes are harvested as mature bulls on spike only units. Why on earth is that considered an opportunity instead of a loss? If they stop harvesting spikes, the number of mature bulls that can be harvested would be triple at the least, in some cases even more than that. The North Cache, one of the I400 units, had in 2006, SIX TIMES as many spikes harvested as mature bulls. I see that as a huge LOSS of opportunity to hunt mature bulls, and for what reason(s)?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> WYO to UT has this one right, and all this talk of comparing utah to arizona just is"nt right. I can tell you from a lot of persnal experience thay are different worlds when it comes to elk hunting.


Can you expound on that a little more? I'd be interested to know which differences you're talking about since we have made a lot of comparisons to their elk management. I'm aware of the different climate that allows hunting seasons to be spaced out a little more, anything else?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Arizona"s terrain is the main differance. Much flater thicker areas,very little glassing.A lot harder to hunt,thay can give out more tags with lower success rates.As far as spikes go,I said earler 11 years ago at a rac meeting I suggested ending spike hunting. It was crazy how unglued people got! Unless things have changed alot your going to be surprised at the fight thay put up.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I forgot to mention, Arizonas tags are any bull and the last 3 day"s on about any unit alot of youg bulls hit the ground, Even spikes.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> It has been awhile since it was mentioned so I will repeat it again, on average year in and year out, TWICE as many spikes are harvested as mature bulls on spike only units. Why on earth is that considered an opportunity instead of a loss?


That is an easy question even for a dumb guy like me. It is considered opportunity becuse that many people got to take an elk instead of wait to draw. Would it be better if that where all big bull tags sure it would. You might not see it as any type of a hunt or any type of oppprtunity to hunt spikes but for many people it is just that. Most people will take what ever opportunity is given to them even if it is spike. The only people who would ever see that as a loss is the people waiting for the big bull tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> The only people who would ever see that as a loss is the people waiting for the big bull tags.


Which is around *50,000.* :? How many spike hunters are there? Less than *15,000.* Now tell me, who is taking opportunity from who? _(O)_


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Which is around 50,000. How many spike hunters are there? Less than 15,000. Now tell me, who is taking opportunity from who?


Give me a break pro. :shock: You know that is slanted just as much as I do.You know that there is also that many open bull hunters. You know there are people that do not hunt ether waiting for the chance to draw. You know there are also cow hunters that are waiting to draw.You know as well as I do that there will never be that many big bull tags. People know this so they will take what is given to them.Never said it was a likable opportunity. They may not like the idea of hunting spikes but they do it. I am all for more big bull tags and less spike tags if and only if that allows more people to hunt. I am in favor of issuing a lot more LE tags always have been. The sad thing is there can not be a balance with the tags. Yes we can make it a better and closer and a little more fair but you still have to give people that opportunity to be able to hunt even if it for a spike.Lets reask you question.


> Why on earth is that considered an opportunity instead of a loss?


The answer is still the same as I said before. It is opportunity because people are still able to hunt even if it is for spikes. It is even opportunity for trophy hunters as they can still hunt if they so choice to do so. Can they hunt for what they want to be hunting for no but they can still be hunting. Hunting spikes/open bulls/cows while waiting to draw.To me that is preatty good opportunity. Could it and should it be better yes. Will I 400 do that maybe, but it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

How is opportunity being taken? Maybe I just missed something. The way I see it, opportunity is increasing two fold if spike tags are considered to be issued on units that don't currently have spike hunts. Sure, people may have to accept hunting in an area that is not traditional for them, but in return they retain their privilege to hunt spikes and at the same time increasing their opportunity to hunt mature bulls. Why is this so hard to grasp? I bet if you asked any spike hunter who soley hunts the Wasatch, if given the option what would he or she would choose: Continue to hunt spikes on their traditional hunting grounds on the Wasatch and maybe draw one mature bull permit in their lifetime; or switch to hunting spikes on Monroe or the Pahvant and draw multiple mature bull tags, what do you think their choice is going to be?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> How is opportunity being taken? Maybe I just missed something. The way I see it, opportunity is increasing two fold if spike tags are considered to be issued on units that don't currently have spike hunts. Sure, people may have to accept hunting in an area that is not traditional for them, but in return they retain their privilege to hunt spikes and at the same time increasing their opportunity to hunt mature bulls. Why is this so hard to grasp? I bet if you asked any spike hunter who soley hunts the Wasatch, if given the option what would he or she would choose: Continue to hunt spikes on their traditional hunting grounds on the Wasatch and maybe draw one mature bull permit in their lifetime; or switch to hunting spikes on Monroe or the Pahvant and draw multiple mature bull tags, what do you think their choice is going to be?


First of all, we can increase opportunity for hunting mature bulls WITHOUT changing anything with spike hunts. Second of all, I doubt very seriously that most spike hunters will switch hunting units. Instead of switching units, I believe these spike hunters will simply lose their opportunity to hunt their traditional unit.

Second of all, you are assuming that the I400 changes will dramatically increase drawing times and the abillity of some hunters to draw tags. I believe that the I400 changes would not significantly change drawing times...in fact, I believe the changes would have very minimal impacts. So, the way I see it, I400 would take away spike hunting on some units and give very little in return.

So, I will answer your question with a question: I bet if you asked any spike hunter who solely hunts the Wasatch, if given the option what would he or she choose: Continue to hunt spikes on his/her traditional hunting grounds and maybe draw a couple mature bull permits in their lifetime; or switch to hunting spikes on an unfamiliar hunting ground and still only draw a couple mature bull permits in their lifetime...What would their choice be?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Almost all of this is addressed in the new 5 year (emp). Increasing overall herd size to 68,825,rotating spike hunts,Reducing managment bulls,Increasing LE tags untill age objectives are inline.Looks like spike hunting will replace manament bull hunts.Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Flyfishn247 said:
> 
> 
> > How is opportunity being taken? Maybe I just missed something. The way I see it, opportunity is increasing two fold if spike tags are considered to be issued on units that don't currently have spike hunts. Sure, people may have to accept hunting in an area that is not traditional for them, but in return they retain their privilege to hunt spikes and at the same time increasing their opportunity to hunt mature bulls. Why is this so hard to grasp? I bet if you asked any spike hunter who soley hunts the Wasatch, if given the option what would he or she would choose: Continue to hunt spikes on their traditional hunting grounds on the Wasatch and maybe draw one mature bull permit in their lifetime; or switch to hunting spikes on Monroe or the Pahvant and draw multiple mature bull tags, what do you think their choice is going to be?
> ...


In all fairness, if the question was asked in a slanted way like you did, of course their choice would be not to change it. With lies like once in their "lifetime" of course that would influence there decision. You could word it the opposite way to look like a win in the other direction also. I am not convinced on the rotating spike hunt myself. I think it would be way to confusing and I highly doubt the DWR would implement something like that. The problem is I don't have a good solution.  I think these guys are going in the right direction. I don't think there is a solution out there to allow everyone to hunt what they want every year, it just isn't possible, but by moving some dates around and percentages given out to certain types of hunters, I think there could be a significant increase in tags given out. JMO


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

That's an easy question for me and only because the Wasatch has been my family's "traditional" hunting ground for almost 40 years and basically everyone I know of and spoke to regarding this subject would be more than willing to switch units if it meant they would be able to draw multiple tags for mature bulls (nothing personal, but unlike you, I see I400 as a way to MAXIMIZE opportunity vs. gradually increasing LE tags over time). I think people would be willing to "switch" areas, particularly the Wasatch, for two reasons: One, a spike is a spike, and with the number of elk on the proposed units for spike hunts with I400, hunters shouldn't have to much of a problem locating elk. It's not like these hunters are giving up a trophy animal "honey hole".Two, the Wasatch has become more of a recreational area than hunting grounds and a lot of people are straying further and further away from civilization, in most cases, finding somewhere new to hunt big game because a majority of people in the area during the hunt are not hunting. Opening these new areas only increases the options for these hunters to find the peace they desire and the type of animals they wish to pursue.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> think it would be way to confusing and I highly doubt the DWR would implement something like that.


The DWR issues new regulations every year. Anyone with the ability to read and comprehend should not have much of an issue understanding changes. Hunters should be reading the proclamation (hunting guide) every year anyways.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> In all fairness, if the question was asked in a slanted way like you did, of course their choice would be not to change it. With lies like once in their "lifetime" of course that would influence there decision. You could word it the opposite way to look like a win in the other direction also. I am not convinced on the rotating spike hunt myself. I think it would be way to confusing and I highly doubt the DWR would implement something like that. The problem is I don't have a good solution.  I think these guys are going in the right direction. I don't think there is a solution out there to allow everyone to hunt what they want every year, it just isn't possible, but by moving some dates around and percentages given out to certain types of hunters, I think there could be a significant increase in tags given out. JMO


I worded my question with the same type of slant you worded your question. That is why I asked it...I believe your question is just as invalid as you think my question is.

The truth is their isn't a good solution...we are always going to have a problem where we have a high-demand hunt without enough animals for everybody. Personally, I don't think moving dates around will make any kind of change to success rates...there are simply too many variables out there that make hunting elk with a rifle easy. I have also run numbers comparing the number of tags that could be given out if percentages were switched around and it, too, is so minimal that no impact would be seen...

So, for me, the bottom line is that the DWR is already on track in making the situation optimal. I don't think I400 is the right direction to head...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> That's an easy question for me and only because the Wasatch has been my family's "traditional" hunting ground for almost 40 years and basically everyone I know of and spoke to regarding this subject would be more than willing to switch units if it meant they would be able to draw multiple tags for mature bulls


I am sure people would be more than willing to switch units if it meant they would without doubt be able to draw multiple tags for mature bulls...but I don't think that is reality. I think that is greatly misleading and false...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Do double posts make it doubly wrong? :mrgreen: :wink:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> I think people would be willing to "switch" areas, particularly the Wasatch, for two reasons: One, a spike is a spike, and with the number of elk on the proposed units for spike hunts with I400, hunters shouldn't have to much of a problem locating elk.


Huh? You are talking about switching from units with large populations of elk to units with relatively small populations of elk...you are talking about lowering hunter success rates even more because more people will be hunting less spikes...you are talking about lowering the quality of the hunting experience....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> you are talking about lowering the quality of the hunting experience....


Were you able to type that with a straight face? We are talking about SPIKES for cripes sake. :roll: Where the success rate is between 10-20% year in year out. Add in the FACT that most of the spikes are killed by the same hunters each year, and you have the MAJORITY of spike hunters who NEVER kill a spike EVER. Quality of the hunting experience, classic. Talk about political speak. :roll:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Interesting statement from Aoude's recommendations for 2008:
http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... march1.pdf

"We are proposing a reduction in management bull permits from 79 to 59 total management bull permits in 2008. This hunt was intended provide opportunity to harvest bulls with smaller antlers. Although this hunt did provide that opportunity, many of the bulls that were killed were younger bulls. If this trend continues, we recommend replacing this hunt with a spike hunt on all limited entry elk units."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Interesting statement from Aoude's recommendations for 2008:
> http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... march1.pdf
> 
> "We are proposing a reduction in management bull permits from 79 to 59 total management bull permits in 2008. This hunt was intended provide opportunity to harvest bulls with smaller antlers. Although this hunt did provide that opportunity, many of the bulls that were killed were younger bulls. If this trend continues, we recommend replacing this hunt with a spike hunt on all limited entry elk units."


This comes from a directive from the Wildlife Board last fall. If we do as wyo2ut suggests and just let things go as they are going now, we will have spike tags issued on every LE unit, which WILL reduce the number of mature bull tags issued each year! Anis Aoude himself even admitted to such. I think I400 is light years better as an option for increasing opportunity than statewide spike hunts.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Were you able to type that with a straight face? We are talking about SPIKES for cripes sake. :roll: Where the success rate is between 10-20% year in year out. Add in the FACT that most of the spikes are killed by the same hunters each year, and you have the MAJORITY of spike hunters who NEVER kill a spike EVER. Quality of the hunting experience, classic. Talk about political speak. :roll:


Here again, Pro, you look at hunting as only a matter of killing the biggest horned animal...many people do not. Unlike you, I--and many others--don't consider having had a good hunt based on whether I tagged a large-horned animal. A good hunt is one where I saw good numbers of animals and had opportunities to harvest an animal...the hunt is not about the kill.

In fact, hunt survey after hunt survey completed in state after state says that the majority of hunters believe that the quality of the hunting experience has NOTHING to do with harvesting a large-horned animal...


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Taken in context of the management plan for the 30 units, http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... march2.pdf and the comments included about "public" resistance to management to age and sex ratio objectives), it seems I400 is talking Dutch when the rest of the world is talking Japanese.



proutdoors said:


> Anis Aoude himself even admitted to such.


Who knows what language that guy talks? :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> This comes from a directive from the Wildlife Board last fall. If we do as wyo2ut suggests and just let things go as they are going now, we will have spike tags issued on every LE unit, which WILL reduce the number of mature bull tags issued each year! Anis Aoude himself even admitted to such. I think I400 is light years better as an option for increasing opportunity than statewide spike hunts.


Talk about misinformation and misleading...Anis specifically said that we could continue giving out more LE tags even if we added spike tags. This will NOT reduce the number of mature bull tags issued each year...

What Anis really said is that by adding spike tags to all LE units we would ULTIMATELY not be able to give out as many tags...His exact words on statewide spike hunting: "Allows for the harvest of more bulls and lower the bull to cow ratio while maintaining older age class bulls in the population that will be available for LImited Entry harvest. It also provides more elk hunting opportunity. The trade off we make if we implement this strategy is, the number of mature bulls that have the potential to be harvested will decrease slightly. Keep in mind that we currently are not harvesting to the potential on most of our Limited Entry units."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Here again, Pro, you look at hunting as only a matter of killing the biggest horned animal...many people do not. Unlike you, I--and many others--don't consider having had a good hunt based on whether I tagged a large-horned animal. A good hunt is one where I saw good numbers of animals and had opportunities to harvest an animal...the hunt is not about the kill.
> 
> In fact, hunt survey after hunt survey completed in state after state says that the majority of hunters believe that the quality of the hunting experience has NOTHING to do with harvesting a large-horned animal...


Here again you are* ass*uming way too much. I never said anything about the killing of the biggest 'horned' animal. My point was, and still is, that the success rate is extremely LOW already, so what is a few percentage points difference going to do to the "experience"? DO a poll on the Fish Lake after this falls rifle spike hunt, ask each hunter how many elk they saw, how many spikes they saw, and how many mature bulls they saw. Most spike hunters never see a spike during their hunt, but most will see a mature bull or two. Many will not see an elk at all, but will hear a few bugles. If most spike hunters experienced what you define as a "good hunt", I would tend to agree with you, but most of them do NOT "see good numbers of animals and have opportunities to harvest an animal". Most see few animals, even fewer see a single spike little lone many. The success rates prove that to be the case. Success rates below 20% with long range rifles means few are locating legal animals, and when you add in that MOST of the spikes killed are by the same hunters year after year.

Pulling a wyo2ut here:


> The trade off we make if we implement this strategy is, the number of mature bulls that have the potential to be harvested will *decrease*


 8) :mrgreen:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Success rates below 20% with long range rifles means few are locating legal animals, and when you add in that MOST of the spikes killed are by the same hunters year after year.


Frist how do you konw it is the same people killing the spike each year. Plus was it not you that has said hunting spikes is easy and not really a hunt?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Hunters should be reading the proclamation (hunting guide) every year anyways.


Yes should but does that mean they understand it or do it? Just look at this forum before the hunts start and see how many questions are rasied about what they have read. Anytime there is change you will have people who do not understand.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Here again you are* ass*uming way too much. I never said anything about the killing of the biggest 'horned' animal. My point was, and still is, that the success rate is extremely LOW already, so what is a few percentage points difference going to do to the "experience"? DO a poll on the Fish Lake after this falls rifle spike hunt, ask each hunter how many elk they saw, how many spikes they saw, and how many mature bulls they saw. Most spike hunters never see a spike during their hunt, but most will see a mature bull or two. Many will not see an elk at all, but will hear a few bugles. If most spike hunters experienced what you define as a "good hunt", I would tend to agree with you, but most of them do NOT "see good numbers of animals and have opportunities to harvest an animal". Most see few animals, even fewer see a single spike little lone many. The success rates prove that to be the case. Success rates below 20% with long range rifles means few are locating legal animals, and when you add in that MOST of the spikes killed are by the same hunters year after year.


So, you are admittedly doing exactly what I say you are doing...taking an already low success rate hunt and making it worse. Right? Afterall, don't you admit that these people will see a success rate that will drop a "few percentage points"? And, with fewer elk to be seen, won't many more hunters not see an elk, hear a bugle, and even fewer will have a chance to shoot a spike.

As for your belief that most of the spikes killed are by the same hunters year after year...do you have any basis of proof to back that statement up?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Frist how do you konw it is the same people killing the spike each year. Plus was it not you that has said hunting spikes is easy and not really a hunt?


I am sure I'll take heat for this, but I am just being honest. Most people who buy a tag are not very good hunters, those that are harvest animals on a regular basis, certainly when you take the trophy element out of the equation. I know 'hunters' who kill spikes every year on opening more, I know others who have hunted for years and never put the crosshairs on a spike. They have hunted the same unit (Manti). One is a hunter, the other isn't, he merely buys a tag and wanders around on the mountain. Look at the Wasatch Front, the same 'hunters' kill fairly regular up there, others have never let the air out of any buck, leave alone a good buck. That is my point; that not all hunters are 'created' equal in their ability to find and harvest animals.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, what you want to do now is widen that gap even more...make it even more difficult for those casual hunters to be successfull? To me, it is these hunters that you are most disdainful of...these are the hunters you are looking to stick it too more than any other with I400. Now it seems really clear to me...It sounds to me like you care nothing about retaining and gaining more participants in our sport...your kind of thinking is very dangerous in my opinion.

If you were to look at the flip side, you might see what I am talking about. What if the success rates of our deer hunt were to rise a few percentage points? Wouldn't that make MORE deer hunters happy? Wouldn't that also show that a larger percentage of people are happy with their hunting experience?

This is also one of the things that is very appealing to many about our LE elk hunts...the rifle hunts are high success rate hunts where large animals are killed relatively easily. People like that...look at websites by hunting reserves and outfitters. What do you they generally advertise? Big animals and high success rates...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, you are admittedly doing exactly what I say you are doing...taking an already low success rate hunt and making it worse. Right? Afterall, don't you admit that these people will see a success rate that will drop a "few percentage points"? And, with fewer elk to be seen, won't many more hunters not see an elk, hear a bugle, and even fewer will have a chance to shoot a spike.
> 
> As for your belief that most of the spikes killed are by the same hunters year after year...do you have any basis of proof to back that statement up?


I guess I could also admit that the weather could/would affect success rates by at least as much as I400 could ever do. What do you suggest we do to stop that? :roll:

Read my last post for my 'proof' on some are better than others at hunting, and anyone who has spent much time in the hills knows that to be true. Just as two people can fish the same water and one out perform the other 9 out of 10 times, the same applies to hunters. I have a brother who is one year older than me, we grew up together and went hunting together from the time we were 12 until he left for his mission. He never killed a deer/elk, never killed a coyote, rarely killed ANYTHING. Meanwhile I killed a deer and an elk each year I went through high school, I killed a couple hundred coyotes. He gave the 'sport' up, I am more obsessed with it now than ever. I have no doubt most of us can relate similar stories with family/friends who 'get it' or don't.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, what you want to do now is widen that gap even more...make it even more difficult for those casual hunters to be successfull? To me, *it is these hunters that you are most disdainful of*...these are the hunters you are looking to stick it too more than any other with I400. Now it seems really clear to me...It sounds to me like you care nothing about retaining and gaining more participants in our sport...your kind of thinking is very dangerous in my opinion.
> 
> If you were to look at the flip side, you might see what I am talking about. What if the success rates of our deer hunt were to rise a few percentage points? Wouldn't that make MORE deer hunters happy? Wouldn't that also show that a larger percentage of people are happy with their hunting experience?


Wrong again, the only hunters I have "disdain" for are arrogant know it alls, who think they are the only ones who have a clue. :mrgreen: :wink:

I need to get some work done, chat with you later. 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I have a brother who is one year older than me, we grew up together and went hunting together from the time we were 12 until he left for his mission. He never killed a deer/elk, never killed a coyote, rarely killed ANYTHING. Meanwhile I killed a deer and an elk each year I went through high school, I killed a couple hundred coyotes. He gave the 'sport' up, I am more obsessed with it now than ever. I have no doubt most of us can relate similar stories with family/friends who 'get it' or don't.


So, because his success wasn't good, he gave the sport up? So, you take a casual hunter who repeatedly fails to have success and he gives the sport up? Doesn't that concern you in the least? Aren't a good portion of spike hunters also beginning hunters who we really need to retain as hunters just to keep our sport viable and keep our hunting tradition alive? Wouldn't lowering the success rates of spike hunts and putting spike hunters on to lesser units with fewer animals drive more hunters away from the sport based on your reasoning?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> That is my point; that not all hunters are 'created' equal in their ability to find and harvest animals.


True but they are all hunters and should they not be treated as equals?



> Meanwhile I killed a deer and an elk each year I went through high school, I killed a couple hundred coyotes. He gave the 'sport' up, I am more obsessed with it now than ever. I have no doubt most of us can relate similar stories with family/friends who 'get it' or don't.


So help me understand this. Just becuse you can kill a lot of things makes you a better hunter. So that in turns means that you should have more oppertunitys. I am not sure what your point is here.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > That is my point; that not all hunters are 'created' equal in their ability to find and harvest animals.
> 
> 
> *True but they are all hunters and should they not be treated as equals? *
> ...


So help me understand this. Just becuse you can kill a lot of things makes you a better hunter. So that in turns means that you should have more oppertunitys. I am not sure what your point is here.[/quote:2pazppyr]I am saying that if you want to be successful, you should work for it, I don't see how that is being treated as less than "equals"

What opportunities do I get that ANY other hunter doesn't get? What 'extra' opportunities for ME am I pushing?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What opportunities do I get that ANY other hunter doesn't get? What 'extra' opportunities for ME am I pushing?


Again, complete disdain....you are trying to take away spike hunts from some people and push them on to lesser units with fewer animals so that you and other trophy hunters can have an "extra" chance at drawing a trophy tag.

Did you ever stop to think that some people don't have the time nor the means to "work" as much as you and some to hunt and be successfull? Did you ever think that maybe these "casual" hunters are just as valuable to the hunting tradition within Utah as those who do put in the time and "work"?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am saying that if you want to be successful, you should work for it, I don't see how that is being treated as less than "equals"
> 
> What opportunities do I get that ANY other hunter doesn't get? What 'extra' opportunities for ME am I pushing?


Ok I agree with you there.

Your not pushing anything for you directly but indriectly you are pushing for more big bull tags. They may not be on your unit but you are pushing for them none the less. You are pushing them for your kids and for others so I see it as pushing them for what you what and feel is right.



> That is my point; that not all hunters are 'created' equal in their ability to find and harvest animals.


So should they be punished for that? Are most general seson hunters going to fall into this lower part of this catargory?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> So should they be punished for that? Are most general seson hunters going to fall into this lower part of this catargory?


How are they being punished? Good hell, we compromised by rotating spike hunts every other year instead of just doing away with them, yet we/I are accused of having disdain and only worrying about ourselves which is inane.

I believe my brother quit hunting because he never really had a passion for it, not because he was unsuccessful. I think he was unsuccessful because he was not as driven as I was at hunting. He has found other things that he is MUCH better at than I that he enjoys and is passionate about. Not every person will be a hunter, and not every hunter will be a good one. If making such a comment is showing disdain, than so be it. I will never be a great fisherman, because I am not driven to become one. I'll never make a good school teacher because that is not where my passion and my desires are. Not everyone that is a great hunter would make a good guide and vice versa. That is how life works, we maybe created equal, but we most certainly are NOT born equal. When me and my brother talk, we don't talk about hunting because he isn't into it, we also don't discuss his hobbies because I am not into them, so we talk about common interests. He never did good in sports and I did, so does that mean wrestling should be made 'easier' to successful at so he would still be 'into it'? Of course not, but that is what some on here are saying should be done with elk hunting. Nonsensical.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I would bet my bottom dollar the majority (note I said majority, not all) of the elk hunters in the state, hunt spikes only because they can't get a LE tag. Of those hunters, most of them would rather see more mature bull opportunities. This isn't about taking away opportunity, its about trying to add opportunity.
Do any of the "founders" have a guess to how much this will increase draw odds for the I400 units, or how many more overall mature bull tags would/could be issued on these units? Any examples?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> I would bet my bottom dollar the majority (note I said majority, not all) of the elk hunters in the state, hunt spikes only because they can't get a LE tag. Of those hunters, most of them would rather see more mature bull opportunities. This isn't about taking away opportunity, its about trying to add opportunity.


BINGO! We have a winner.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> I would bet my bottom dollar the majority (note I said majority, not all) of the elk hunters in the state, hunt spikes only because they can't get a LE tag. Of those hunters, most of them would rather see more mature bull opportunities. This isn't about taking away opportunity, its about trying to add opportunity.
> 
> Do any of the "founders" have a guess to how much this will increase draw odds for the I400 units, or how many more overall mature bull tags would/could be issued on these units? Any examples?


1) That's just it...in order to add a very tiny bit of opportunity, they are taking away some. We can,though, add opportunity WITHOUT taking anything away...I would much rather be able to hunt spikes than nothing at all (or once every 10-15 years). Also, majority or not, many spike hunters hunt for other reasons...should we not be mindful of them too?

2) I have heard some of the "founders" guess that they can increase draw odds clear up to as much as 1 tag every 3-4 years :lol: ; however, they NEVER speculate how many more tags could/would be issued. But, if you start looking at the numbers, changing season dates and changing allotment percentages only add a very few tags.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> How are they being punished? Good hell, we compromised by rotating spike hunts every other year instead of just doing away with them, yet we/I are accused of having disdain and only worrying about ourselves which is inane.


They may not be punished. But in same ways you are punishing some people with I 400. Look at me. I hunt both the wasatch and the north cache units. Now if there is not spike hunt on ether of thouse units and I have no tag I will be punished by not being able to hunt. Sure I can hunt other places and blah blah blah we have been over this 1000's of times. But it is still a punishment to me for not being into hunting as much as you. you have compromised never said you have not. I think the idea of rotating spike hunts is ok but not great. I have never accused you of any thing.



> This isn't about taking away opportunity, its about trying to add opportunity


TRYING is the key word here. The thing you have to look at is the "added opportunity" better for the majority or is it going to hurt them. It might help some but really hurt others.They TRY and add LE tags each year and only can add a few tags each year. Why is that? Keep in mind it is the majority that pays the bills the DWR and the borad know this and will keep them happy as best they can.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I have heard some of the "founders" guess that they can increase draw odds clear up to as much as 1 tag every 3-4 years :lol: ; however, they NEVER speculate how many more tags could/would be issued. But, if you start looking at the numbers, changing season dates and changing allotment percentages only add a very few tags.


I stated as recently as yesterday that since two spikes are killed for every one mature bull, if spike tags were done away with, the tag numbers could be doubled or tripled. I put up the money, you seem content with only putting up the mouth. :?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I stated as recently as yesterday that since two spikes are killed for every one mature bull, if spike tags were done away with, the tag numbers could be doubled or tripled.


I have always agreed with that thought, but there is nothing that says you can actully get thouse tags. If you can not get the tags and have no spike hunting whats left?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard some of the "founders" guess that they can increase draw odds clear up to as much as 1 tag every 3-4 years :lol: ; however, they NEVER speculate how many more tags could/would be issued. But, if you start looking at the numbers, changing season dates and changing allotment percentages only add a very few tags.
> ...


Back to this point now are we...if we doubled or tripled the tags, we are reducing units to the levels of generals season open-bull units, if we are going to lower the units that much, why not just make them open-bull?


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

Pro, Why would you want to hunt the spikes then on areas where they are not being hunted now?????????????? The only way is to increase numbers of mature bulls is to stop hunting spikes. Will the public accept that change? I would say most will say no. All the other Mumbo Jumbo you are proposing is just that. Mumbo jumbo , switching this for that and a compete confusion of what started as a simple idea. I am not in favor of this mess of an idea in any shape or form. 
The DWR needs to increase the number of mature bulls on areas than have the extra mature bulls. 
I have said this before with any increase that is achieved we will never be satisfied. There will never be the mature bulls in this state to supply the demand for them . A mature bull is not an entitlement. Some will be lucky and get theirs others wont. That is the fact.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Back to this point now are we...if we doubled or tripled the tags, we are reducing units to the levels of generals season open-bull units, if we are going to lower the units that much, why not just make them open-bull?


What nonsense, Anis himself stated that we could DOUBLE the number of tags on MOST LE for five years before we would even get DOWN to objectives for harvest age and bull/cow ratios, and that is with the current number of spikes being killed each year.

drifter, the reason I and other like the idea of issuing spike tags on LE units with high bull/cow ratios is because it would allow the ratios to get in line with where they would be closer to objectives w/o huge impacts on the quality. The reason people object to large increases in tag numbers on premium units like the Pahvant and San Juan is because they have been applying for 15+ years and they want a better than average shot at a 'trophy' bull, not a 320 class bull. I can relate to them. That is why we want to do this on ONLY FIVE OF THE THIRTY LE UNITS. And, I am NOT willing to say the way things are is as good as will ever be, future generations deserve better than that IMHO.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > In all fairness, if the question was asked in a slanted way like you did, of course their choice would be not to change it. With lies like once in their "lifetime" of course that would influence there decision. You could word it the opposite way to look like a win in the other direction also. I am not convinced on the rotating spike hunt myself. I think it would be way to confusing and I highly doubt the DWR would implement something like that. The problem is I don't have a good solution.  I think these guys are going in the right direction. I don't think there is a solution out there to allow everyone to hunt what they want every year, it just isn't possible, but by moving some dates around and percentages given out to certain types of hunters, I think there could be a significant increase in tags given out. JMO
> ...


I don't remember asking a question. :?  I agree with you on there isn't a good solution.

Flyfish247 I see what you are saying about the proclamations and I agree with you. I just know the difference between what SHOULD happen and REALITY. The REALITY of the situation is a majority of hunters glance through the proc. the day before the hunts start or the day before they have to put in for tags. I don't agree with it, but that is the reality of the situation. Those people will never keep up with rotating spike units. This is just my opinion, but I feel pretty confident in saying it will be a failure like the management tags in Northern Utah. Most of the people on this forum breath, eat, and sleep wildlife and hunting, but there is a larger population that doesn't. Those are the ones that will be the issue.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sounds like I400 explodes again and I know I400 is FANTASTIC for several reasons.

1. Increase the opportunity to hunt big bulls

2. No spike tags will be lost for spike hunters

3. bull/cow ratios will be better managed and more elk calves will be born every spring because more cows will be on the mountain which creates even more opportunities to hunt bulls and cows.

4. Because Wyo2ut is against it so that makes I400 even better. I think he wants to be one of the "founders" because of the brillant plan that 6 guys came up with while breathing paint fumes at Treehuggers work and then we got TONS of feedback from sportsmen and DWR

Thanks for all the positive and negative feedback about this topic.

Wyo2ut, do you want to go fishing with me?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> This is just my opinion, but I feel pretty confident in saying it *will be a failure like the management tags in Northern Utah*. Most of the people on this forum breath, eat, and sleep wildlife and hunting, but there is a larger population that doesn't. Those are the ones that will be the issue.


Help me out, what management tags in Northern Utah are you talking about? I honestly can't recall them.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > This is just my opinion, but I feel pretty confident in saying it *will be a failure like the management tags in Northern Utah*. Most of the people on this forum breath, eat, and sleep wildlife and hunting, but there is a larger population that doesn't. Those are the ones that will be the issue.
> ...


Sorry it wasn't in Northern Utah.  I was confusing different tags in different locations.   Disregard that comment. Lets just stick to I don't think it will work because it will hard to keep people from being confused. I am not saying from a management side of things it won't work, I am not smart enough to know that, but I do think it will confuse a lot of people.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > This is just my opinion, but I feel pretty confident in saying it *will be a failure like the management tags in Northern Utah*. Most of the people on this forum breath, eat, and sleep wildlife and hunting, but there is a larger population that doesn't. Those are the ones that will be the issue.
> ...


I think he was talking about the tags that you could shoot a five point or less and retain your points.

Sorry jahan not trying to put words in your mouth but thats what I thought of when I read this.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

The issue of tag numbers is definitely a big one. I believe I400 will be a success regardless of how many tags end up being issued, but there would definitely be a "sweet spot" for each hunter's taste. We need to find it. If you look at each extreme, it may help shed some light on how many tags are likely to be issued, and how often it will take to draw. On the one end, we could eliminate spike hunting and issue 3x the LE tags for a hunt that has the same quality the LE hunts now have. For the Wasatch that would be around 600 tags. Considering about 5000 hunters use that unit for hunting bull elk, that should mean a tag every 8 or 9 years. Now consider the other extreme: making it an any-bull unit. 5000 tags. Of course the quality would suffer terribly, but you could get a tag every year. Our preliminary numbers had around 1200 tags being issued on the Wasatch under I400, which we figured would have you drawing about every 5 years on average. Archery tags maybe more often, rifle hunts maybe a bit less often. The beauty of the thing is that we have a continuous scale to work with between the LE quality and any-bull quality. Ideally, we would have some units that are easier to draw with less quality, and some that are harder to draw with quality approaching the premium LE units. A hunt for everybody's taste. Admittedly, it may take a few years to whittle down the pool of bonus point holders. So odds will probably be worse at first. But after things settle down I would bet we have tags that take anywhere from 1 or 2 years all the way up to 8 or 9 years depending on weapon choice and quality of the unit.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

El matador i may hav misread or just read inot your post but the end of your last post makes it sound as if you are thinking of making all units (includinganybull) a draw. Is that the case? Just wondering? If not sorry for the misunderstanding. 

I would like to ask about the spike tags, (I know I'm beating a dead horse) some have insinuated that they may eventually go away. Lets just say I don't like that. I think like that we need them for the quality of the units (like hogan) and for oppurtunity (more tags lower succes rates= oppurtunity to most). 

The other thing I would like to see is numbers. I know there have been some posted in the past but, I would like to see some proposed tag numbers and the math behind them. I understand the % splits for weapons you are proposing. I am talking about unit numbers. What can a unit support based on the I400 proposal. 

Third what about a plan to get the tag allotments you need to make I400 work. I still pose the question that if the DWR can't ge the numbers how do you plan on getting them?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Truemule, the any-bull units are not being touched by I400. I was just making a comparison, saying that by issuing 5,000 tags on the Wasatch we would end up with quality similar to an any-bull unit. 

The only way spike tags would go away completely is if they were not needed for management and the demand for them went away as well. So as long as Wyo and Weatherby are alive I don't see that happening.

The tag numbers. We put in probably 50 hours of work (or more) to come up with the numbers we first posted. I don't feel like doing it again right now. PRO probably doesn't either. The example numbers we came up with last year are pretty good for hypothetical allotments. Some units were assigned more tags for easier draw/lower quality, and some were given fewer tags to preserve high quality.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> The only way spike tags would go away completely is if they were not needed for management and the demand for them went away as well. So as long as Wyo and Weatherby are alive I don't see that happening.


 



> I was just making a comparison, saying that by issuing 5,000 tags on the Wasatch we would end up with quality similar to an any-bull unit.


I hope that I 400 is not planing on making there units like an any bull unit are they? Sure they will not be the LE units of today but to say they are going to be like the any bull units bothers me some.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I hope that I 400 is not planing on making there units like an any bull unit are they? Sure they will not be the LE units of today but to say they are going to be like the any bull units bothers me some.


Im hoping the bull/cow ratio for the Wasatch will be 25/100 to 30/100 which is higher than anybull units.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Im hoping the bull/cow ratio for the Wasatch will be 25/100 to 30/100 which is higher than anybull units.


I can live with that and think it is a good number. I could not live with the I 400 units being like the any bull units. That would be a very bad thing.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I wouldn't want I400 units to be like any-bull units either. Sorry if that first post was confusing. I was just stating some known values for quality vs. number of tags. We know that issuing 5000 tags would give us any-bull-unit quality, and we also know that isuing 600 tags would give us premium LE quality. What we want is quality somewhere between those. So, by extrapolating those numbers and comparing with other states we should be able to come up with tag numbers that give us the quality and opportunity we're looking for. 1200 tags on the Wasatch, for example, gives quality thats much better than any-bull but much easier to draw than LE.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > Im hoping the bull/cow ratio for the Wasatch will be 25/100 to 30/100 which is higher than anybull units.


 :?: I believe that is the current bull to cow ratio for the Wasatch.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> that is the current bull to cow ratio for the Wasatch.


Yes but if you eliminate spike tags or do spike tags every other year then more mature bulls can be issued.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> weatherby25 said:
> 
> 
> > > Im hoping the bull/cow ratio for the Wasatch will be 25/100 to 30/100 which is higher than anybull units.
> ...


Here is one of my beefs with the data released by the DWR. They say the bull/cow ratio is around 30/100 in one report, then Anis says it is actually around 40-45/100 in meetings. Then when you factor in the harvest age average of OVER 7 years of age, and I see no way possible for the bull/cow ratio to be anywhere near the 20's. :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The BTC I just looked at was 22/100.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Here is one of my beefs with the data released by the DWR. They say the bull/cow ratio is around 30/100 in one report, then Anis says it is actually around 40-45/100 in meetings. Then when you factor in the harvest age average of OVER 7 years of age, and I see no way possible for the bull/cow ratio to be anywhere near the 20's. :?


Have you ever called up the regional manager or the unit manager for the DWR and asked him about these numbers or for an explanation?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one of my beefs with the data released by the DWR. They say the bull/cow ratio is around 30/100 in one report, then Anis says it is actually around 40-45/100 in meetings. Then when you factor in the harvest age average of OVER 7 years of age, and I see no way possible for the bull/cow ratio to be anywhere near the 20's. :?
> ...


Yes I have, thanks for asking. 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, what was the reply?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You didn't say please. :shock:

He said that because bulls are more solitary and tend to stay in the high country, it is difficult to get accurate counts on bulls when doing counts. Cows, calves, and younger bulls tend to winter in the open more than older bulls, making it easier to get consistent counts on cows/calves, but harder to get them on bulls. So, the use the numbers they observe, which is nowhere near what is actually there. I also see the latest from the DWR shows the *TOTAL* population on the Boulder unit at 500, I doubt the DWR really believes that number is accurate, and if they do Lord help us all. :? And no, I haven't called the regional manager on how they came up with 500 elk on the Boulder.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> They say the bull/cow ratio is around 30/100 in one report, then Anis says it is actually around 40-45/100 in meetings.


Do you really belive it is that high? if it was 40-45/100 that would mean you should see a bull for about every 2 to 3 cows right? That is my unit I love and I see now where near that. I think that unit is in the 20-25 range but that is just what I see.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

> Do you really belive it is that high? if it was 40-45/100 that would mean you should see a bull for about every 2 to 3 cows right? That is my unit I love and I see now where near that. I think that unit is in the 20-25 range but that is just what I see.


My understanding is that on the millville face and at hardware ranch those counts are pretty close. If we continue doing what we are doing we are potentially headed for a crash.


----------

