# What do the majority of hunters want?



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

The great elk debate has got me thinking about many many different things as far as the the managment goes. According to officials Utah manages by what the people want, or should I say by what the "speaking people" want. They only know what people want if they can hear them. I will say that the vast majority of the hunters DO NOT speak out for what they want, for whatever their reasons.
If you could guess, what would you say "they," the none speakers, would want to see done? No change? More mature bull tags (opportunity) even if it means lower quality? Less mature bull tags issued? Are they happy with the current system, or not?
This is not what YOU want to see done but what you would guess the majority of the hunters would want.
My guess is that the majority of the people are not happy with the current system, meaning the waiting period, OILT for an elk. I think they love the trophys Utah has, and the thought they could come home with one some day. But most, I believe, do not realize that the point system is broke, if you are on the low end of it. In point, I think most want a balance, more opportunity, still with decent bulls being taken.
I also think Utah hunters have a warped sense of trophy elk, and hunting them. Utahn's are way over advertised in the trophy hunting world.
Thats my 2 cents for what its worth, what do you guys think?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

SADDLE I will speak only for myself. I want to hunt every year, more importantly I want my kids to hunt every year.

I would like to see our herds managed for what is biologically best for the herds.

I would like to see the HORN PORN, INCH, HERO WORSHIP, END YESTERDAY.

I would like to see GENUINE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUTH INCREASE.

I would like 4 of the 5% of tags auctioned to the highest bidder back in the draw.

Go ahead and light me up. Honest question honest answer


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

nice post wiley.


I think the majority of Utahn's will complain about whatever the current system is, regardless of what that system is. It's the nature of people to complain.

I think people want the best of both worlds. Everyone would rather have more opportunity at higher quality animals. The publics expectations are typically unrealistic.

The majority do NOT like the current point system. The majority wants to hunt elk every year. The majority wants the guides and special interest groups (SFW) out of control of management decisions. The majority want Utah hunting, not Colorado hunting (otherwise, they'd go to Colorado).

Management should not be based by what people want. Management should be based on what the biology can allow with consideration to what the people want. This is why we have the DWR and the Wildlife Board making the decisions, and not the people.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

I think Utah needs to stop managing for 400 inch bulls. 95% of hunters would be tickled pink over a 300 inch bull. But i am for more opportunity.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I want a Pony, not just any Pony, I want one of those Shetlon Ponies so I can ride it. I also want an entire area to myself so I don't have to be bothered by anyone else. I also would like to be a little taller. Well if I think of anything else I want I will let you know. 8) 

Oh yeah I want to be Hugh Hefner for just a couple days, I don't know if I could handle much longer than that, I might start walking funny. :shock:


----------



## STEVO (Sep 13, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> SADDLE I will speak only for myself. I want to hunt every year, more importantly I want my kids to hunt every year.
> 
> I would like to see our herds managed for what is biologically best for the herds.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with your post. The average joe doesnt have a say in how the heards are managed. Its the so called "Non-profit" groups that dictates the states "Management plans". How many of the Higher ups in these organizations are hunting guides on the side?? It still comes down to the all mighty dollar. The average hunter just happens to squak a little quieter than the man that has money to lose.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> SADDLE I will speak only for myself. I want to hunt every year, more importantly I want my kids to hunt every year.
> 
> I would like to see our herds managed for what is biologically best for the herds.
> 
> ...


+1

Also I would like to see the increased cost of hunting licenses and why in writing a year before they are increased. i would like to see a JR. Mentor program Like Idaho has that way we can get the neighbor kids hunting without killing the wallet. I would love the tags to the highest bidder to come back but go to youth hunters. I would like a detailed audit of DWR funds done every four years and licenses not to increase yearly but in four year increments. 
Smaller deer hunting units would be great. I only use 1/15th of the area I am given so sell tags for specific areas to prevent overcrowding 
Break up spike only areas and general elk areas into smaller groups.
Let kids under 18 hunt elk all three hunts the same as deer giving them greater chance of success. 
And I would love to see changes to the draw next year so that those who do not want to hunt unless they draw the tag they want, don't have to have a general hunting license or "combo" license that was asinine.

Take it or leave it&#8230;. it is what it is


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Well to be honest about the reality of the question, most hunters want to kill a trophy bull every year, but that's not possible. So any system that doesn't make that possible while be vilified by hunters just like the current system is; so *my answer is the majority of hunters want the impossible.* :wink: :shock:


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Well to be honest about the reality of the question, most hunters want to kill a trophy bull every year, but that's not possible. So any system that doesn't make that possible while be vilified by hunters just like the current system is; so *my answer is the majority of hunters want the impossible.* :wink: :shock:


not true they all just want the chance. and 20% harvest is not a great chance


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> Mojo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Well to be honest about the reality of the question, most hunters want to kill a trophy bull every year, but that's not possible. So any system that doesn't make that possible while be vilified by hunters just like the current system is; so *my answer is the majority of hunters want the impossible.* :wink: :shock:
> ...


They already have the "chance"; it's called the any bull units; most want that trophy every year weather its feasible or not to have it, trophy mania has a firm grip not only in Utah but across the continent.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

Agreed what most want is impossible, but the state is not even listening to the biologists, or sticking to their own EMP numbers. Why? Who can help change that? 


"The public that currently attends the RAC and Board Meetings wants to harvest older age class bulls and at the end of the day we serve the public." I understand this quote to be that the people that speak out will be heard. 

One can't have everything they want. You can not please everyone either, but people will take whats given to them, Biologically right or wrong. People just want to hunt, and right now for a mature bull, you can hardly hunt them with the current system. And more importantly, the herds are at unhealthy states. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO DO IT. We can not leave it up the big organization groups to continue to have all the pull. Although they all do play a major role in the benifit of our wildlife. 
Thats where the hunters have to come into play. Have I completly missed the bus on this one? I know very little about how the system works and even less about biology, but I care more than I should about hunting and its future. And only want to better it for everyone across the board. From opportunity hunters to trophy hunters, after all, we are all hunters.
Everyone wants to hunt as much as possible, but most feel like it doesn't have to be OILT. Especially when there is room to harvest more bulls.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

I don't think it’s for a lack of being heard but a lack of being told where they can be heard. My Father has never been told where he can voice his opinion or where he can meet I think if the dwr can mail draw results they can mail meeting schedules yearly, and update any changes on the web sight if schedules change. This would increase peoples input something I feel some on this page do not want.


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

I want to kill a 450" bull EVERY YEAR>................................. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I would like 4 of the 5% of tags auctioned to the highest bidder back in the draw.


Gordy,time and time again I have seen you speak against these tags, but do you honestly know where this money goes?????


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

How many people would give up hunting their favorite spike hunting spot to hunt mature bulls and hunt other spike units when not hunting mature bulls?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS you have heard me speak again and again on these tags. Not because they exist or where the money goes or the matching funds that they provide goes or how and where they are spent goes.

What you have not UNDERSTOOD is that the law of dimishing returns on these tags hit after the first 100 of them. I could GUARANTEE you that if these tags were cut in half and the full value of them was realized you would bring in just as much. Why would someone spend 30K 
on a tag when they can go to another banquet next saturday and bid on a equal tag for several thousand less.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> wileywapati wrote:
> SADDLE I will speak only for myself. I want to hunt every year, more importantly I want my kids to hunt every year.
> I would like to see our herds managed for what is biologically best for the herds.
> I would like to see the HORN PORN, INCH, HERO WORSHIP, END YESTERDAY.
> ...


 -/O\- -*|*- -/O\- -*|*- -/O\- -*|*- -/O\- -*|*- -/O\- -*|*- -/O\- -*|*- -/O\-
Amen!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I would like to see the HORN PORN, INCH, HERO WORSHIP, END YESTERDAY.


You are forgetting that not everyone hunts like you or thinks like you. Many hunters put in for LE units because they love the Horn porn and they want to kill a great trophy. Maybe you should keep that in mind.


----------



## Addicted (Apr 10, 2008)

I think most hunters want more opportunity at qualtiy animals(not a Colorado hunt). BUT dont realize what kind of trouble some of are units are in. I think most hunters are scared of a tag increase due not being educating on what is going on, they think that more tags equals killing everything and leading to less tags over all. Or they are infatuated with the big non profit organizations and take what they say as gospel not realizing some of these groups look out for nothing more then the all mighty $$$$$$ and not the general hunting public.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> SADDLE I will speak only for myself. I want to hunt every year, more importantly I want my kids to hunt every year.
> 
> I would like to see our herds managed for what is biologically best for the herds.
> 
> ...


Honesty... now there's a revolutionary concept. Great answer.... I think if most hunters were asked and weren't afraid of ridicule from folks for not being addicted to horn... the results would come out much like this post has.... people just want to hunt and if the DWR and the RAC people weren't being overruled by the folks with some agenda (that I don't believe for one minute is "for" the common sportsman) then they'd be quite disheartened by the belief that Utahns have to go out of state to have a chance at a decent bull every year. All this managing for trophy quality doesn't seem to matter much if the opportunity never rolls around for you to hunt them.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS are you in one of those moods??? 

The Sky is blue, Fire is hot, Ice is cold. Any objections to these statements. 

Can ya tell me one good thing that horn porn has brought to hunters???
How about no tresspassing signs, poaching, leases, no opportunity, improper game management high fences, bounty hunting, the perception that a tape measure will tell you that the hunt of a lifetime didn't "measure up" 

CS My method of hunting doesn't effect you in any way. A great number of Trophy Hunters feel that inches and opportunity can never mix, I agree to some extent I also would tell ya that irresponsible game management is just as bad if not worse. Not only are ya wasting opportunity you are driving fellow hunters away because they can't get even a general archery tag. Play this out for the next generation of hunters and all of us old timers are screwed. Who is going to stand up to the anti's?? Who is going to become a future anti??

Check public perception of hunting, I am talking about people that choose not to hunt but are not anti hunters. About 90% say they have no problem with hunting as long as it is done 
as a management tool or for subsistence. Ask the same group how they would feel about a shooter that would hire an army of "helpers" to round up an animal that the shooter pulls the trigger on, and then even before it is done twitching the shooter is dragging a tape measure across it's antlers. How is this going to turn out for us?? Yeah us because I am a hunter and the greed for inches reflects on me as well and I hate the hell out of it. Horn Porn is just that
a perversion of what hunting is all about.

Unfortunately in Utah, as Anis said in another thread, Biology and what is good for our herds play a very small role in game management. Thats a **** shame for hunters and wildlife.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Can ya tell me one good thing that horn porn has brought to hunters???
> How about no tresspassing signs, poaching, leases, no opportunity, improper game management high fences, bounty hunting, the perception that a tape measure will tell you that the hunt of a lifetime didn't "measure up"
> 
> CS My method of hunting doesn't effect you in any way. A great number of Trophy Hunters feel that inches and opportunity can never mix, I agree to some extent I also would tell ya that irresponsible game management is just as bad if not worse. Not only are ya wasting opportunity you are driving fellow hunters away because they can't get even a general archery tag. Play this out for the next generation of hunters and all of us old timers are screwed. Who is going to stand up to the anti's?? Who is going to become a future anti??
> ...


Gordy, you know I love you and all, but you are wrong on so many counts here.

1)The "horn hunters" have brought in *millions* of dollars for habitat projects, specie transplants, influence with politicians who can make hunting hard for ALL types of hunters. It has also brought great joy to MANY MANY hunters who tire of hunting 1-3 year old animals year in and year out.
2)You say "your" way of hunting doesn't affect me in any way. I beg to differ, certainly if you try and 'impose' your way of hunting statewide and region wide. To say other wise is not being completely honest. I believe we can have BOTH opportunity and trophy type hunts in the state of Utah. Only selfishness and greed from either/both sides makes it seem impossible.


> Ask the same group how they would feel about a shooter that would hire an army of "helpers" to round up an animal that the shooter pulls the trigger on, and then even before it is done twitching the shooter is dragging a tape measure across it's antlers.


3)Come on Gordy, you can make your case without resorting to such blatant hyperbole.


> Horn Porn is just that, a perversion of what hunting is all about.


4)That is your opinion, NOT factual nor what a large portion of the hunting community believes.
5)People management is, and always was/will be, part of game management. That is a FACT. For people to make claims/assertions this is a result of groups like SFW is nonsensical and is not based on looking at the whole picture.


----------



## prettytiedup (Dec 19, 2007)

Here's what I want:

6-8 units in the state managed for 400" bulls and rifle season in the rut.

12-15 units with 5X as many tags, 4pt or better with the rifle hunt out of the rut.

The balance of the units thrown back into the any bull units.

Everyone complains about Colorado's system but I hunt deer and elk there every year. I would much rather hunt mature animals than spikes with milk mustaches. I have killed 3 6pt bulls in the last 6 years. All were either 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 year old elk. 

Bottom line is I want my 3yr old son to be able to hunt someday and the mentality that every unit in the state needs to be producing 400" bulls consistantly is retarded. 

Having a few dedicated true "TROPHY" units in the state is a great idea. If someone wants to wait 25 years to hunt a 400 class bull good for them. I just want to be able to consistantly hunt mature animals, especially in an area where I own property.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

I want to hunt. Not just put in for a drawing for a hunt. what is the difference between a state managed for 400 bulls and a high-fenced hunt? :?:


----------



## troutslayer (Apr 1, 2008)

> I want to hunt. Not just put in for a drawing for a hunt. what is the difference between a state managed for 400 bulls and a high-fenced hunt?


I agree, I also dont believe a "trophy hunt" in Utah should have a 70-80-90 or even 100% success rate. If that is the case, there are far too many bulls for that area. Most likely the ones that do not harvest a bull are either too **** dumb to find a elk, or they have passed on several "mature bulls".


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

A little homework for someone, The answer to this question lies in the results of a survey conducted by USU for the DWR approx. 2 years ago. It was presented at the RAC's. 

Just to give you an idea; if my memory serves me right.
75 % of the respondents said they would be happy with a five point bull.

There you go find the data find the answer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> A little homework for someone, The answer to this question lies in the results of a survey conducted by USU for the DWR approx. 2 years ago. It was presented at the RAC's.
> 
> Just to give you an idea; if my memory serves me right.
> 75 % of the respondents said they would be happy with a five point bull.
> ...


Travis, do you have a link to this study/survey? I would love to read it. I like research, but not if it is too hard to locate the data. :wink:


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I like the idea to manage for all types of hunters, not just the trophy hunters. Have trophy units, have middle class units, and have low end units. Appeal to all, throw in some rotating spike/cow hunts to fine tune units. I still believe you can offer more tags if the rifle hunters are not hunting in the rut, though. You could have 7 units for each class. Maybe classify them such as New Mexico does. Q=Quality HD=High Demand S=standard or something to the sort. The units that offer lower quality will have to issue more tags. The goal would be to have long lasting healthy herds, with the maximum allowable tags issued, and appealing to all types of hunters. The conservation and big money tags can still have their role as well.
Whos game for that idea? It is certainly better than the state spike hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> I like the idea to manage for all types of hunters, not just the trophy hunters. Have trophy units, have middle class units, and have low end units. Appeal to all, throw in some rotating spike/cow hunts to fine tune units. I still believe you can offer more tags if the rifle hunters are not hunting in the rut, though. You could have 7 units for each class. Maybe classify them such as New Mexico does. Q=Quality HD=High Demand S=standard or something to the sort. The units that offer lower quality will have to issue more tags. The goal would be to have long lasting healthy herds, with the maximum allowable tags issued, and appealing to all types of hunters. The conservation and big money tags can still have their role as well.
> Whos game for that idea? It is certainly better than the state spike hunt.


Amen brother, this is what I and others have been saying for over a year on here! When I400 first got started we wanted 8-10 'premium' units managed for high quality. Units like the Pahvant/San Juan/SW Desert/Boulder/Dutton/Beaver/Panguitch Lake/Book Cliffs would be managed to maximize quality, and the draw time would be significant. Then have other areas managed as open bull areas like the Uintas and the other current open bull OTC areas. Then have 'mid-tier' units that have bull:cow ratios of around 30:100, no rifle hunts in September, no spike hunts unless deemed warranted to INCREASE the number of mature bulls.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

yeah..and watch opportunity go down the drain and watch hunter retention and recruitment go down with it. That way, the horn porn guys can keep prostituting their perversion and selling it on the internet. And, then, we can sell more conservation tags for habitat dollars at the expense of general season opportunity and say we are doing a great deed! :roll:


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

w2u-
watch opportunity go down the drain? What opportunity? You have to have it to loose it!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> yeah..and watch opportunity go down the drain and watch hunter retention and recruitment go down with it. That way, the horn porn guys can keep prostituting their perversion and selling it on the internet. And, then, we can sell more conservation tags for habitat dollars at the expense of general season opportunity and say we are doing a great deed! :roll:


FYI, conservation tags are maxed at 5%, so what are you even talking about? Now you have reverted back to calling me a prostitute, a sign of having a weak stance on the issue. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> FYI, conservation tags are maxed at 5%, so what are you even talking about? Now you have reverted back to calling me a prostitute, a sign of having a weak stance on the issue. :roll:


FYI, the percentage of conservation tags can change just like anything else...afterall, at one point weren't we at 0%?

Also, I didn't call you a "prostitute". I said, "we can keep prostituting". English lesson: "prostitute" can be both a noun and verb depending on its usage; "prostituting" is a verb in my usage and refers to an action. Also, "we" is a personal pronoun that refers or replaces a specific plural noun; the plural noun my pronoun replaces is the "trophy horn-porn hunters" of the state of Utah. "You" is a personal pronoun that replaces a singular specific noun; I never used this pronoun because I wasn't referring to Bart.

Nice try on the twist 



blazingsaddle said:


> w2u-
> watch opportunity go down the drain? What opportunity? You have to have it to loose it!





proutdoors said:


> no spike hunts unless deemed warranted to INCREASE the number of mature bulls.


Hmmm...so having those spike tags and then taking them away doesn't qualify as losing opportunity? Also, how about we increase opportunity and add more spike tags across the entire state because it is deemed necessary to DECREASE mature bulls? Now that is an idea I like!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

blazingsaddle said:


> I like the idea to manage for all types of hunters, not just the trophy hunters. Have trophy units, have middle class units, and have low end units.


+1!

I think every hunter wants to hunt elk, but it seems each has a different idea of what he wants. Utah is managing every LE unit for Big trophy bulls. By managing units for different types of hunts, hunters would be spread out, those who wanted a chance at a 400 bull once every 20 years would have it, those who wanted a chance at a 3-4 year old bull would have it every 5 years, and you can hunt spikes and cows the other years. I grew up in Wyoming, there are fewer hunters, but many of the units up there are general, take your chance at as big a bull as you can find. You can find a nice bull, but they don't get much over 320; there are a few 340 bulls out there, I could kill five points every year no problem. The only draw back to their system is trying to get a really big bull, which a lot of people want, and after killing multiple 5 points and maybe a few sixes, that is what someone ends up wanting, one really big bull.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > I would like to see the HORN PORN, INCH, HERO WORSHIP, END YESTERDAY.
> 
> 
> You are forgetting that not everyone hunts like you or thinks like you. Many hunters put in for LE units because they love the Horn porn and they want to kill a great trophy. Maybe you should keep that in mind.


Ah but Coyote, maybe you should also keep in mind that the average non hunter (you know the vast majority of registered voters in our nation) only know what we choose to show them about hunting. They see our hunting programs on saturday morning cable, which seldom show an animal without making a big deal about the number of points or an estimated score. The peruse our magazines while waiting for the pharmacy to fill their order, and it's all about growing bigger bucks, how to score a monster bull next year, SIZE SIZE SIZE etc. There is very little in these magazines to suggest to an outsider that we care about anything other than size, because this whole perverted Horn Porn issue is the thing that is selling their advertising these days.

Horn Porn needs to go away, because all it's doing is giving the non hunting public the wrong idea. Did you know that this year alone I've spoken with more than 15 people who don't hunt, who had no idea that we actually ate the animals? As far as they were concerned, they think we take it to the taxidermist and all we get back is a tropy. Pretty sick really.

And Coyote, while I agree with you that a lot of us dream about getting a good sized animal, the stats are in the yearly reports the DWR puts out each year. I don't think any of us are using "Trophy Hunter" magazine as our only resouce when choosing where to apply. The glorification of size really needs to be tempered a little. Truth is, that we at this forum really are part of the inner circle of hunting, and we represent very little of the average guys values. I mean really, if you honestly look at it, there's a lot more guys out there that will shoot a 2 point early on opening day than not.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> Horn Porn needs to go away, because all it's doing is giving the non hunting public the wrong idea. Did you know that this year alone I've spoken with more than 15 people who don't hunt, who had no idea that we actually ate the animals? As far as they were concerned, they think we take it to the taxidermist and all we get back is a tropy. Pretty sick really.


I disagree. The media will ALWAYS portray hunting in a negative light, regardless if we 'glorify' "horn porn" or not. If people are so ignorant that the don't realize hunters eat what they harvest, doing away with "horn porn" will NOT help. They live in a city, get their perspective on animals from movies like Bambi, often have never seen a deer/elk in the wild unless it is dead on the side of the road. My love/passion of hunting the biggest/wisest animals in the herd has LITTLE to do with cement dwellers lack of knowledge of what goes on in the hunting community. I will NOT shoot a spike elk or a yearling deer, and I do NOT make any apologies for that. We are talking about people who have no clue how that 'critter' wrapped in plastic got there, how can they know what hunting entails? The media sure isn't going to clue them in.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Horn Porn needs to go away, because all it's doing is giving the non hunting public the wrong idea. Did you know that this year alone I've spoken with more than 15 people who don't hunt, who had no idea that we actually ate the animals? As far as they were concerned, they think we take it to the taxidermist and all we get back is a tropy. Pretty sick really.


So do you think that if hunters just threw away the horns and just ate the meat then people would embrace hunting? WRONG!!! I talked to a lady from the Daily Herald the other day who is against hunting and she said she makes fun of Dallas John all the time. She hates the fact that we kill any animals but she yet she eats meat so she kind of looked silly after awhile since she has other people kill her animals for her.

WasatchOutdoors I also see in magazines and on TV where fathers and sons/daughters are hunting together.

Who does most of the habitat work? In Utah we have 10% of the hunting population that helps wildlife and the other 90% are just takers who do nothing for wildlife. 10% of the People show up to RAC meetings while the other 90% stay home and do nothing.

The 90% benefit from the work of the 10% who are involved. If you take the 10% out of the equation then nothing would get done.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO those are good arguments that you pointed out.

1 Horn Porners *HAVE* grought in millions and millions. So have the hundreds of thousands of Utahns that purchase their general season tags and just want to hunt. P.R. match on those hundreds of thousands of tags and licenses sold is also quite substantial.

2 As I said In my original post opportunity and horn porn can't co exist in most circumstances. But do ya think we are honestly maximizing our resources??

3 Point three... I am a hunter and the "shooter" type of hunt is the perception I come away with. This ain't just directed at your former employer. There are many such productions that 
give this impression. Like I said does it really matter if it is a fact or not?? It's all perception
to those that will choose our future..... Jimmy Houston killing drugged deer comes to mind.

4 You are right I 100% believe that the horn porn epidemic will eventually change the way we hunt and not for the better.

5 I agree 100% people management is critical and always will be. But are we managing people for the right reasons or are we managing people to grow 400 inch heads.
Never said a word about SFW


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Horn Porn has been around since the start of modern day hunting. Ever since hunting became a sport and not a mean's of common day food. Infact, I would say the idea of hunting for horn's is dwindling. Look back at the 60-80's there were big buck contest in every store and gas station that you went to. Now if there is any contest's around, they are little gambling pool's with friend's and coworker's. No matter what you are going to have people compare, its been since the start of time and it will continue in the future. If it's not horn's, then it's a gal, or a truck or a house, or blah blah blah. 

To try and blame horn hunting as the cause of our problems is close minded. The money that those 5% of tags raise now, is far more then what they would if they made their way back into the general pool.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> To try and blame horn hunting as the cause of our problems is close minded. The money that those 5% of tags raise now, is far more then what they would if they made their way back into the general pool.


Exactly, you can take that $280 dollar tag and sell it for $100,000 plus and that tag alone would benefit the whole elk herd and future hunters because of restored habitat.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Lively discussion!!!  

I agree that big buck contests have been around and that even in the meat camps guys raz each other about the biggest buck, bull etc...The issue comes with the perversions that come with the horn porn.

If you couldn't link a product or service to the horns, and all you could take off of the mtn was the hide, meat and a photo. Where would horn porn be? What if Cabelas couldn't pay $15,000 for your horns and buy you some replicas? Where would horn porn be? You would still have the glossy magazines that have been around a long time and fueled the dreams of many a young kid. You would still have great stories to tell around the fire. 

I agree that $100,000 from a single tag is a whole lot of money and that money does a whole lot of good. What if they (the buyer) just donated it straight up (after all it is a worthy cause right?), and bought $500 tag off the shelf, and still hired their guides? They could still hunt a great animal. Right?

Really is any single deer or elk worth $100,000?

keep up the discussion


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

A little more food for though, I gleaned from a discussion with some guy's much *older* and wiser that I. :shock: :wink:

What makes a trophy bull? Is it the lenght of horn, or is it really the fact that he kicked butt on every other bull and has the right to breed those 20+/- cows?

Which bull is the toughest to harvest that 400" sattelite bull or the 350" bull with the broken tines who has and keeps the cows?

Which hunt has the best story?


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

firstarrow its the instant gratificaion a BIG check book can buy that has driven this whole thing. a $$>thing<$$ that many think will be the demise of the everyday joe-hunter.


...id like to be faced with either of the bulls you mention!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> I agree that $100,000 from a single tag is a whole lot of money and that money does a whole lot of good. What if they (the buyer) just donated it straight up (after all it is a worthy cause right?), and bought $500 tag off the shelf, and still hired their guides? They could still hunt a great animal. Right?
> 
> Really is any single deer or elk worth $100,000?


Do you really believe someone would 'invest' $100,000 with little/no return? Only if he/she is foolish with his/her money. This is about economics, something I enjoy discussing almost as much as hunting.

You ask, "is any single deer/elk worth $100,000?" My answer is; the Governors deer tag went for way over $100,000 by a guy I grew up with. So, to him a single deer tag was worth MORE than $100,000. To you or me, the answer would be NO. But, when asking what something is worth, the follow up question MUST be, "To whom?" The value is not the animal/item, it is what someone views it to be. The value changes from day to day and person to person, so the value is not the item but the experience wished for. Does the value of a candy bar change simply because the store puts it in sale, or has the value *you* deemed it to be changed? A deer/elk is worth MORE than whatever price is paid, for that person. And, it is valued LESS than that to the seller(DWR) than the paid price.



> What makes a trophy bull? Is it the lenght of horn, or is it really the fact that he kicked butt on every other bull and has the right to breed those 20+/- cows?
> 
> Which bull is the toughest to harvest that 400" sattelite bull or the 350" bull with the broken tines who has and keeps the cows?
> 
> Which hunt has the best story?


A 'trophy' is in the eye of the beholder. My definition of a 'trophy changes based on what is available in the area I am hunting, the efforts and obstacles overcome to acquire the 'trophy'. What I would deem a 'trophy' in SE Idaho on an OTC archery tag would be way different that what I would deem a 'trophy' on the San Juan with a rifle. My most memorable elk is my first, but it is NOT my 'trophy' bull. But, that is my standard, and when we try to induce our own standards on others, a good portion of the population will be unhappy, whether it is the opportunity crowd, or the trophy crowd. That is why I believe we MUST/can have both!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Which bull is the toughest to harvest that 400" sattelite bull or the 350" bull with the broken tines who has and keeps the cows?


The 400" bull is probably smarter because he hangs out on the edge of the herd and lets the 350 use up all his energy fighting for the cows. When a cow comes into estrus then the 400" bull steals her and breeds her and then he just waits for the next cow to come into estrus meanwhile the broken 350 bull is using up all his energy to keep all the cows, and maybe he breeds a few, but the herd bull doesnt breed them all.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Which bull is the toughest to harvest that 400" sattelite bull or the 350" bull with the broken tines who has and keeps the cows?
> 
> 
> The 400" bull is probably smarter because he hangs out on the edge of the herd and lets the 350 use up all his energy fighting for the cows. When a cow comes into estrus then the 400" bull steals her and breeds her and then he just waits for the next cow to come into estrus meanwhile the broken 350 bull is using up all his energy to keep all the cows, and maybe he breeds a few, but the herd bull doesnt breed them all.


Great observation yote. I have seen this happen numerous times. The older/smarter bulls typically do NOT acquire a harem that takes large amounts of energy to keep/defend from other bulls, so they just 'cruise' looking for cows in estrus then kicking the 'herd' bull, normally not a dominate bull, out and breed the cow and then move on to find another cow in estrus. Leaving the 'herd' bull expending tons of energy and doing very little breeding. Now I ask, which bull is the trophy? One is EASY to call because he is frustrated because 'his' cows were just stolen, or the bull who picks and chooses when to get excited?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

If you hate the 5% of tags going to the highest bidders at auctions then how do you think SFW should make the money? 

Have a BBQ in front of Coscos everyday? How many hamburgers equals 3,000,000 dollars? Plus overhead cost and buying the drinks and hamburgers etc. 

Ask businesses for big dollar donations?

Sell girl scout cookies at Maceys?

Many would have to quit their day jobs to make the millions of dollars on habitat that they make through selling tags. If you restore habitat and invest millions of dollars for big game animals then why not get tags back to sell to repeat the process all over again and restore other parts of Utah?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Oh boy my favorite topic!  

Elk22 and a bunch of you already know where I stand on this but to any new guys....

I am a trophy hunter. 

I persue trophy animals on general season ground every year. 

I would like to se some LE ground turned back to GS (I feel it is out of balance).

I think we should have LE units.

I think hunters that want to play the LE game should be rewarded for sitting out on the GS hunts for however many years the system requires.

I think in any given year hunters should not be allowed to aquire a GS tag and a LE point for the same species.

Am I forgeting anything Elk22 :lol: that's about it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I think hunters that want to play the LE game should be rewarded for sitting out on the GS hunts for however many years the system requires.
> 
> I think in any given year hunters should not be allowed to aquire a GS tag and a LE point for the same species.
> 
> Am I forgeting anything Elk22 that's about it.


How would you reward them? They have earned their tag by waiting so what additional reward are you talking about?

Sounds more like a punishment to me that if you want to hunt LE and dont draw then you dont hunt. Where is the reward? Maybe General Season hunters should have a waiting period and they will be rewarded for it. :lol: :roll:


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS let me say this clearly for the last time. I AM NOT AGAINST CONSERVATION TAGS, THEY HAVE THEIR PLACE, THEY PLAY A PART IN MONEY FOR WILDLIFE AND HABITAT.

What I am against is 342 of them. What I am against is the orgs earning 10% off of a public resource, what I am against is the way these tags are being managed like a government entitlement program. Use your own figures, $150,000.00 plus for a deer tag $100,000 plus for a bull. What if SFH, RMEF and MDF all had three statewide tags for the species that would allow that many tags?? Each of these groups could market these tags in the north central and southern regions of the state. You wouldn't get 150K per tag but you would dang well get more than the abundant unit specific tags that sell for much less. 

CS I've been around this program since the first tag sold back in 94. I seen some pretty interesting things, some as recently as a few months back. Do your homework before you condemn my outlook concerning these tags then get back to me.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Pro wrote:*
> But, that is my standard, and when we try to induce our own standards on others, a good portion of the population will be unhappy, whether it is the opportunity crowd, or the trophy crowd. That is why I believe we MUST/can have both!
> *and lives and says:*
> Define, develop, and sustain both trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.


Thats why I respect him, and much of what he has to say makes sense.

It's just helping him to get the rest of it that is tough. :shock: :wink:

One last thing, I ask again:


> If you couldn't link a product or service to the horns, and all you could take off of the mtn was the hide, meat and a photo. Where would horn porn be? What if Cabelas couldn't pay $15,000 for your horns and buy you some replicas? Where would horn porn be?


I really don't see anything wrong with taking the horns off of the mountain and to our homes and cabins, it is the other stuff that start's blowing it out of proportion.

I still sincerely believe that for each one of us, those well written articles have helped to fan each one of our fires, and make us what we are today.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good post Rich. To be fair however, posting pictures of monster bucks/bulls has been going on for over 100 years. Even the revered Eastman videos from way back in the day 'glorified' the biggest animals. I have seen pictures from the 1800's that show the same, look at the indian writings, they usually depict a large male of the species, whether it be a bighorn ram or a buck deer. It is human nature to do so, it is not a modern phenomenon produced by the videos/magazines/shows/internet, it is just more out in the open, IMHO. Just as I don't believe poaching is motivated by trophy 'greed' more today than in the past. I recall stories, one was a friend/cousin who poached the biggest buck I have EVER seen the last day of elk season and the day before the deer opener back in 1987. This was BEFORE the LE units, and when deer herds in my neck of the woods were thriving. But, to him he felt the 'need' to poach the most amazing buck I have ever laid eyes on. Stupid, yes. But, he was a young gun who didn't think and reacted. I am NOT condoning it in any way, just as I do NOT condone finder fees/road closures/intimidation in pursuit of a trophy animal, regardless of who is doing these actions.

So, my long winded answer is, if all I could take off the mountain was the hide, meat, and a photo, I wouldn't hunt. Let me explain why, I worked hard to be a good wrestler in high school. I was driven to win EVERY match, and I kept score even during practice with team mates. I would not have pushed myself as hard if I hadn't kept score and had an end goal set. I did very well and I received accolades/trophies/metals that I am still proud of 20+ years later. I would rather look at the bull on my wall to recall my hunt to obtain my trophy than to look at a photo. I now love to video such things to relive the moments over and over again. Once the steaks are gone, what would you have if you left a part of the journey on the mountain? I am driven to harvest a bigger elk this year than the last bull I harvested, and I do NOT believe that is aiding in the "down fall" of hunting in any way.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> CS I've been around this program since the first tag sold back in 94. I seen some pretty interesting things, some as recently as a few months back. Do your homework before you condemn my outlook concerning these tags then get back to me.


Gordy, learn to live by your own advice and do your homework about horn porn and them maybe you won't condemn people who like to hunt trophy animals instead of yearlings.

They might be earning 10% off the public resource, but how much are they putting back into the same public resource?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> What makes a trophy bull?


There's the question, eh? I'm betting a fair number of self-proclaimed trophy hunters, (particularly in the younger crowd), would quickly answer that it's all about B&C or P&Y score.

Then again, there's the thought that a trophy is the evidence of the prowess, ethics and dedication required to obtain it. In the absence of those values, the rack doesn't mean much regardless of how many points it scores.

Me, I'm weird. In 36 years of hunting elk, I've never put a tape to an animal. Doubt I ever will. I've never posed for a dead animal picture and I don't even enjoy looking at them much. I've got a few racks hanging in my house, but not one of them is a tribute to myself as a hunter. They're on the wall for entirely different reasons. But the way I see it, a trophy isn't about the animal; it's about the hunter.


----------



## 2-Fer (Oct 29, 2007)

I just want to kill a big buck.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS we are arguing just for the sake of arguing. I am not sure which one of us is more stubborn and it don't really matter.

All I can relate to is my experiences and things that I've witnessed in my middle aged life.

I can only ask the question if I think things are pointed in the right direction as far as hunting and my future with it as well as the future of my children. Ask yourself this question and can you honestly say that you feel optomistic??

We have less than half the hunters now as we did a short 25 years ago. We have substantially less deer than we did a short 25 years ago. We have elk established and thriving on most every place intended but nobody gets the chance to hunt them. WHY??
Because the horn porners won't go along with the biological reccomendations and management plans. Less 400 inch bulls on the mountain make for a less desirable hunting experience. BUT If ya can cut a big check Utah is your playground. You can hunt every year
you don't have to play the point game you don't have to wait your turn.

I don't think for one second that the people involved are bad guys, I am not a fan of SFW 
but I will tell you that the SFW President is one of the better men I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. As much as you and I argue I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and the situation that you deal with day in and day out. Not sympathy cause I know you ain't looking for any, just respect.

I know for a fact that PRO is an idiot but I still like him


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> All I can relate to is my experiences and things that I've witnessed in my middle aged life.
> 
> I know for a fact that PRO is an idiot but I still like him


The first comment shows you have sustained significant brain damage, as you are WAY past middle age!

The second one is factual. :shock: I am just all teared up knowing you "still" like me. :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Gordy, I have a lot of respect for you also but we just see things different and that is ok. I think right now we are starting to move in the right direction. Things aren't perfect. We need to issue more bull elk tags, but we as hunters need to help change that and I think I400 is the best idea so far. We need to focus on habitat as much as we can and ALL hunters need to get their hands dirty once in a while and help make things better for both trophy hunters/non trophy hunters. We need to have a good balance to make MOST (not all) happy.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

If Wyo2Utah starts the love talk, too, I'm never gonna read another post on this forum.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Think about it for a minute. 16 or so years ago a guy could walk into Coast-to-Coast and purchase a deer tag, then buy an additional tag good for archery or muzzleloader. We could use that tag statewide. Elk tags were over the counter and mostly were for any bull. The pheasant hunt was a huge deal, third behind deer and duck openers. The deer hunt was a holiday, where kids got out of school and families went hunting. 

Today we have draw only deer tags. Must choose a unit, unless you archery hunt. General elk tags are capped and hunters are forced to the nether-regions of the state or onto private lands to hunt any bull. Limited entry tags are Once-in-a-lifetime events for most people. Pheasants exist only on farms or the occasional flock which hasn't been decimated, yet. Ducks, well many places close to home are now no hunting zones and most farmers won't let a guy on to shoot without payment. And the deer hunt, well that is whole new game. No more holiday for school, which doesn't really matter because many dads don't hunt anymore or they don't take their families and children with them because, as one fellow told me, "kids just slow you down and you can't kill the big ones while little ones tag on behind". 

Hunting has changed so much over the course of the past 15-20 years it makes me ill to think what the next 20 will bring. We already have guys with 10-12 elk points claiming they are "entitled" to shoot 380+ bulls, on rut hunts, with no other hunters in their canyon, and with 99% success. They have too much "invested". Good thing those same guys didn't draw out in 1997 and get their OIL elk tag filled with what was a huge 320 bull. That is the mindset which must change if hunting is to ever recover. We are not entitled to anything. We are blessed to hunt and have hunted. Take that hunting opportunity away and replace it with the notion that tagging along on others' hunts (which is great also) will fill their desire and you will loose 90% of those would be hunters.

What do the majority of hunters want? They want to hunt with the chance to kill.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

WHAT P O SAID
+ 1


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> A little more food for though, I gleaned from a discussion with some guy's much *older* and wiser that I. :shock: :wink:
> 
> What makes a trophy bull? Is it the lenght of horn, or is it really the fact that he kicked butt on every other bull and has the right to breed those 20+/- cows?
> 
> ...


I would laugh my butt off at someone who left a 400 class bull standing there and brought home a beat up, broken tined 350 bull that had 20+ cows. I am sorry but I don't care how "tuff" he is. I guess that if the 400 class bull was truely a satalite bull (which I doubt) then I'd still shoot the 400 class bull and tell everyone that he was letting some stupid youngster bull round up all the cows and fight off any passersby until he had a good sized herd established and then was going to go in and take it all for himself. I just happened to come by a day or two too early.  (by the way, that scenario does happen)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> Think about it for a minute. 16 or so years ago a guy could walk into Coast-to-Coast and purchase a deer tag, then buy an additional tag good for archery or muzzleloader. We could use that tag statewide. Elk tags were over the counter and mostly were for any bull. The pheasant hunt was a huge deal, third behind deer and duck openers. The deer hunt was a holiday, where kids got out of school and families went hunting.
> 
> What do the majority of hunters want? They want to hunt with the chance to kill.


The deer population was what compared to today? The number of people living in Utah was what compared to today? The elk population was what compared to today? Pheasant habitat was what compared to today? Find ways to get deer numbers up where they were "16 or so years ago", increase habitat to sustain such quantities of deer, bring back pheasant habitat to what it was then. The ONLY example you listed that I believe the state has the ability, and DUTY I might add, to increase opportunity is with bull elk tags.

You say the majority of hunters "want to hunt with a chance to kill", but that is NOT supported by the actions of hunters. If so, where are these hunters when policies are discussed/enacted? Where are these hunters on doing projects to improve habitat? How do you explain hunters like the one who told you leaves his kids at home, does that kind of hunter fit into your definition? The majority of hunters show apathy about hunting and what it takes to make their supposed desires possible. I say the majority of hunters do NOT care enough to SHOW UP and improve things, they would rather watch American Idol and then blame the "horn porn" folks for all the ills of the hunting world.


----------



## archery (Sep 7, 2007)

I want to draw my pahvant archery tag this year

i want to kill a very nice bull

i want to keep hunting other states so i get the chance to chase nice bulls every year.

i want to chase spikes or bigger bulls in utah every year.

i don't want to ever whine about hunting because someone else got to do something i didn't

i don't ever want to have to watch another dvd produced by full moon productions

i want the state to keep doing the things they are doing that got utah to the forfront of trophy elk hunting.

i want to do what i can to help that along. and continue into the far future.

i want those who gripe and moan about elk hunting in utah to just look at other opportunities( other states ) and go out and have fun. and fill there time with other hunts. leave the good thats been done alone.

i want a hot babe who loves to hunt and travel to meet me and run away with me.

i want pro to lower his guiding price, so i can afford to hire him to guide me on the pahvant this year.

but most of all......

i want to try to look at the brite side of life and stop all the bickering, and be thankful for all the great stuff i and we, do have.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

archery said:


> i don't ever want to have to watch another dvd produced by full moon productions
> 
> i want pro to lower his guiding price, so i can afford to hire him to guide me on the pahvant this year.


Both are good/valid 'wants'. I agree with the first, but doubt the second will happen. I'm turning biz away as it is, I may up my fees. :shock: :wink: Good luck drawing that tag!


----------



## archery (Sep 7, 2007)

pro wrote:
Both are good/valid 'wants'. I agree with the first, but doubt the second will happen. I'm turning biz away as it is, I may up my fees. Good luck drawing that tag!



Yeah, I didn't think you'd fall for that. had to try.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Pro- Exactly correct! The deer herd went down, at the same time the open bull hunts were taken away. The state was divided into regional units and they put a cap on deer permits even though most everyone had a friend who sold them a tag after the cap was reached, so the state went to a draw. People just quit. It has nothing to do with what the DWR can or can not control. It has to do with the reality of what hunting was and what it has become. In the last 16 or so years there have been drastic reductions in hunting opportunity, across the board. The state stopped a bulk of its upland game plantings. The traditions are being lost, replaced by a complacent attitude of those newly involved.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

How many hunters would complain if they had to do eight hours of service to help restore habitat? Would they view it as a huge burden? This would also be a good way to get the youth involved so they learn how important habitat restoration is. You will be able to see what you have accomplished. I always take a drive and look at how the habitat is doing where I was in charge of the habitat projects since I was the Central Region assistant Dedicated hunter cooridinator. Its great to see deer and elk using the habitat.

If people want to see more opportunity then volunteer and help with Juniper thinning and replanting habitat.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Pro- Exactly correct! The deer herd went down, at the same time the open bull hunts were taken away. The state was divided into regional units and they put a cap on deer permits even though most everyone had a friend who sold them a tag after the cap was reached, so the state went to a draw. People just quit. It has nothing to do with what the DWR can or can not control. It has to do with the reality of what hunting was and what it has become. In the last 16 or so years there have been drastic reductions in hunting opportunity, across the board. The state stopped a bulk of its upland game plantings. The traditions are being lost, replaced by a complacent attitude of those newly involved.


I don't really hunt Pheasants anymore because where I use to hunt then now its all houses and it hard to find a place unless you want to hunt on a game farm. I don't believe the draw was the main reason many people quit hunting. The majority of people that I have talked to that have quit hunting is because they got tired of just seeing yearling bucks and does. They wanted to see more quality. They didnt think it was worth going around and just seeing does and 2 points. Yes that is part of hunting. Many quit after the winter kill year of 1992-1993 because their just wasnt many deer to hunt so they found new hobbies.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

> i don't ever want to have to watch another dvd produced by full moon productions


What? I think every hunting video should be akin to a cross between Mission impossible, Platoon and The Andy Griffith show! :lol: :roll:


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

There have been some really good posts here. You have given my feeble mind food for thought. I'm a slave to my job; as a result, I have a difficult time getting myself involved with issues that will provide greater opportunities for hunting now and in the future. Pro and Tree, please keep hounding me to make those RAC meetings and remind me when it is my time to get involved with wildlife projects. No apathy here, sometimes those of us who are slaves to our job just need some advance notice and a little peer group pressure. What projects are you working on at the moment? 

Please cut me some slack. For once, I'm actually serious about something.  

BERG


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

[quote="proutdoorsI disagree. The media will ALWAYS portray hunting in a negative light, regardless if we 'glorify' "horn porn" or not. If people are so ignorant that the don't realize hunters eat what they harvest, doing away with "horn porn" will NOT help. They live in a city, get their perspective on animals from movies like Bambi, often have never seen a deer/elk in the wild unless it is dead on the side of the road. My love/passion of hunting the biggest/wisest animals in the herd has LITTLE to do with cement dwellers lack of knowledge of what goes on in the hunting community. I will NOT shoot a spike elk or a yearling deer, and I do NOT make any apologies for that. We are talking about people who have no clue how that 'critter' wrapped in plastic got there, how can they know what hunting entails? The media sure isn't going to clue them in.[/quote]
PRO- I'm not going to disagree with you on any of those counts, you are 100% right, that the non hunting public gets their ideas of wildife from Disney, and that they know very little about what really happens in the wild, much less where meat comes from. But that goes back to my point exactly. What I'm saying is that with the type of "education" that we hunters are giving them, we're totally reinforcing their preconceive (albeit misinformed) notions about hunters in general. What I'm saying is that we need to downplay the size issue a little, and do more by way of educating the general public about the whole picture. Because right now, those same uneducated people have no idea that you , yourself, have put in countless hours of habitat improvement work, or that you spent most of the year working your tail off to find and pattern that one big animal, or that you are directly responsible for the continuing existence of the very animals that they seek to "protect" from the big bad hunters. We're doing very little to educate the public about the whole picture, and the over glorification of "horn porn" works to our disadvantage in the end, because it comes off like that is the only part of the equation that we care about. It's perfectly ok to target a large animal, to hunt the way you see fit. But the magazines and videos really need to give up a couple more pages of advertising space and do a little more by way of public education. It might not be bad to have a little coaching in there on how to talk to the general public when the subject comes up either. Because, while you guys might be very elequant, balanced, and educational in your discussions with the uninformed, there's plenty more that take a FU attitude with the non hunters, rather than taking the time to give them a little insight into the whole picture.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Maybe they could have a deer butchering section and deer recipes. I doubt if they had a trophy yearling magazine then it would have a different affect on people and people would embrace hunting. A lot of people hate hunting period no matter how you address it to them.


----------



## Crash (Mar 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> A lot of people hate hunting period no matter how you address it to them.


I agree with you coyote. My wife isn't for hunting, but she will support me in hunting. There are those that just can't. And that is that. I do wish that the "horn porn" would be down played. I think I can speak for every hunter, well most hunters that we hunt for the meat, the experience, and the memories. At the end of the hunt, I am grateful to have just gotten away from the eveyday life. If I shoot a deer, great. And if it had a huge rack, great. But it doesn't matter either way.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Wasatch, Yote, Crash, & Others, FYI, Check out the latest American Hunter Mag (NRA) May 08, for the article "5 Steps to Convert An Anti-Hunter", page 36. It will help us with some of our conversations with anti's, though nobody's gonna convert them all.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good hell people, are we going to start apologizing for KILLING animals as well? When do we take a stand and stop being ashamed of being hunters? I'll gladly ask a so-called 'animal lover' how much they do for wild animals in comparison to what MANY hunters do for wildlife, even the "horn porn" hunters. How many deer/elk/bighorns/turkeys/moose are running wild and free in Utah because of _them _, and how many because of "horn porn" blood thirsty hunters like me? Be discreet? To whom and for what end purpose? If you guys truly believe that if we stop 'glorifying' horns the anti's will suddenly decide hunting is alright you sorely mis-judge their agenda. Movies like Bambi do NOT help us, but the 'main stream' media and the lack of education on nature and man's role in nature are the bigger hindrances. I will NOT apologize for bing a "horn porn" hunter, nor will I stop "glorifying" the biggest/baddest/one-of-a-kind animals! Have a good day.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Well said PRO :twisted:


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> ....nobody's gonna convert them all.


i agree, aint no cure for stupid.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You say the majority of hunters "want to hunt with a chance to kill", but that is NOT supported by the actions of hunters. If so, where are these hunters when policies are discussed/enacted? Where are these hunters on doing projects to improve habitat? How do you explain hunters like the one who told you leaves his kids at home, does that kind of hunter fit into your definition? The majority of hunters show apathy about hunting and what it takes to make their supposed desires possible. I say the majority of hunters do NOT care enough to SHOW UP and improve things, they would rather watch American Idol and then blame the "horn porn" folks for all the ills of the hunting world.


Not only does the majority of hunters just want to hunt and a chance to kill, but it IS supported by their actions. The majority of hunters don't want to get involved in policy and regulation and management decisions; they simply want to buy their tag and hunt. Is that any different than going to Disneyland? Or, should I have to get involved in the regulation and management decisions of amusement parks before I buy a ticket to enjoy the opportunity? I don't care on lick about the dove hunting regulations or the grouse hunting regulations, but that doesn't mean I should have to get involved in their management in order to enjoy the opportunities I have to hunt them. Now, of course, if I am not happy with my opportunity, then getting involved is the solution. But, I don't think the majority of these casual hunters are totally unhappy...in fact, the last time I really felt like hunters--as a whole--really got vocal about management was when the DWR drastically cut back on deer tags. And, what I heard was a lot of angry people because they lost their opportunity.

I hate to break it to you, Pro, but the money that is spent on hunting by those who don't show up and get involved in management decisions is just as important as the money spent by those who do. For this reason, the DWR should continue trying to cater to these people. The backbone of Utah's hunting populous aren't overly interested in all the politics of wildlife management, but they ARE interested in hunting. Cutting this crowd out of the equation would really hurt our hunting future.

For this reason, I really believe Utah should continue to strive to increase opportunity at the expense of quality. Our hunting future relies 100% on our ability to recruit and retain hunters.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hmmmm, I don't think I can argue that, other than the degree of concern being speculation.


----------



## itchytriggerfinger (Sep 12, 2007)

I think w2u hit the nail on the head. If i do want to shoot a big ol monster buck or bull on otc hunts then i am going to do my homework and go scouting more than the night before. i'm not sure on the numbers but i would think that there are at least double if not more of the casual hunter than the big spender/all out hunter. I don't scout much and i'd be egstatic if i shot a 3 point deer or anything bigger than a spike elk (not that i'd pass one up) If i were to put in more time following and tracking and scouting then a bigger (horn porn star) would fit the bill.
my point is that i would rather have the *opportunity * to shoot a 2 point or 3 point every year instead of a big 4 point every 3+ years. granted if a 4 point was standing next to a 2 point i'd shoot the 4 point.
i'd rather take my gun hiking every year instead of go hunting every other year or worse once every 3+ years


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Hmmmm, I don't think I can argue that, other than the degree of concern being speculation.


I agree Tree... W2U seemed to make a lot of sense with that last post, at least to me and actually stated pretty close to how I feel about the whole "get involved in order to hunt" issue. Like somebody else said, I'm a slave to my job, at least until I build up some annual time, and although I love my job, that doesn't leave me much time to do other things outside of making sure my family feels important as well. Wildlife projects certainly aren't at the forefront of my priorities with the other things I have going on right now, but I'll still pay my fees and buy my tag when the time comes. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make me any less deserving than guys who pony up huge amounts of time and money to help out wildlife, just means I'm a worker bee who has a little less of both time and money on my hands to put towards the cause. :|


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

+1 WY2UT


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

you say *more opportunity* ...

over the years ive had plenty of opportunity. killing three rag 5x5 bulls , two spikes, five cows, and a nice mulie buck every other year or so...dunno call me greedy but i want a Big Bull!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You guys are missing my point. It is NOT that the average joe should be ignored or hosed at the expense of the "horn porn" crowd. It IS about those who get involved get a say in what happens. If you are 'too busy' or it isn't high on your priority list, that is YOUR choice, and you should NOT then expect others to cater to you. A simple e-mail to a Wildlife Board member or RAC chairperson can do wonders, but if you do NOT care enough to do even that then you get exactly what you deserve. The biggest myth in all this is that SFW, the outfitters, and the "horn porn" guys, are getting what they want at 'your' expense. I dare say that the very people being blamed are doing more than the average joe to INCREASE opportunity for ALL hunters. It is in their own interest to do so. Think about it!

And, it is nonsensical to compare the management of Utah's *PUBLIC* resources to Disneyland. Disney is *PRIVATELY * owned and 'controlled' by shareholders, our wildlife is 'controlled' by the *PUBLIC*, or at least the public has a legal RIGHT to have a say in it. If I were a shareholder of Disney, I WOULD voice my concerns over how Disney runs the day to day operations. So, if I want a say in how wildlife are managed in Utah, as a 'shareholder' I chose to SHOW UP, so that I have a say in my 'interests'/investments. If I do NOTHING, I deserve whatever I am dealt by those who do SOMETHING. This does NOT mean in any way that those who SHOW UP should disregard the 'average joe', but the 'average joe' should NOT complain about the hand he is dealt if he did NOTHING about it.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

I hope this isn't contagious --- -)O(- -)O(- _(O)_ -)O(- -)O(- -)O(-

People agreeing with WYO 2 - I actually agree to a point... scared me to say that. :shock: Most people just want to gripe about the changes AFTER they have been made and do not want to participate in the process.

*The fact is, ignorance is no excuse.* 
As changes are taking place it is our duty to stay informed.

We elect public officials to create and run the government for us, it is also our duty to keep them on track and in check.

Like wise it is the DWR's responsibility to manange the wildlife in a biologically responsible manner,and to provide a huntable population for the public. Our responsibility as hunters is to require that of our DWR.

IMO the issue remains are we managing based on sound biology? The changes in the system should be based on sound biology FIRST and for most then based on what the public needs. I believe that there can be opportunity and quality at the same time.

The Bull to cow ratios are out of check, and the population is above objective in some areas.
Something has to be done.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

> The Bull to cow ratios are out of check, and the population is above objective in some areas.
> Something has to be done.


I just checked MM site on the same topic.

Mule Packer offers the solution in his last 3 or 4 posts.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> > The Bull to cow ratios are out of check, and the population is above objective in some areas.
> > Something has to be done.
> 
> 
> ...


The irony about the MM thread is over there I am accused of being an opportunist and believing everything the DWR says, here I am accused of being part of the "horn porn" crowd and all for hosing the 'average joe's'. :?

Travis is a smart man. I have learned tons from him.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

the point i was making is the opps are out there now! people cant expect to put in a day or three and expect to be consistently successful at big game.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longgun said:


> the point i was making is the opps are out there now! people cant expect to put in a day or three and expect to be consistently successful at big game.


Preaching to the choir my man!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes, lets just all sit home and not get involved. Lets blame trophy hunters for everything when in reality they aren't even causing the problem.

Hunters need to get involved in wildlife issues. Hunters need to get involved in habitat projects. If people don't get involved in restoring habitat then how will the habitat get restored? Nature is sometimes very slow at restoring the right type of habitat for elk and deer. If we don't raise money to buy up chucks of land for habitat then where will our deer and elk winter? SFW and others are the 10% who is trying to help wildlife. The remaining 90% of the hunters sit home, buy their tags and never get involved. *If Hunting is your passion then why would you sit back and not get involved?*

The Dedicated hunter program was set up to get hunters off the couch away from American Idol so they could do 24 hours of service for wildlife. They are required to attend a RAC meeting once in their three year period so they can learn about the RAC process and get involved in management issues. If we follow Wyo2ut mentality then why even have a public RAC process? They could have a private meeting and discuss and pass management issues and we can all put in for the draws and buy OTC tags and go on our merry way. We should let other people decide how, where and when we hunt and our job is to read the guide book and buy the available tags.

With Wyo2ut's mentality then why listen to Presidental Debates. I mean who really wants to get involved and learn about the issues that each candidate stands for and how they are going to help America. We can leave world issue up to the dirty Politicians since that is their job because people just want to work, spend time with their family and pay taxes. We should let other people decide the future of America OR HUNTING.



> the last time I really felt like hunters--as a whole--really got vocal about management was when the DWR drastically cut back on deer tags. And, what I heard was a lot of angry people because they lost their opportunity.


Are people getting angry over the fact that we have a major problem with the bull/cow ratio and we aren't issuing out enough mature elk tags? We are over the average age of harvest and yet we don't issue enough tags.

This year the DWR is going to issue 10,529 cow elk permits. Some places are below population objective and they are increasing the cow permits. Some areas have to many bulls and elk need to be taken off the unit to make room for growing bulls so we issue more cow tags because it's easier and less people complain. How much opportunity will be wasted over the years by killing MORE cows. Less cows means LESS elk in the future to hunt. If we continue to keep killing cows then it makes the bull to cow ratios worse and more bulls will be on the unit then cows and less calves will be born and less permits issued in the future.

But in the end then we should follow Wyo2ut's mentality and stay home and not get involved in the RAC system because we want opportunity and we dont want to bother with the whole wildlife process.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

AMEN!

That's what is so great about this country. We have the freedom and RIGHT to get involved with the public process. We have the RESPONSIBILITY to keep those in office, whether its in the politicians or in the wildlife departments, to do what's right. We have an obligation to hold their feet to the fire. If we don't voice our opinions to them, then they will eventually stop doing whats right, and will start doing whats right for themselves.

Yes, we do need to listen to those that don't voice their opinions. So, instead of letting them continue to sit on their duff, lets start getting them involved. Yes, it would be better for them if they could come out and help in projects and attend RAC meetings, *but they can do something as simple as an e-mail.*

Stop making excuses for who we are or who we aren't. Lets just accept who we are and start doing whats RIGHT!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You guys are missing my point. It is NOT that the average joe should be ignored or hosed at the expense of the "horn porn" crowd. It IS about those who get involved get a say in what happens. If you are 'too busy' or it isn't high on your priority list, that is YOUR choice, and you should NOT then expect others to cater to you. A simple e-mail to a Wildlife Board member or RAC chairperson can do wonders, but if you do NOT care enough to do even that then you get exactly what you deserve. The biggest myth in all this is that SFW, the outfitters, and the "horn porn" guys, are getting what they want at 'your' expense. I dare say that the very people being blamed are doing more than the average joe to INCREASE opportunity for ALL hunters. It is in their own interest to do so. Think about it!
> 
> And, it is nonsensical to compare the management of Utah's *PUBLIC* resources to Disneyland. Disney is *PRIVATELY * owned and 'controlled' by shareholders, our wildlife is 'controlled' by the *PUBLIC*, or at least the public has a legal RIGHT to have a say in it. If I were a shareholder of Disney, I WOULD voice my concerns over how Disney runs the day to day operations. So, if I want a say in how wildlife are managed in Utah, as a 'shareholder' I chose to SHOW UP, so that I have a say in my 'interests'/investments. If I do NOTHING, I deserve whatever I am dealt by those who do SOMETHING. This does NOT mean in any way that those who SHOW UP should disregard the 'average joe', but the 'average joe' should NOT complain about the hand he is dealt if he did NOTHING about it.


Unless I am wrong, your point is that the Wildlife Board/RACs should only listen to those who show up and speak up. I disagree 100%. The Wildlife Board and RACs should be basing their decisions on what is best for wildlife and what best benefits the public as a whole. I believe strongly that people should get involved, and I have said as much numerous times. I am in no way saying that people should just sit back and not participate...but that's the nature of the beast and always has been. And, just because people choose not to get involved or just because people are not as passionate about it as you are, does not mean they should be left out of the equation. Also, those who do show up are generally the vocal minority. Basing all decisions solely on what the vocal minority wants is not smart. The DWR/WB/RACs should and do consider what is best for the quiet majority.

If you want to look at it in terms of presidential candidates, think about this: in 2006 only 47% of the registered voters turned out to vote and only 70% of eligible citizens were even registered to vote. The DWR/WB/RACs have been fighting the battle of getting more participation in the decision making process for years, but the general apathy of citizens to politics is not easy to overcome.

One other point of clarification...I think many get totally disillusioned by the RAC process and Wildlife Board. I believe many people think that if enough people show up and voice a concern or desire for certain changes that the RACs and Wildlife Board are, in some way, required to listen to what the people want. This is NOT true! This is also why many people choose not to "get involved".

The Wildlife Board has the policy-making powers pertaining to wildlife. When the Wildlife Board was created in 1990, it was established that their role in wildlife management was: 
1) to "recognize that wildlife and its habitat are an essential part of a healthy, productive environment;
2) recognize the impact of wildlife on man, his economic activities, private property rights, and local economies;
3) seek to balance the habitat requirements of wildlife with the social and economic activities of man;
4) recognize the social and economic values of wildlife, including fishing, hunting, and other uses;
5) seek to maintain wildlife on a sustainable basis;
6) consider the recommendations of the regional advisory councils"

The Division of Wildlife Resources "may determine the facts relevant to the wildlife resources of this state." But, "Upon determination of these facts, the Wildlife Board shall establish the policies best designed to accomplish the purposes and fulfill the intent of all laws pertaining to wildlife..."

The Regional Advisory Councils role in the process is to: 
1) "hear Utah Division of Wildlife Resources input, including recommendations, biological data, and information regarding the effects of wildlife;
2) gather information from staff, the public and government agencies;
3) make recommendations to the Wildlife Board in an advisory capacity."

What many have to remember is that often the DWR, the public, and local government agencies may be at odds as to what should be done. Because of this, often times even overwhelming public opinion is overruled. So, when people say that they have a "voice" or that they play a role, or that they have a "say" in wildlife management, technically, I don't think they are correct. In fact, the only roll the public has in the process is the opportunity to be heard. And, just because you have been heard and have voiced an opinion, doesn't mean the WB or RACs should listen and follow your recommendation.

To truly get involved in the process, you must become either a member of one of the region's RACs or be nominated as a WB member. IN essence, then, your ability to have a "say" or "voice" is no different than writing a letter of complaint to the shareholders of Disneyland about their management practices--you can "voice" your opinion, but whether or not you are actually "heard" is a different story.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

suave300 said:


> We have an obligation to hold their feet to the fire. If we don't voice our opinions to them, then they will eventually stop doing whats right, and will start doing whats right for themselves.


We do have an obligation to "hold their feet to the fire." However, I don't believe for one second that wildlife managers, RAC members, or WB members, will eventually "stop doing whats right, and will start doing whats right for themselves."

The problem with wildlife management is that there isn't always a clear line between what is "right" and what is "wrong". The "right" thing is to manage animals so that the population of animals remains healthy...to do what is best for the animal. But, managing a healthy population can be done in numerous ways...

I look at the management of the Provo River as a fishery for an example. The Provo River below Deer Creek Dam has an exceptionally high number of brown trout...so many that the population is generally unhealthy. IN fact, almost every fall numerous fish die of fungus related to overpopulation. Fly fishermen have adamantly fought to keep catch and release type regulations in place that would protect fish from harvest and keep populations high. In this case, I believe (and so does the DWR) what is "right" for the fish/fishery is at odds with what the public wants....the same thing happens with big game all the time.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> IN essence, then, your ability to have a "say" or "voice" is no different than writing a letter of complaint to the shareholders of Disneyland about their management practices--you can "voice" your opinion, but whether or not you are actually "heard" is a different story.


You can't underestimate the power of the voice of the people. Look at the amnesty bill that was going to pass with flying colors, until we got involved and flooded Congress with e-mails and got the bill stopped in it's tracks. Thats whats great about this country.



wyoming2utah said:


> We do have an obligation to "hold their feet to the fire." However, I don't believe for one second that wildlife managers, RAC members, or WB members, will eventually "stop doing whats right, and will start doing whats right for themselves."


I was refering to politicians in this case.

Yes, our opinion shold not be set in stone and should be considered. But they are not considering it now, and look at the herd problems we are having. We are at a criticle point in our herds right now, and unless they stop issue so many cow tags, and start issuing more bull tags, I think we are going to be in trouble. They are not doing whats right for the biology of the herds, there is too many old bulls and not enough cows to keep the herd healthy. So we do need to voice our concern.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

suave300 said:


> Stop making excuses for who we are or who we aren't. Lets just accept who we are and start doing whats RIGHT!!


Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I accept that I work my a** off for the little bit of money I bring home and am fortunate enough to have enough time to focus on my family (which is actually more important than hunting, believe it or not) when I'm not trying to earn enough for us to live comfortably. Could I send an email?? Sure.... and, hold your breath here, I actually have emailed quite a few of the DWR folks when I have a concern about something. Am I going to go to an RAC meeting? No, more than likely not. They actually sound like a bit of a circus... so no need for me to add to that atmosphere. When it comes time for me to do so, I contribute my hard earned money towards general hunts with my bow because I like having the OPPORTUNITY to pursue animals that live basically in my backyard. *That is what is RIGHT for me*.... and thats how I govern myself, not by somebody else's fantasy about what is right for all of us when our objectives in hunting are so drastically different. Thanks for all of your concern but I'm perfectly fine with where my goals and concerns for wildlife sit at this point and I'm honestly not feeling the need to be the bandwagon jumper to push some "hypothetically great" initiative through to benefit somebody other than myself.... I honestly will probably NEVER hunt elk in Southern Utah.... if that makes me the minority... well... ok. I'll just keep hunting deer in the desert or here locally and chase elk when and where I can. It seems simple enough to me.... and I certainly think those with "management" ideals have a tendency to overcomplicate things, which just FYI, may also be part of what keeps folks from feeling compelled to attend meetings and contribute their input. I would say sorry for the rant... but I'm really not sorry and I and I'm sure every other average Joe out there gets sick and tired of being told we're wrong for being ok with the way things are. Maybe whats wrong here is not management the way it is right now but rather the whole situation that keeps the "majority" from feeling ok about stepping up and making an effort to influence the management decisions that seem to be passed whether its what MOST folks want or not. :?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> suave300 said:
> 
> 
> > Stop making excuses for who we are or who we aren't. Lets just accept who we are and start doing whats RIGHT!!
> ...


Thats why I said accept us for who we are. If that is who you are, then there is *absolutely* nothing wrong with that. Be proud of it. If you want a change, then step up. If you don't, then don't feel bad that you don't. Don't worry about what others think. Life is too short for that. Be happy for who you are. :wink:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

suave300 said:


> You can't underestimate the power of the voice of the people. Look at the amnesty bill that was going to pass with flying colors, until we got involved and flooded Congress with e-mails and got the bill stopped in it's tracks. Thats whats great about this country.
> 
> Yes, our opinion shold not be set in stone and should be considered. But they are not considering it now, and look at the herd problems we are having. We are at a criticle point in our herds right now, and unless they stop issue so many cow tags, and start issuing more bull tags, I think we are going to be in trouble. They are not doing whats right for the biology of the herds, there is too many old bulls and not enough cows to keep the herd healthy. So we do need to voice our concern.


I don't underestimate the "power of the people"; I do believe a strong voice can make a difference...but, I don't believe that simply because a bunch of people speak loudly about something that they should unquestionably be listened to. I don't believe the loud vocal groups are always "right". In fact, this is why we have too many big bulls and extremely high bull/cow ratios...because the public voiced this concern and for some crazy reason the WB listened.

What do you believe it means to be "considered"? Which consideration should hold more sway--the consideration given to the professional agency in charge of the wildlife...or a loud public group? What happens when these considerations are at odds?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I don't underestimate the "power of the people"; I do believe a strong voice can make a difference...but, I don't believe that simply because a bunch of people speak loudly about something that they should unquestionably be listened to. I don't believe the loud vocal groups are always "right". In fact, this is why we have too many big bulls and extremely high bull/cow ratios...because the public voiced this concern and for some crazy reason the WB listened.
> 
> What do you believe it means to be "considered"? Which consideration should hold more sway--the consideration given to the professional agency in charge of the wildlife...or a loud public group? What happens when these considerations are at odds?


You are right. Because of a few crazy loud voices, we have had the wolf fiasco. So no they should not go blindly with the outspoken, but should take that into consideration. Hopefully we have people in office that are smart and have a mindset to do what is right and then act on it. But, if we don't voice our opinion, then they won't know what the people want. I definatley want them to know the voice of the people. so I get involved one way or another. That way I feel we are doing our part for the betterment of society and/or wildlife.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

I'M WILLING TO BET WHAT MOST HUNTERS WANT THIS WEEK......................



TO HAVE A LONG AWAITED HIT ON THE OLE CC FROM THE DWR.

NOW THERE IS ONE THING WE WILL GET THE MAJORITY TO AGREE ON!!!!!


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

mmmmm.......>woofies< _/O


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> I'M WILLING TO BET WHAT MOST HUNTERS WANT THIS WEEK......................
> 
> TO HAVE A LONG AWAITED HIT ON THE OLE CC FROM THE DWR.
> 
> NOW THERE IS ONE THING WE WILL GET THE MAJORITY TO AGREE ON!!!!!


Amen brother!


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> I'M WILLING TO BET WHAT MOST HUNTERS WANT THIS WEEK......................
> 
> TO HAVE A LONG AWAITED HIT ON THE OLE CC FROM THE DWR.
> 
> NOW THERE IS ONE THING WE WILL GET THE MAJORITY TO AGREE ON!!!!!


easy there...ive "heard" that the umpteen amount of LE elk applicants are the new minority


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

marksman said:


> mulepacker said:
> 
> 
> > I'M WILLING TO BET WHAT MOST HUNTERS WANT THIS WEEK......................
> ...


+1


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

They shouldn't care what Mr. Moss or Mr. Average Joe wants, they should and NEED to manage for the health of the herds and when that is achieved they can start issuing the right amount of tags to keep them heathly.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

inbowrange said:


> They shouldn't care what Mr. Moss or Mr. Average Joe wants, they should and NEED to manage for the health of the herds and when that is achieved they can start issuing the right amount of tags to keep them heathly.


Yes and No. They should definately manage for the health of the herd. But, they should also see how the people want them managed. I/E general season, Limited Entry, Premium and so forth.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

They have to care what the average joes want to a point. If you make them so unhappy they quite hunting, or if you make it undesirable to start hunting. There goes the feet they stand on. Its that simple.


----------



## jhunter (Dec 14, 2007)

You have a good point saddle but I think that every hunters first concern should be the health of the herd(conservation). Then how do we address the issue of horn porn vs. meat hunters.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

jhunter said:


> You have a good point saddle but I think that every hunters first concern should be the health of the herd(conservation).


+100%


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jhunter said:


> You have a good point saddle but I think that every hunters first concern should be the health of the herd(conservation). Then how do we address the issue of horn porn vs. meat hunters.


I completely agree. If the Wildlife Board would follow the game management plans approved by the DWR *AND * the Wildlife Board that are biologically sound *and* reflect the "horn porn vs. meat hunter" issues. The problem is the DWR and Wildlife Board have NOT been following the management plans to date. And ever since they started looking at harvest age averages, which is _unscientific_, elk herds have spiraled out of biologically sound status on many fronts. I'll also admit that a couple of years ago I believed the harvest age objectives were a great idea, but I now see they tell a biologist little/nothing biologically speaking. It drives poor management practices, it would be better to look at bull:cow ratios, calf:cow ratios, and herd population vs. winter range capacity as measuring sticks that determine tag numbers for bull and cow harvests. Think about it this way; if harvest averages are higher than objective they do what? They raise the number of bull tags. If the harvest averages are lower than objectives, they decrease the number of bull tags for that unit. Yet, the harvest age average is nothing more than an average of the bulls harvested, not an average of the bulls in the unit. Bull:cow ratios, along with thorough yearly surveys, gives a clearer picture of the herd dynamics.

suave300 and coyoteslayer, excellent post on getting involved in what we supposedly love. No one, at least not me, is saying the 'average Joe' should be ignored. But, if Joe doesn't let his views be known/heard how is his views supposed to be considered? As suave300 said, send an e-mail at the very least, how **** hard is that? :?


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

you address them all. Give the horn porn hunters their porn, and give the meat hunters their meat. But I agree, you have to do it first and foremost for the health of the herds.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I completely agree. If the Wildlife Board would follow the game management plans approved by the DWR *AND * the Wildlife Board that are biologically sound *and* reflect the "horn porn vs. meat hunter" issues. The problem is the DWR and Wildlife Board have NOT been following the management plans to date. And ever since they started looking at harvest age averages, which is _unscientific_, elk herds have spiraled out of biologically sound status on many fronts. I'll also admit that a couple of years ago I believed the harvest age objectives were a great idea, but I now see they tell a biologist little/nothing biologically speaking. It drives poor management practices, it would be better to look at bull:cow ratios, calf:cow ratios, and herd population vs. winter range capacity as measuring sticks that determine tag numbers for bull and cow harvests. Think about it this way; if harvest averages are higher than objective they do what? They raise the number of bull tags. If the harvest averages are lower than objectives, they decrease the number of bull tags for that unit. Yet, the harvest age average is nothing more than an average of the bulls harvested, not an average of the bulls in the unit. Bull:cow ratios, along with thorough yearly surveys, gives a clearer picture of the herd dynamics.


A whole lot of opinion floating around in that last paragraph, Pro...a few things: 1) The WB has been giving out more tags--as per the EMP--every year because harvest ages have been higher than objective 2) Managing by harvest ages is scientific...what makes you think otherwise? Don't you remember all that data from Nevada on harvest ages that I sent you? Also, deer managers have been successfully using average ages of harvested animals for years as an indicator of population...how is that so different? 3) Because of the number of elk killed yearly on the various units, harvest ages are accurate reflections of what are alive on units...you have said yourself many times that most hunters don't need to shoot the biggest bulls 4) The DWR uses bull/cow ratios, yearly population surveys, calf/cow ratios, winter range studies etc. to also assess herd conditions...herds are not managed solely on one number. 5) If the DWR gives out enough tags to lower harvest age objectives, the effect is going to be lower bull/cow ratios...6) How would you recommend determining the average age of bulls on a unit?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> A whole lot of opinion floating around in that last paragraph, Pro...a few things: 1) The WB has been giving out more tags--as per the EMP--every year because harvest ages have been higher than objective 2) Managing by harvest ages is scientific...what makes you think otherwise? Don't you remember all that data from Nevada on harvest ages that I sent you? Also, deer managers have been successfully using average ages of harvested animals for years as an indicator of population...how is that so different? 3) Because of the number of elk killed yearly on the various units, harvest ages are accurate reflections of what are alive on units...you have said yourself many times that most hunters don't need to shoot the biggest bulls 4) The DWR uses bull/cow ratios, yearly population surveys, calf/cow ratios, winter range studies etc. to also assess herd conditions...herds are not managed solely on one number. 5) If the DWR gives out enough tags to lower harvest age objectives, the effect is going to be lower bull/cow ratios...6) How would you recommend determining the average age of bulls on a unit?


*1)*And yet they get further over objective and the bull:cow ratios get worse. *2)*It is NOT scientific because it paints only a small part of the picture. *3)*If there are 10 tags issued and there is 100% harvest success and 4 kill 4 year old bulls, 3 kill 5 year old bulls, and 3 kill 5 year old bulls, what does that tell you? Does it tell you what the bull:cow ratio is, does it say there are no bulls over 6 years old, no bulls under years old? I don't think it answers ANY of those questions. *4)*I am fine with harvest averages being a PART of the equation, but NOT as being the primary factor in the equation. *5) *If you manage the herd to measurable quotas, such as bull:cow ratios, the effect is age classes across the desired age objective. *6)* Who cares? Manage for bull:cow ratios and slightly lower success rates and the older bull population will be 'sheltered' just fine in the herd makeup.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

Suppose for a minute that no bulls are harvested on a LE unit. What does this do to the average?
Harvest is a selective process where in many variables could an do skew results. Especially in Utah's system. Simply by allowing 50 percent of the tags to go to a specific group wil lske w results. In order for any sample (which harvest is) to be valid it must be random. Harves and age objectives may be an indicator of what is precent it is not however an average of what is on the unit. In the DWR's current management plan it is accepted as an average and theefore is flawed data being nput to their decision making.
The other area where the use of age data is drastically flawed is where a LE unit alos has a spike hunt. In order to get a true average for buls harvested on the unit teeth (data) would need to be gathered from all animals harvested to get an accurate average. Elk harvested with at least one straight bone are not included in the average however can vary in age significantly. The only data valid from Utah's system is the average age of bulls LE hunters are choosing to shoot. Now this is what the age classification was designed to do. A group of sportsman pushed the age class management through the process in order to insure trophy bulls were available, that way value would increase on auction tags.

I should write in a program with a spellchecker, then post here. I guess that is why I got a math certificate rather than english, when I aspired to teach.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I really hate to post on this "dead horse", but ......

1- Age Objectives are a joke and have been the sole basis for permit allocation in Utah. I know Wy2UT will state that biologists use other data, and he would be right, BUT the RACs and Board only look at age. That is all they ever consider. In 2005 or 2006 the biologists gave a great presentation using the bell curve showing data compiled (population dynamics, cow-calf ratios, past harvest, etc) which proved that there are many more bulls available than the permits which have been issued. The RACs and Board ignored the data, decreased the recommended increase of permits and voted against the biologists. Age objectives can play a part, but not the extent they do in Utah. For example: a herd has an age objective of 6 and there are 1,000 bulls present. 10 permits are issued and those 10 hunters harvest 10 bulls which average 6 years old. The unit has met its "age objective", yet there is obviously much more opportunity left on the table, BUT because it is meeting its age objective only 10 tags are issued the next year. That is what too much emphasis on age objectives does. The biologists have been reigned in so hard over the past 10 years that they know not to give too high a permit recommendation lest it gets hacked down too far. After 10+ years of struggling to get more permits issued we are finally seeing moderate increases, yet not even close to what needs to be done.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Good post Packout!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I consider Mulepacker and Packout mentors of mine in game management. Thanks for the excellent posts gentlemen!


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

i knew the bio's were being shafted for a VERY long time.

how is the "board" "built"? and how does the general public go about shaking things within it if it is so ruled by $$$$$$?


----------



## jhunter (Dec 14, 2007)

Great posts Mule and Packout.
And good question Longgun? But it needs some reform!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

A few things: 1) I don't think anyone has ever said that the ages of harvested elk are representative of the average age of bulls on a unit...ages of harvested elk represent a goal to maintain quality. Through these objectives, the Division of Wildlife "can better evaluate the age distribution of harvested bull elk". The use of harvest age objectives was used to and "designed to learn more about our growing elk herds and the age structure of the harvested bulls...We need to know how to best sustain bulls of a certain age." 2) The larger the sample sizes for a given unit the more reflective that sample size will be of the general population...we are not talking about just a few elk. In some cases, the sample size is reaching not only hundreds of animals but over a thousand. 3) The OPINION has been thrown out that harvest ages are the only thing used to determine permit numbers...I disagree 100%. 
The Board and the RACs have been cautious about increasing permit numbers because of HUNTER concerns...including those by SFW. Hunters have asked the Board to be cautious to protect the quality. Even if the DWR's management plan was based on bull/cow ratios, calf/cow ratios, and population data, the Board still would not have given out enough tags...4) After 10+ years of fighting the battle to increase tag numbers, we have more than doubled the number of LE tags.

As for the board: Nominating committee - Utah State code 23-14-2.5

"There is a Wildlife Board nominating Committee which consists of 11 Members. This committee is appointed by the Governor from nominees by the:
Agriculture Industry
Sportsmen groups
Non-consumptive wildlife interests
Federal land management agencies
Utah Association of Counties
Utah Chapters of the Society of Range Management and The Wildlife Society

The nominating committee solicits nominees statewide and then submits them to the Governor,who makes the final decision regarding appointments to the Wildlife Board.
*
Creation, membership, terms, quorum, meetings - Utah State code 23-14-2*

The Wildlife Board consists of seven members. The members shall have expertise or experience in at least one of the following areas:
Wildlife management or biology;
Habitat management, including range or aquatic;
Business, including knowledge of private land issues;(and)
Economics, including knowledge of recreational wildlife uses.

Each of the above areas of expertise shall be represented by at least one member of the Wildlife Board. Each appointment shall be confirmed by the Senate. Four members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. The director of the Division of Wildlife Resources shall act as secretary to the Board but shall not be a voting member."

IN my opinion, the biggest mistake Utah ever made was that it took the wildlife management powers away from the professionals and put it into the hands of politicians and the people. The ironic thing is that since the creation of the Wildlife Board and the RACs, our surrounding states have used Utah as the example for creating their own Boards and RACs.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

Wyo2Ut,

Where are the quoted sources from in your above post?
Also which states have used Utah's format to reorganize their wildlife managment structure?
Where are sample sizes approaching 1000?

From the UDWR Elk Management Plan.

Population Objective 2
Achieve an average age of harvested bull elk within established objectives on all limited entry units *to assure a balanced and diverse age structure of the bull segment of the population*.

From the above objective I gather it is used as a measuring stick to determine age structure thus "average age" of the bull segement of the population.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> Wyo2Ut,
> 
> Where are the quoted sources from in your above post?
> Also which states have used Utah's format to reorganize their wildlife managment structure?
> ...


1) My quoted sources are through email conversations...

2) From my understanding, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado have all used Utah's system as a guideline to amend their own commissions and the way those commissions work. Utah has been fairly revolutionary in terms of RACs and involving the public to the extent it has. Personally, I don't like this process...but it is what we have.

3) Sample sizes do not approach 1000....that was a mistake on my part. They do, however, get into the 100s on several units.

4) I am not sure what you are saying with your quotes from the EMP...the EMP clearly and unquestionably asks that elk be managed so that harvested elk meet certain average ages. We don't question that, right? Also, by looking at the harvested elk of a unit, don't we find out whether the harvest is diverse or not? I think you are trying to fill in blanks that don't exist...we also look at age structures with deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) My quoted sources are through email conversations...
> 
> 2) From my understanding, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado have all used Utah's system as a guideline to amend their own commissions and the way those commissions work. Utah has been fairly revolutionary in terms of RACs and involving the public to the extent it has. Personally, I don't like this process...but it is what we have.
> 
> ...


1) :roll:

2)You're right, we should not allow the public to have a voice. :roll: :roll:

3)No units get anywhere close to 1000, and those that get in the hundreds still is only a SMALL sampling of the total bull population. And, as Travis pointed out, it is NOT a random sampling but a targeted sampling, which can/does skew the data/trends.

4)The EMP also calls for managing to certain bull:cow ratios, calf:cow ratios, yet they seem to be managed to less than the harvest age averages. Which SHOULD be reversed. You stated:


> Even if the DWR's management plan was based on bull/cow ratios, calf/cow ratios, and population data, the Board still would not have given out enough tags...


 Again, the EMP *DOES* call for this, it just isn't followed.

We get the average harvest age, not the range of the ages harvested. And, while the DWR maty look at the deer age structures of the HARVESTED animals, I don't see/hear them managing deer based on harvest age averages. And I am unaware of any other states managing to harvest age averages and ignoring in large part bull:cow ratios.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1) :roll:
> 
> 2)You're right, we should not allow the public to have a voice. :roll: :roll:
> 
> ...


1) Sorry, Pro, but I am not going to give out names of people and post their emails without permission...an email is a private discussion.

2) I don't care if the public has a voice....I just don't think the public should be making decisions. Leave that to the professionals.

3) Uhhh....that's what I said. 1000 was a mistake...but many units do kill more than 100 bulls. It doesn't matter if the sampling is targeted or not...it still shows whether the harvest is of a wide range of animals which is the whole point of these numbers. The DWR does have the ranges of animals harvested; they just don't publish that information for the public.

4) Look closer...we do target certain age classes of harvested deer. Also, you keep saying that we are ignoring bull/cow ratios...that is simply not true. In fact, only the premium units with have bull/cow ratios that are too high, and Utah has been trying for years to get those numbers down. But, as you well know, HUNTERS have cried out against the increases to avoid lowering quality.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) Sorry, Pro, but I am not going to give out names of people and post their emails without permission...an email is a private discussion.
> 
> 2) I don't care if the public has a voice....I just don't think the public should be making decisions. Leave that to the professionals.
> 
> ...


1)Easy to claim, hard to prove. 8)

2)I DO care that the public has a voice. I also think they must in order to hold the DWR accountable. Without public input, which means a say in decisions, there would be no checks and balances.

3)It DOES matter if the sampling is targeted, as it skews the gathered data. It does NOT tell what percentage of the animals are of certain age classes, only that they harvest ages are present. This can be accomplished more 'scientifically' through actual counts and KNOWING actual bull:cow ratios.

4)We are ignoring bull:cow ratios, how else do you explain the tag numbers where bull:cow ratios are well above objective on nearly EVERY LE unit, even on your spike units?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, I think you are digging yourself in a hole and its getting deeper and deeper. I don't think you understand anything about average age of harvests.

Here is some very very simple questions for you. 

1. If the Nebo has a average age of harvest of 7yrs then how many bulls live on the unit???

2. If the Nebo unit had 450 bulls on the unit and the Average age of harvest was 4yrs and 50 tags were issued, and the objective was 5 to 6 yrs then would you lower the number of tags or increase the number of tags????

Good luck!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wyo2ut, I think you are digging yourself in a hole and its getting deeper and deeper.


You should listen to Coyote, He knows a great deal about this. :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You should listen to Coyote, He knows a great deal about this.


haha well its only to catch little Treehugger in a snare.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)Easy to claim, hard to prove.
> 
> 2)I DO care that the public has a voice. I also think they must in order to hold the DWR accountable. Without public input, which means a say in decisions, there would be no checks and balances.
> 
> ...


1) Prove what? I wasn't trying to prove anything...I quoted someone else's words. Had I never used quotation marks and just summarized this person's words, would this even have been a question?

2) The public has always had a voice...but now, the public has more than a voice; the public is helping make decisions. The professionals can still be held accountable without RACs.

3) The harvest-age data without a doubt does show the range of ages harvested elk have. This is exactly what those numbers are supposed to show. The LE units are supposed to meet certain average age requirements in order to maintain quality. By looking at the different ages of harvested elk, the Division can see whether harvested elk are from a wide range of year classes.

The DWR does yearly counts and determines bull/cow ratios yearly. Without the age data, the DWR would have zero information on the ages of harvested elk. Bull/cow ratios are not at all determined through harvest ages...

4) This is the simplest question you have asked: The DWR is mandated by LAW to lower herd/population numbers when the herd exceeds objectives. If the DWR is not allowed to give out enough bull tags, the only solution is to give cow tags. Also, simple wildlife management will tell you that the way to lower herd numbers is to kill the breeding portion of animals. IF hunters are killing elk of a wide range of ages, doesn't that show that a wide range exists?

I know what you will say in response..."what about units like the Boulder where population numbers are shown in charts to be lower than obective?" I can't answer that question. The only people who could are the biologists from those units. I would assume there is a reason behind those numbers...you simply assume that they are screwing up. I also know that depredation could be an issue...the bottom line is that a simple phone call to the southern region biologist may help answer your question.

5) I didn't know that LE units had bull/cow ratio objectives. I see no information in the EMP that talks about objectives for LE units. And, "Anis says spike hunting has helped the division maintain good bull to cow ratios on the ten existing spike units." I also know we are not ignoring bull/cow ratios because every time tag numbers come up the DWR mentions that bull/cow ratios on premium units.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> *I didn't know* that LE units had bull/cow ratio objectives. I see no information in the EMP that talks about objectives for LE units. And, "Anis says spike hunting has helped the division maintain good bull to cow ratios on the ten existing spike units." I also know we are not ignoring bull/cow ratios because every time tag numbers come up the DWR mentions that bull/cow ratios on premium units.


Glad to be able to help you be less 'ignorant'. 

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... march2.pdf

Each are has specific objectives, one of which is bull:cow ratios. _(O)_


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...so I see where minimum bull/cow ratios are set, but nothing else. Help me out some more, please.

What about this quote from that document: "Bull Age Structure - Monitor age class structure of the bull population through the use of checking stations, uniform harvest surveys, field bag checks, postseason classification and aerial classification" Doesn't that mean that we look at the ages of elk within a unit through other means than just harvest ages?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'll type slower for you. :? The point is, when they numbers are set the *PRIMARY* factor referred to by the DWR/RAC's/WB is harvest age averages. As you stated, herd population objectives are enforced because of legal issues, but bull:cow ratios are often ignored. How else do *you* explain the out of control bull:cow ratios? And, don't put ALL the blame on the sportsmen, a good chunk of the blame MUST be placed on the DWR and WB!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I'll type slower for you. :? The point is, when they numbers are set the *PRIMARY* factor referred to by the DWR/RAC's/WB is harvest age averages. As you stated, herd population objectives are enforced because of legal issues, but bull:cow ratios are often ignored. How else do *you* explain the out of control bull:cow ratios? And, don't put ALL the blame on the sportsmen, a good chunk of the blame MUST be placed on the DWR and WB!


The primary factor referred to in determining whether more or less tags should be issued is based on harvest ages; I have never argued that. But, that doesn't mean for one second that that is the only factor...which you have repeatedly argued.

Bull/cow ratios are not ignored...the bull/cow ratios are the principle reason the WB has agreed to increase tags on premium units. If bull/cow ratios had not been high, we probably wouldn't have seen any increases despite the EMP. Also, how can you blame the DWR for the bull/cow ratios when the DWR has repeatedly said that they need to be lowered and have been trying to lower them by recommending more tags be given out. If you want to blame someone, blame the WB and the sportsmen.

Also, you still haven't shown me where bull/cow ratios have exceeded objectives on nearly all LE units. A minimum objective is just that, a minimum. There is nothing about maximum objectives...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Also, you still haven't shown me where bull/cow ratios have exceeded objectives on nearly all LE units. A minimum objective is just that, a minimum. *There is nothing about maximum objectives...*


You get an F in your reading assignment. :wink: Reread it, then get back. Study harder this time, because it IS in there! :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, are you trying to tell me that every area has a maximum objective? From what I can see, only a couple of units have maximums...there is nothing about maximum objectives on all LE units.

More interesting to me, though, is this: "The wintering population 
on this unit varies because of the influx and outflow of animals from the 
Dutton, Monroe and Fishlake/Thousand Lakes units. Movement data 
obtained from telemetry studies indicate that significant numbers of elk 
from those units winter at times on the Boulder Mountain Unit."

Hmmm...couldn't this be a reason for the cow tags?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> More interesting to me, though, is this: "The wintering population
> on this unit varies because of the influx and outflow of animals from the
> Dutton, Monroe and Fishlake/Thousand Lakes units. Movement data
> obtained from telemetry studies indicate that significant numbers of elk
> ...


Let's look at the units *you* listed. The Dutton is UNDER herd objective and has above objective bull:cow ratio AND harvest age average. The Monroe is WAY UNDER herd objective and has a bull:cow ratio so high they issue management tags and the harvest age average is well above objective. The Fish Lake is UNDER herd objective and is OVER objectives for harvest age average and bull:cow ratio. The Boulder is way UNDER herd objective (500 actual vs 1500 objective) and is over the newly RAISED harvest age objective. How does that equate to a need for cow tags? :?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The Dutton is UNDER herd objective and has above objective bull:cow ratio AND harvest age average. The Monroe is WAY UNDER herd objective and has a bull:cow ratio so high they issue management tags and the harvest age average is well above objective. The Fish Lake is UNDER herd objective and is OVER objectives for harvest age average and bull:cow ratio. The Boulder is way UNDER herd objective (500 actual vs 1500 objective) and is over the newly RAISED harvest age objective. How does that equate to a need for cow tags? :?


Good post PRO.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

+1 more. These posts simply offer more evidence that he is, indeed, The Pro.


----------



## plumber (Jan 28, 2008)

more opportunity for youth, on better units than just the any bull units. my boys both drew youth elk tags last season we were syched! we new that we had our work cut out for us one tag would be difficult and we new that two tags was going to be close to impossible we scouted elk all summer we found a few rag horn 3-4 points. when the season opened the archery hunters had those bulls so call shy that that any calling we did, did more harm than good ,resorted to just some very light cow calls which produced, but nothing we wanted to harvest both tags stayed in the pocket we were pretty diapointed with whole hunt talked to three other groups of hunters all had about the same results. we would have been better off buying over the counter spike tags would have better chance of filling tags if they think thats what the youth want. all it meant to us was a opportunity to hunt elk in an area with less hunters in area that has little or no elk!!!!!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BERG said:


> +1 more. These posts simply offer more evidence that he is, indeed, The Pro.


 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

[quote="proutdoors"Let's look at the units *you* listed. The Dutton is UNDER herd objective and has above objective bull:cow ratio AND harvest age average. The Monroe is WAY UNDER herd objective and has a bull:cow ratio so high they issue management tags and the harvest age average is well above objective. The Fish Lake is UNDER herd objective and is OVER objectives for harvest age average and bull:cow ratio. The Boulder is way UNDER herd objective (500 actual vs 1500 objective) and is over the newly RAISED harvest age objective. How does that equate to a need for cow tags? :?[/quote]

I can think of a couple of good reasons to issue cow tags when a unit is below objective:

1) If range conditions are poor, often managers suggest lowering the population so that the herd doesn't damage its own habitat. The DWR recommended both doe and cow permit increases--and the Board approved them--for this very reason in 2006. Since these animals share some of the same winter ranges and these ranges are limiting factors on elk population numbers due to "advancing pinion-juniper forests", it is possible that there is concern over range conditions.

2) Also, in the past, the DWR has recommended to the board an increase in cow elk permits on some units in northeastern Utah to "try and reduce potential competition between deer and elk for limited food on winter ranges."

3) Depredation. Sometimes, depredation issues forces the DWR to keep populations lower than objective because of concerns to crop damages. Population objectives on the Dutton for example have been raised; however, habitat remains one of the critical limiting factors and the population will not be allowed to increase until the habitat barriers are removed. Otherwise, we have a herd that is too large for its available habitat or we have a herd that moves to local landowners private farm land for food. Neither option is good.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I just received an email from the southern region biologist. His response to this question was that no cow tags were issued on Monroe because it is under objective. "The Dutton is over objective according to counts made in 2008. The Fishlake is at objective and in June several hundred calves will be born and add to the population there. The Boulder cow tags are a result of a chronic years-long depredation problem in Salt Gulch and Boulder." He also said that they "have tried all other options and have not been successful in moving the elk out of the fields. This hunt area is located adjacent to the agricultural fields and we hope to send a clear message to the elk that they don't want to stay there."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Maybe you can ask him why his numbers differ from those posted by the DWR here: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... march2.pdf

In there it states, as you mentioned the Monroe is UNDER objective, according to their numbers the objective is 1800 elk and the actual is 900 elk with a 43:100 bull:cow ratio and a 50:100 calf:cow ratio. The Fish Lake unit has an objective of 4800 elk with an actual 4000 elk on the unit, which puts the unit 800 elk UNDER objective, with a 46:100 bull:cow ratio and a 45:100 calf cow ratio. The Dutton unit has an objective of 1500 elk with the actual population _estimated_ at 1270 elk, putting it UNDER objective, with a 46:100 bull:cow ratio and a 46:100 calf:cow ratio. The Boulder unit has an objective of 1500 elk with the actual population being 500 elk, putting it 1000 elk UNDER objective, with a 51:100 bull:cow ratio and a 38:100 calf:cow ratio.

It appears, according to PUBLISHED data from the DWR that all four units are UNDER population objectives, with two being 900-1000 elk below objectives. Add in the bull:cow ratios being ABOVE objective on all four units, and issuing cow tags makes little/no sense as far as herd health is concerned.

On the Boulder, if there is really only 500 elk with the ratios listed by the DWR, that means there are 135 bulls on the unit and 270 cows and 95 calves. Oddly, they issued 131 bull tags for 2008. The unit had a 80+% success rate on average, which would leave 30 bulls after the hunts. So, either the DWR doesn't believe their own numbers or the herd will be screwed this year. Which is it? :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Maybe you can ask him why his numbers differ from those posted by the DWR here: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... march2.pdf
> 
> In there it states, as you mentioned the Monroe is UNDER objective, according to their numbers the objective is 1800 elk and the actual is 900 elk with a 43:100 bull:cow ratio and a 50:100 calf:cow ratio. The Fish Lake unit has an objective of 4800 elk with an actual 4000 elk on the unit, which puts the unit 800 elk UNDER objective, with a 46:100 bull:cow ratio and a 45:100 calf cow ratio. The Dutton unit has an objective of 1500 elk with the actual population _estimated_ at 1270 elk, putting it UNDER objective, with a 46:100 bull:cow ratio and a 46:100 calf:cow ratio. The Boulder unit has an objective of 1500 elk with the actual population being 500 elk, putting it 1000 elk UNDER objective, with a 51:100 bull:cow ratio and a 38:100 calf:cow ratio.
> 
> ...


1) Why don't you ask him? You are the one so bent out of shape about it...I am willing to bet that a simple email or phone call would clear up your questions; however, you seem too just want to bitch about things on the internet. Of course, though, it is not needed because your own link supplies the answers...

2) The Fishlake unit, according to the link you posted, "is currently at objective (4800) and increasing." The same link goes on to say that the 2006 census showed approximately 4000 elk. I am guessing that the 2008 counts are now higher. The numbers you are showing on the Dutton unit are from 2007...according to the biologist, 2008 numbers agree with the link you posted in that the population is increasing and is now over objective. Like I have mentioned in this thread before, winter population counts vary because of movement from one unit to the next; this could lead to irregular counts. Also, regardless of what the objective is, cow permits are being given to avoid depredation problems.

3) You seem to think that high bull/cow ratios are a reason to NOT give cow tags...but the issuing of cow tags has very little to do with bull/cow ratios. Cow tags are issued mainly to keep total population numbers in check. Again, by law, the DWR is forced to issue cow tags when the population exceeds objectives. Bull/cow ratios are controlled by issuing bull tags not cow tags.

As for the DWR not believing their numbers...I think you simply cannot read what has been posted. You are basing your information off a document that is not completely up to date. The counts you are basing your information off of are not 2008 counts...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) Why don't you ask him? You are the one so bent out of shape about it...I am willing to bet that a simple email or phone call would clear up your questions; however, you seem too just want to **** about things on the internet. Of course, though, it is not needed because your own link supplies the answers...


I'll do one better, I am meeting with Anis Aoude and Craig McLaughlin next week, I'll ask them then. Does that sound like just ****ing about things to you? :roll:



> 2) The Fishlake unit, according to the link you posted, "is currently at objective (4800) and increasing." The same link goes on to say that the 2006 census showed approximately 4000 elk. I am guessing that the 2008 counts are now higher. The numbers you are showing on the Dutton unit are from 2007...according to the biologist, 2008 numbers agree with the link you posted in that the population is increasing and is now over objective. Like I have mentioned in this thread before, winter population counts vary because of movement from one unit to the next; this could lead to irregular counts. Also, regardless of what the objective is, cow permits are being given to avoid depredation problems.


The number they said is for 2008 is 4000 elk, not 4800 elk for the Fish Lake. The numbers for the Dutton are 2008 numbers as well. The Dutton has no where near that many elk on it during hunting season.



> 3) You seem to think that high bull/cow ratios are a reason to NOT give cow tags...but the issuing of cow tags has very little to do with bull/cow ratios. Cow tags are issued mainly to keep total population numbers in check. Again, by law, the DWR is forced to issue cow tags when the population exceeds objectives. Bull/cow ratios are controlled by issuing bull tags not cow tags.


Not true, I am saying when bull:cow ratios are over objectives*AND* herd populations are BELOW objectives I see little reason to issue 200+ cow tags.



> As for the DWR not believing their numbers...I think you simply cannot read what has been posted. You are basing your information off a document that is not completely up to date. The counts you are basing your information off of are not 2008 counts...


I read just fine. That document was what the DWR submitted to support the tag numbers for 2008 to the RAC's and Wildlife Board, so if they are not up to date, whose fault is that? Strangely though, I saw multiple references to 2008 throughout the document, wonder why since it is using "old data". :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I'll do one better, I am meeting with Anis Aoude and Craig McLaughlin next week, I'll ask them then. Does that sound like just ****ing about things to you? :roll:
> 
> The number they said is for 2008 is 4000 elk, not 4800 elk for the Fish Lake. The numbers for the Dutton are 2008 numbers as well. The Dutton has no where near that many elk on it during hunting season.
> 
> Not true, I am saying when bull:cow ratios are over objectives*AND* herd populations I read just fine. That document was what the DWR submitted to support the tag numbers for 2008 to the RAC's and Wildlife Board, so if they are not up to date, whose fault is that? Strangely though, I saw multiple references to 2008 throughout the document, wonder why since it is using "old data". :?


1) That is not better...these guys do not work the individual units. They would probably have to refer to the regional biologists for answers.

2) The document you posted a link to was a 2008 document but it did NOT include 2008 counts. IF you would go back and read the document, the numbers are clearly dated differently than what you claim. In fact, as I quoted before, the document also clearly states that the unit "is currently at objective (4800) and increasing." The document then goes on to say that "A total of 3223 elk were counted during a helicopter census completed 
in February of 2006. Using an 80% sightability index this census estimates the 
population to be roughly 4000 elk on this unit." Your numbers are from 2006! Also, I will choose to believe the regional biologist over you on this one...

3) Again, the document is a 2008 document, but some of the numbers are not 2008.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

YAWN!

If the regional biologist is doing things that his bosses are unaware of that is reason for concern. I will ask them for answers, and expect good responses in kind. I have tons of respect for these men, but I also realize they are mere mortals and NOT above mistakes or bad decision making. If you want to believe everything an 'expert' says, and think everything they do or say is 100% accurate and right, have fun in Lala Land.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

W2U,
Is the southern biologist Jim? He's the man down there that Knows all.
I visit him regularly in Loa, he's a good frend of mine.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Uhh...to think that Anis or Craig knows all the answers to each individual unit in Utah is extremely naive. Regional managers are the ones that come up with numbers and they are the ones that best know their areas...

Your assumption that they have screwed up and are making mistakes is nauseating. Again, I bet if you simply emailed or called the regional biologist he could give you much better answers than either Anis or Craig ever could. Why are you so unwilling to go to the source of the information for answers?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> W2U,
> Is the southern biologist Jim? He's the man down there that Knows all.
> I visit him regularly in Loa, he's a good frend of mine.


Yes, he is also the one that gave me my information.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Uhh...to think that Anis or Craig knows all the answers to each individual unit in Utah is extremely naive. Regional managers are the ones that come up with numbers and they are the ones that best know their areas...
> 
> Your assumption that they have screwed up and are making mistakes is nauseating. Again, I bet if you simply emailed or called the regional biologist he could give you much better answers than either Anis or Craig ever could. Why are you so unwilling to go to the source of the information for answers?


I'll make a deal with you. If Anis and Craig can't give me the answers I want, I'll shoot you a PM asking for Jim's e-mail. Deal? You're getting "nauseated" by choice, get over it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well I can tell you this much, Jim is one of the best guy's you will ever meet.
I personaly wish he was still with the law enforcment end of things down there
but, On the other hand you'll never find a better bioligist for that area either.
He know's what is going on there and I would trust his opinion and knowledge.


----------

