# NOV-RAC/Board meeting- Big game changes 2014



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

First off - Monroe, elimanating spike elk rifle hunting..

Page 1, item 3,

3. In May 2013, the Wildlife Board gave the Southern Region and action log item to determine if the Monroe
unit required a different hunting strategy for spike elk. The region met with local sportsmen to discuss the
issue this fall. As a result, we recommend eliminating the any weapon portion of spike elk hunting on the
Monroe unit until the statewide elk plan is approved (roughly 2 years). ​
Other items:
inclluded are exsanding units for potentional deer trasplants.

recommend allowing archery hunting of big game on select Waterfowl Management Areas

recommend splitting the Book Cliffs LE deer hunt into north and south units during the any weapon
hunt. This is to address discrepancies in buck to doe ratios in the north and south portions of the Book​Cliffs.

recommend removing bull elk from the Sanpete Valley Extended Archery elk hunt

recommend adding a Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep hunt for units 16A and 17A (Wasatch, West and​Central Mtns, Nebo).

Just a heads up and a link to the full packet:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-11_rac_packet.pdf

Any thoughts?--------Quite a few changes proposed for 2014!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Oh ya, another hot one, magnifying scopes alowed on MLs and crossbows
during any weapon hunts....

(4) A person who has obtained an any weapon permit for a big game hunt may
use muzzleloader equipment authorized in this Section to take the species authorized in​the permit, including a fixed or variable magnifying scope

I like this one! might use my ML with a variable scope to hunt moose for fun....
(Yes, I have a moose tag coming soon )


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm quite disappointed not seeing additional muzzleload antelope hunting in the state.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The ML isn't a big deal as it only applies to those wanting to use a ML during an any weapon hunt. Yes, I guess if you REALLY wanted to use a ML during the any weapon hunt that would be better for you. I don't see it changing much in application.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

TS30,
I proposed to the RAC guys and they made it an action item to the Board and the Board sent it to the Division to look into it. Right now there is only muzzy antelope hunting on the Plateau region. I figure there are other herds in the state that could handle a muzzy hunt as well, especially in Rich County.
The Division has had it as a work project to look into since early February. That is why I'm disappointed in not seeing it on the agenda.


----------



## IBSquatchin (Nov 19, 2012)

Glad they are thinking about a sheep hunt on the wasatch. A couple good rams I'd hate to see get hit by a car or eaten by a cat.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS30 said:


> The ML isn't a big deal as it only applies to those wanting to use a ML during an any weapon hunt. Yes, I guess if you REALLY wanted to use a ML during the any weapon hunt that would be better for you. I don't see it changing much in application.


Here's were it will be used alot,,,, OIAL hunts!------IMHO.

Will also no come into play for bear and cougar hunters.

Antlerless elk/antelope/deer anyweapon hunts as-well.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Bears Butt said:


> ,
> I proposed to the RAC guys and they made it an action item to the Board and the Board sent it to the Division to look into it. Right now there is only muzzy antelope hunting on the Plateau region. .


Action items take time, I'm hearing maybe 2015 for added ML lope oppertunity..


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks for the info Goofy.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm opposed to the transplant "potential viability" modification to the mule deer plan as the current study in Southern Utah isn't quite a year in and shows almost 50% mortality while resident deer mortality is in comparison, minimal. Those numbers alone are not "viable" by any means and the cost to benefit ratio still sucks. Who's going to pay for the transplants? An increase in tag fees? That's not on this packet but how else are they going to pay for them? Another 200 convention tags? Pretty clear where this is going. Peay's "Sacrificial Anode Theory" wherein its justified to send transplanted deer to an area (increase in tag fees) and after a year or two of lousy retention of transplants it must be the predators (part of the DP theory to begin with....transplanted deer relieve predator pressure from resident deer) so we must spend money on predator control (back to the legislature or again, hike in tag fees). Anyone else see this as clearly as I do?

I'd prefer allowing young hunters to harvest over objective deer to relieve range damage. Better to feed a human than a cougar and political objective.

I really like the Hunter Mentoring Program. Seams the division listened and adapted the public's concerns and suggestions. 

Not sure about the dedicated hunter 1st year service hour change. That seems kind of odd when it still requires 32 total hours in the program. Guess it doesn't matter, so long as the projects get done successfully.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

BB,

I was meaning to refer to the magnification scope on a ML, not the increased muzzy hunts. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't make that too clear.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I want to know were the UWN spike-o-rama guys are going to go now-_O-


----------



## utaharcheryhunter (Jul 13, 2009)

^^^^ Funny!!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I want to know were the UWN spike-o-rama guys are going to go now-_O-


I think they are still headed down there as most archery hunt.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

^^^^Yep the new UWN archery spike-o-rama is going to be a Monroe blood bath. I already have my 100 yard site on my bow, I can't wait to start lobing arrows at spikes. Only question is how many will I wound before I finally kill one???


----------



## IBSquatchin (Nov 19, 2012)

blackdog said:


> ^^^^Yep the new UWN archery spike-o-rama is going to be a Monroe blood bath. I already have my 100 yard site on my bow, I can't wait to start lobing arrows at spikes. Only question is how many will I wound before I finally kill one???


It doesn't matter. You only have to tag one. :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm surprised no one here hunts the Sanpete extended elk?

Thought there would be archery hunters concerned about lossing this oppertunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> I'm opposed to the transplant "potential viability" modification to the mule deer plan as the current study in Southern Utah isn't quite a year in and shows almost 50% mortality while resident deer mortality is in comparison, minimal. Those numbers alone are not "viable" by any means and the cost to benefit ratio still sucks. Who's going to pay for the transplants? An increase in tag fees? That's not on this packet but how else are they going to pay for them? Another 200 convention tags? Pretty clear where this is going. Peay's "Sacrificial Anode Theory" wherein its justified to send transplanted deer to an area (increase in tag fees) and after a year or two of lousy retention of transplants it must be the predators (part of the DP theory to begin with....transplanted deer relieve predator pressure from resident deer) so we must spend money on predator control (back to the legislature or again, hike in tag fees). Anyone else see this as clearly as I do?
> 
> I'd prefer allowing young hunters to harvest over objective deer to relieve range damage. Better to feed a human than a cougar and political objective.
> 
> ...


These deer transplants are nothing more than a PR tool....the public likes them and think they are good, so the DWR is willing to do them. They are really pointless.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> These deer transplants are nothing more than a PR tool....the public likes them and think they are good, so the DWR is willing to do them. They are really pointless.


There is a story today in the SL Trib that talks about the proposed transplanting of deer - specifically from the Antelope Island and Bountiful bench herds. From what I've seen from the initial S. Utah studies, these transplants would seem to be a waste of tax payer time and money The public should be educated, to the extent possible, that moving a deer from point A to a different point B is really only condemning that deer to die with no real benefit for the public. It makes more sense to me to open up additional hunting opportunities in the areas with excess deer. They're saying that Antelope Island is around 800 deer right now with a management goal of 350 or so. No real public safety issues there - just shut the island down for a few days during the hunts. Bountiful is different and may be a hard sell to the non-hunting public, but if they were clearly shown both sides of the equation, perhaps it could sway them with an archery-only season in designated areas.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Therein lays the problem. The bunch pushing "viable transplants" don't care what happens to the translocated animals because they hope those animals will fill the bellies of predators and take pressure off the resident deer. No matter how you look at this, it results in less opportunity to recruit young hunters and retain those getting tired of not getting a tag more than a couple years in a row. Cost to benefit is also a silver bullet that hopefully goes through the heart of this particular plan.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

We are over 50% mortality on the transplant study, which still has 2 or 3 months of cold and snow be into the study 1 year.

$1000 a deer with a mortality rate that may be approaching 100% in the first 2 years. Brilliant.

Also, the whole purpose of funds coming from the auction tags on AI were to improve habitat on the island. This is straight from the mouth of the DNR director. So let me get this straight; We desperately needed extra cash to improve habitat in an area that is over double the mule deer objective? Does this make sense to anyone?

Watch the little red fish..........


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Thanks for the update Goofy.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> These deer transplants are nothing more than a PR tool....the public likes them and think they are good, so the DWR is willing to do them. They are really pointless.


This is exactly right. The efforts look good on news clips and "Roughing it Outdoors" episodes, but offers no substantive improvements to the herd.

Maybe the DWR is figuring that the costs spent on these escapades can be written off as "advertising" due to the feel good vibes in brings to the general public and SFW types?


----------



## Moostickles (Mar 11, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I'm surprised no one here hunts the Sanpete extended elk?
> 
> Thought there would be archery hunters concerned about lossing this oppertunity.


I just heard this!!! Why would they remove bulls from the Sanpete extended??? That is the whole reason I and many friends and family even purchase archery elk tags.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I want to know were the UWN spike-o-rama guys are going to go now-_O-


Option #1 Archery Monroe....can you say fling away?
Option #2 We all hit up the Wasatch with rifles in hand. Maybe we can kill enough to give you guys something to whine about next year? Then on to the Manti. 
Option #3 Cow-Mania 2014 on the Monroe.

We are planning a meeting at the pizza parlor, we will keep notes and post them up for you guys. Heck, maybe we will even let you make the choice Goofster....since you are the self-proclaimed expert and ex-guide.-oOo-----SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's an update to the shop packet going to the board for changes:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-12_board_packet.pdf

Here are some of the high lights.

*Monroe Mountain Action Log Item - Vance Mumford 00:12:58 - 00:28:28​*DWR recommended a hunt structure modification to the Monroe Mountain to reduce the high
spike elk harvest - eliminate any weapon spike hunt for two years; retain either sex archery and
general spike muzzleloader hunts; explore managing the Monroe, Dutton, Boulder, and Fish
Lake units as one large population; and work with federal agencies and private landowners to​devise alternative solutions to control harvest rates.

*Spring 2013 - Target Date - Scopes on Muzzleloader Rifles and Use of Crossbows
MOTION:​*​​​​I move that we ask the division to report to the Board on the issues and concerns with using a magnifying
scope on a muzzleloader as well as the use of a crossbow during the "any legal weapon" general season deer hunt by
all sportsmen. This is to be placed on the action log and the report shall be discussed at the May 2013 work session.
Assigned to: Tony Wood
Action: Under Study
Status: To be completed December 5, 2013​
Placed on Action Log: December 6, 2012

*Late Fall 2013 - Target Date - Additional muzzleloader Pronghorn hunting opportunity
MOTION​*​​​​I move that we ask the division to study additional muzzleloader pronghorn hunting opportunity as presented
in the November RAC meetings by Mr. Zundel. This is to be placed on the action log.
Assigned to: Bill Bates
Action: Under Study
Status: Pending​
Placed on Action Log: December 6, 2012

Tons more stuff!---Possible changes to preferance points for deer tags in the 'works'.
Including minutes to the November RAC meetings-----Enjoy..


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'm surprised no one here hunts the Sanpete extended elk?
> 
> Thought there would be archery hunters concerned about lossing this oppertunity.


I hunt it and it's no loss, really. Dang tough hunt on (very little) public land. I know a couple landowners who won't be happy about it. Trespass fees pay for Xmas. But they likely won't know about the change until it's a done deal.

If we need to take more bulls off the Manti, then the way to do it is with more LE tags. And if depredation is the concern, antlerless hunters & houndsmen do a fine job of keeping the elk on the move clear into the end of January.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So its a $1000 a deer to transplant. And the deer will eventually die anyway.
Not good at all.

What kind of price are we getting for our "habitat restoration" dollars per deer?

So far its been over 100 million spent and not one more deer as a result of it.

Maybe you guys need to give this transplant stuff some more time to see the benefits. ;-)

*Honestly, I've been asking this for years here. Name one unit that has more deer that can be directly attributed to the habitat restoration efforts done on it?*

So long as we are being wildlife's financial watch dog we aught go after the bulk of the waste don't you think?

Habitat smabitat!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> What kind of price are we getting for our "habitat restoration" dollars per deer?
> 
> So far its been over 100 million spent and not one more deer as a result of it.


And you know this how? How do you know if the habitat work has not paid off? Have you ever thought for one second that things would be much worse off without it?



Iron Bear said:


> Honestly, I've been asking this for years here. Name one unit that has more deer that can be directly attributed to the habitat restoration efforts done on it?


Name one unit that has more deer that can NOT be directly attributed to the habitat restoration efforts done on it?

You see, I can give you example after example where predator reduction didn't do anything to bring the deer numbers up....BUT, you cannot give me one example where habitat restoration did NOT help. Not one.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Name one unit that has more deer that can NOT be directly attributed to the habitat restoration efforts done on it?


Pretty much all of them... and the cause was Mother Nature and the recent mild winters, not due to anything we as people have done.

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Pretty much all of them... and the cause was Mother Nature and the recent mild winters, not due to anything we as people have done.


And you know that how?

That's the problem....there is no definitive answer either way. We can do studies measuring the habitat and the quality of it....and we can see if that habitat is improving or not. But, we can't definitively tell whether that habitat has improved the deer herds or not. You can surmise that the recent weather patterns have been the cause of any recent growth in our deer herds, but how do you know that habitat improvement projects did NOT aid in the growth? Or, how do you know if growth would have been less--or even more--without these projects. I don't think you can...

....personally, I don't think there is any doubt that those projects are and will eventually aid in helping mule deer survive winter hardships. But that is just me surmising...


----------

