# Big Game "Motions"



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I was reading through the open motions and two stood out to me:

The first was ending all antlerless hunts by Dec 31 (a number go through Jan.)

Second, was this:

Fall 2018 - Target Date – Archery Season Dates for Elk
MOTION: I move that we put on the action log a review of the season date change for archery
elk hunting and add a survey concerning this issue prior to the next revision of the statewide deer
management plan in 2022. The Division will report back next year to look at how season date
changes would look with the requested change
Motion made by: Calvin Crandall
Assigned to: Covy Jones
Action: Under Study
Status: Scheduled for the November 2018 RAC and Board Tour
Placed on Action Log: September 28, 2017



What do they want to change the season to? Why change it?


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I think the point is to move the archery hunt to include more of the rut. Many of the surrounding states archery elk hunts run the entire month of Sept & that seems to be what they are trying to get instead of starting in mid-August.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

derekp1999 said:


> I think the point is to move the archery hunt to include more of the rut. Many of the surrounding states archery elk hunts run the entire month of Sept & that seems to be what they are trying to get instead of starting in mid-August.


I'm all for it, as long as they leave Archery deer alone lol


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

derekp1999 said:


> I think the point is to move the archery hunt to include more of the rut. Many of the surrounding states archery elk hunts run the entire month of Sept & that seems to be what they are trying to get instead of starting in mid-August.


They will never give up days in le rifle for extending archery season into the rut

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

weaversamuel76 said:


> They will never give up days in le rifle for extending archery season into the rut


If the voices that want it are loud enough, connected enough, and have deep enough pockets anything can be changed.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

They'll move the hunt into the LE Rife dates, and have a week that both Archery, and Rifle hunts overlap. Then, as a Archery Hunter, you will be required to have Blaze Orange in the field, and not Camo. (Just like the Cow Elk rifle hunts on the North Wasatch extended archery.) At least that's what I see could happen. Be careful what you wish for "Stick Flippers".


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

taxidermist said:


> They'll move the hunt into the LE Rife dates, and have a week that both Archery, and Rifle hunts overlap. Then, as a Archery Hunter, you will be required to have Blaze Orange in the field, and not Camo. (Just like the Cow Elk rifle hunts on the North Wasatch extended archery.) At least that's what I see could happen. Be careful what you wish for "Stick Flippers".


Well the first week or two suck, so having an extra week in camo and an extra week in Orange is fine.

That said, this wouldn't impact the Any Bull units much - since they don't have LE elk hunts.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

RandomElk16 said:


> Well the first week or two suck, so having an extra week in camo and an extra week in Orange is fine.
> 
> That said, this wouldn't impact the Any Bull units much - since they don't have LE elk hunts.


If they extend the any bull units everyone will flock there since everything else will be closed. It'll be interesting to see the full proposal

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Utah opened up a can of worms when they first started the LE rifle elk hunts and having them right in the middle of the elk rut. It is going to take a lot to get them to move them. And if they do they are going to have a lot of mad elk hunters, but then again they might have just as many happy bow hunters. You'll never know until it happens.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So just to be clear—Archery hunters have to go first. And then they have to have the rut. And then they have to have the extended. 

Anything else we can do for the archery hunters? Maybe a free pedicure voucher to go along with their tag each year?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I feel sorry for a rifle hunter who needs the benefit of the rut to fill a tag, never mind he can whack a 390" bull from 457 yds away.

Most other states have rifle hunts in mid Oct, and they seem to manage just fine on meeting target harvest rates.

And relax - I'm just as prone to pick up a rifle or smoke pole as I am a stick flipper  The archery hunt needs to start later and end later, increase archery tags, and move back rifle hunts. You will still have less of an impact on elk with a longer archery with more tags than rifle and 100% success in mid Sept.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> So just to be clear-Archery hunters have to go first. And then they have to have the rut. And then they have to have the extended.
> 
> Anything else we can do for the archery hunters? Maybe a free pedicure voucher to go along with their tag each year?


Archery could use a fair share of the tag allocation

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> So just to be clear-Archery hunters have to go first. And then they have to have the rut. And then they have to have the extended.
> 
> Anything else we can do for the archery hunters? Maybe a free pedicure voucher to go along with their tag each year?


Have you ever had a "Peddy" ?? They're nice!!! :-o


----------



## Wasatchwigeons (Aug 27, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> So just to be clear-Archery hunters have to go first. And then they have to have the rut. And then they have to have the extended.
> 
> Anything else we can do for the archery hunters? Maybe a free pedicure voucher to go along with their tag each year?


Rifle hunters don't need the rut to help them fill tags at all. If I could shoot my bow 500 yards I wouldn't complain about giving the rifle hunters 90 percent of the rut


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I will start by saying that I am an archery hunter . . . but I am also a rifle hunter and a muzzleloader hunter. Therefore, please don't lynch me for my comments.

I believe that Utah has majorly screwed up its LE elk season dates. There is absolutely no reason to have the rifle hunt scheduled right in the middle of the rut. It makes me laugh whenever I think of a hunter packing a 300 RUM with a Nightforce scope that calls a rutting bull into 60 yards before dispatching him. In contrast, archery hunters spend most of the archery hunt trying to get within 60 yards of a bull while battling hot weather and limited rutting activity. How is that fair for the archery hunters while success rates on the rifle hunts are consistently above 90%. Look around the west. Utah is the only state that schedules their hunts in this manner. This is yet another instance where Utah has apparently "outsmarted" all other western states.

If I were king, I would schedule the LE elk season dates as follows:

Archery: Approximately August 24-Sept 23
Muzzleloader: Approximately Sept 24-October 5
Rifle Hunts: October 6 - November (scheduled to avoid conflict with deer hunts)

My goal would be to allow archery and muzzleloader hunters to hunt during the rut. These are primitive weapons and they need the benefit of the rut to close the distance. I would move the rifle hunts into October and November and schedule them so as to try to avoid conflict and crowding with deer hunters. This change would also allow us to move more hunter through the system because the success rates on LE rifle hunts would probably drop from 95% to 60-70%. In other words, it would be a real hunt instead of a shoot.

Thanks for listening. Now cue up the comments about the spoiled and whining archery hunters and the fact that the rifle hunt is really an "any legal weapon hunt" and so archery hunts are more than welcome to draw the tag, put on blaze orange, and chase bulls with their bows amidst all of he rifle hunters. Fire away!

Hawkeye


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Anything else we can do for the archery hunters? Maybe a free pedicure voucher to go along with their tag each year?


I'm all for this! You should see the shape my feet are in by the time I'm done with the archery hunt!!

While we are at it, can we also get the following:
A. upland game hunting closure during archery hunt
B. bear hunt closure during archery hunt
B. "scouting" closure during archery hunt
C. Limit the number of "recreationists" allowed during the archery hunt
D. Lower the illuminance of full moons during archery hunt

what'd I miss?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> I'm all for it, as long as they leave Archery deer alone lol


I'm all against it unless they keep the starting dates the same and they leave archery deer alone! I'm sorry, but the whining about the archery hunt needing to start earlier is similar to the DWR needing to give those buffalo hunters an extended chance next year at harvesting.

Personally, I like the early start and I really like it when the weather is hot. Keep things the way they are...it is called hunting for a reason. The idea that an LE tag entitles a hunter to a kill is already way out of hand. I will gladly take that archery tag and hunt in August before the rut starts...!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

The thing about how it is now in LE units is hunting pressure is way super low and because of this you are able to get within shooting distance of a good bull during archery, if you can draw a tag anyway.

Doesn't mean I condone the current system of early hunts; archery, rifle, or muzzy.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

PBH said:


> what'd I miss?


How about the checking and installing of trail cams? The use of all trail cams should be disallowed from one week prior to the archery elk hunt through the end of the archery elk hunt unless a person has an LE archery tag in hand.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

If you have ever had a LE archery elk tag in a unit where there is the spike/cow tags you would find that there is a TON of pressure. It has turned into a total zoo. Everytime an elk made a sound there was a crowd going after it. Even when we would get away from the roads. 
I helped a friend on the Pauguitch unit 5 years ago, and it was a joke.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

2full said:


> If you have ever had a LE archery elk tag in a unit where there is the spike/cow tags you would find that there is a TON of pressure. It has turned into a total zoo. Everytime an elk made a sound there was a crowd going after it. Even when we would get away from the roads.
> I helped a friend on the Pauguitch unit 5 years ago, and it was a joke.


Too **** bad.

I really hate hearing LE tag holders complain about spike hunters. What about us spike hunters that have to worry about that LE guy screwing up our hunt? What about the LE rifle hunter checking his cameras during the archery hunt screwing up my hunt?

I already mentioned in my post some of the myriad of competition archery elk (non LE) hunters contend with. I really do not feel bad not 1 bit if an LE hunter has to deal with some other elk hunters. Poor things.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

It's really funny how many people bash archery hunters.

Why would a rifle during the rut make more sense than a bow? Muzzle Le deer, Le Elk, and GS deer are all the same dates.

Why not have LE rifle during the GS Elk Rifle hunt? It was the RIFLE hunters who got their way, not archery.

Archery has had concessions every season. Hence why there is no statewide. As far as the extended, that benefits true conservation because we in utah need to have 10 kids and move as far up the winter range as possible. Let's keep it in perspective.

W2U - funny comment. Especially "it's called hunting for a reason" - as we talk about the potential of moving a hunt where people are shooting over 1000 yards with the most accurate and furthest shooting weapon hunt, in the middle of a rut. Sounds a lot like hunting. 


The reason I said we shouldn't move the deer - move it 2 weeks and there are no velvet hunts. 



I don't really care - I am an archery hunter and didn't make these proposals. I wish that the rifle hunters on here wouldn't be jackwagons and attack archery hunters about all the concessions. I also didn't want any power scopes on muzzleloaders. We favor "modern" hunting with seasons, tag distribution, etc... Archery has the lowest success rates yet we keep making concessions.


Also, this is nothing like a twice in a lifetime buffalo hunt.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Random, how long do archery hunters get? How long do rifle hunters get? How many rifle elk hunters are there compared to archery elk hunters? Not exactly an even comparison. Again, I love the early archery elk hunt. I believe hot dry weather makes the elk easier to hunt. I also like the fact that the archery deer and archery elk start at the same time; it allows me to multitask and keep the wife a little happier. Again, I say keep it as it is.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm not bashing archery hunters. I'm bashing whiny archery hunters that act like they are not already getting a ton of concessions that others do not get. 

Yes, all things being equal, it's easier to kill an elk with a rifle than a bow. But that was never the question that was asked, so why would that be the answer?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Random, how long do archery hunters get? How long do rifle hunters get? How many rifle elk hunters are there compared to archery elk hunters? Not exactly an even comparison. Again, I love the early archery elk hunt. I believe hot dry weather makes the elk easier to hunt. I also like the fact that the archery deer and archery elk start at the same time; it allows me to multitask and keep the wife a little happier. Again, I say keep it as it is.


 Again, I don't care where they shift the season or don't - I have always cared that the LE is in the middle of the rut for some random reason. Archery do get longer, and 1/3 of the tags and are harder to harvest. I would be fine leaving Archery - moving the LE - and leaving the elk alone for a week to breed!



Vanilla said:


> Yes, all things being equal, it's easier to kill an elk with a rifle than a bow. But that was never the question that was asked, so why would that be the answer?


 The question is, should we shift seasons. I think that component is part of the argument one direction.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Or, they could do away with OTC and increase the number of LE tags by a percentage of the OTC numbers and increase opportunity across the state with some quality along with it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Or, they could do away with OTC and increase the number of LE tags by a percentage of the OTC numbers and increase opportunity across the state with some quality along with it.


How do you increase opportunity by doing away with OTC tags? Sounds more like restricting.

Keep the OTC tags + increase the LE tags. That's opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Any time the idea of moving the rifle hunt out of the rut comes up, the idea that we can suddenly increase opportunity and give a whole bunch more LE tags also comes up. Keep in mind that the harvest percentage for muzzleloader hunters sits around 70% and the harvest rate for any weapon hunters sits at 75%. I have a hard time believing that the 5% difference is solely because of the rut...even if it were, shifting the hunts around would not result in hardly any more tags because other success rates would likely improve.

So, personally, I don't care if rifle hunters get the prime of the rut.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

All this talk if whiney archery hunters but all I read about is whiney rifle hunters. Utah needs a way to increase opportunity the current system will implode from point creep in another 10 years. Every other western state has moved rifle season further from rut so they can issue more tags to less productive methods of harvest. I hope they do than everyone can apply for muzzleloader where they allot 20% of the tags. Tag allocation is the big change we need in this state. I guess moving archery dates will include concessions for crossbow so trigger jerkers can still get in on the action. Utah can add any restrictions that would lower harvest rates after all waiting entitles everyone to a 400" bull

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

I also don't care if they keep the dates the same but let's decrease the rifle tags allocation from 50%

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

weaversamuel76 said:


> I also don't care if they keep the dates the same but let's decrease the rifle tags allocation from 50%


Archery hunters want to go first, plus they want the rut, and don't forget that they want the extended to finish it off, they want unlimited opportunity for elk on the general season, and now they want the majority of the LE tags too? Interesting notion.

I'm going to write my RAC rep and just suggest we outlaw all types of hunting except with archery equipment. I'm sure a small number would still find a reason to complain.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Ahh if that only worked

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I'm going to write my RAC rep and just suggest we outlaw all types of hunting except with archery equipment. I'm sure a small number would still find a reason to complain.


I'll complain.

The dedicated hunter system already brought a bunch of long-range larry type rifle hunters to archery. We have enough morons participating already. We don't need more.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

But long range is easy now right? Ya just turn the knob things.

Skip to 44 sec








-DallanC


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ugh.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lol I know. I've hunted primarily with a muzzleloader since the mid 1980s and todate, taken only 3 or 4 at yardages further than that. More than 90% of things I've killed with the smokepole have been well under 100 yards, usually 50-60 yards, up close and personal.


-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla you forgot Statewide tags.. Screw option 2.


"Moose Kill" hahaha.. His montage's crack me up. The "Rocky" of archery hunting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Vanilla you forgot Statewide tags.. Screw option 2.


I think you're starting to get the point. Well done! 

As primarily a rifle hunter, I'd change the season dates with archery straight up across all species in a second. Deal?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> I think you're starting to get the point. Well done!
> 
> As primarily a rifle hunter, I'd change the season dates with archery straight up across all species in a second. Deal?


That sounds good. Let the rifle hunters start in the middle of August. Then let the archery hunters have a week in the middle of September and a week in October.

That would work for me too.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

It makes me laugh how people pick a weapon and that’s all they care about. 
When rifle guys are angry that bow hunters get more time is just a laughable conversation. 

Yes they should extend the archery hunt to include the rut. And yes they should move the LE rifle to that same season as the GS rifle. 

One question would be 
If they moved the LE elk to he same season as the GS elk. Would it have a impact on the GS areas?

It could reduce the amount of pressure in the GS areas due to every elk hunter would be in thier area at the same time. Would eliminate the group hunting that I have encountered of which the guy with the LE tag is done and comes to (help out) the buddy’s in the GS areas. 

I am not biased one way or another because I do hunt both depending on the year and what my kids want to do.

I would rather see the state focus on the resident hunter. It seams the state caters to the nonresident hunter. With the above average resident tag prices to the below average nonresident prices. The scale needs to start sliding our way. 
Like $35 for a turkey tag. Is a bit extreme.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

PBH said:


> How do you increase opportunity by doing away with OTC tags? Sounds more like restricting.
> 
> Keep the OTC tags + increase the LE tags. That's opportunity.


Increasing quality opportunity. 250 archery LE tags instead of 25 or a 1000 instead of 100. It would be a chance to shoot a branch antlered bull OR cow in any unit you apply and draw instead of wishing you could for 20 yrs while chasing only cows and spikes. Also change the definition of spike to a spike instead of any bull with at least one antler that does not branch above the ears.

UT's herd is way too small to allow unlimited OTC tags statewide and allow for branch antlered harvest in multiple units instead of just 2 or 3 large land, high hunter number units or increased activity in LE units with the OTC. Some people are too "honorable" to shoot a cow or spike so they will not buy an OTC. Those people you don't worry about. But they will do an "honor" killing if a 380 bull is involved, so you'll see an increase in hunter activity along with the 12 to 15 helpers it requires, along with a proper hero photo, to take down one of those behemoths with an increase in LE tags coupled with OTC.

The only advantage UT offers a NR willing to shoot onion heads and martians is saving $200 as opposed to CO. But, in CO, a NR can at least shoot a 4x5 if they choose...


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

High Desert Elk said:


> Some people are too "honorable" to shoot a cow or spike so they will not buy an OTC. Those people you don't worry about.


then, you have no need to worry about me.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I think if you gave LE archery hunters another week (say till September 21), then had the LE muzzy hunt opening around the 24th, then the LE rifle hunt during general hunt, that would be fair...and I'm really not much of an archery hunter anymore. IMO, it's ridiculous to have the most challenging weapon hunt out of the rut and the easiest inside of it.

If you look at point totals, everything is getting bottlenecked because of lower tag numbers that have to be issued for the higher success rifle (and to a large extent) muzzy hunts. How many people would jump to archery if it was given even a one week extension? As it currently sits, it's a crap shoot as to whether you'll see much, if any, of the rut on the archery hunt, so why waste a pile of points on it? Conversely, if you were able to more consistently hunt the rut during the archery hunt, why would you NOT put in?

Another option would be to rotate the hunts. Granted, I believe this would be difficult for many people to adjust to, but if we're looking for fairness in these debates, I don't think it could get any more fair than that. I've gotten to where I hate the whole points game. It is so skewed towards those that got in on the basement floor to the exclusion of those that weren't so lucky. Something tells me Idaho and New Mexico knew something when they decided to buck the trend and stay random draw.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> How many people would jump to archery if it was given even a one week extension?
> ...
> if you were able to more consistently hunt the rut during the archery hunt, why would you NOT put in?


In that case, please leave the season dates as is.

As much fun as hunting during the rut is, I honestly don't feel that I need the rut to be successful hunting elk with my bow. If I really want to hunt during the elk rut, I'll just get my daughter, grab the muzzleloaders and go hunt deer / cow elk during the elk rut, and have some fun.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Which is why in NM app numbers increase every year making it more and more difficult each year to draw. For most, the consistency is getting the chance to hunt every 5 to 6 years, or the same as a decent hunt with 5 to 6 points to draw.

The past time I had a rifle deer tag in the unit 30 min from my house was 2001. The last time I had an archery deer tag in the unit 15 min from my house (in an OK unit) was 2011. In the last 20 years since I finished college and moved back, I've drawn a bull tag 8 times. Upfront (15 - 18 yrs ago) were "OK" units. Lately, the spread is 5 to 6 years. But then there are others who seem to draw every year. So for some, NM is great. For others, it's no different than a point state.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

MWScott72 said:


> If you look at point totals, everything is getting bottlenecked because of lower tag numbers that have to be issued for the higher success rifle (and to a large extent) muzzy hunts. How many people would jump to archery if it was given even a one week extension? As it currently sits, it's a crap shoot as to whether you'll see much, if any, of the rut on the archery hunt, so why waste a pile of points on it? Conversely, if you were able to more consistently hunt the rut during the archery hunt, why would you NOT put in?


If the archery hunt were to be scheduled during the rut, success rates would go up, so tag numbers would have to go down to keep harvest at target rates. Not only that, but more people would apply for archery tags due to the appeal of hunting the rut. Combine more applicants with fewer tags, and what do you get? (I'll give you a hint: it's called point creep).

Resident archery hunters can draw a pretty good tag with 6-8 points, and many units with less. And no, it's not a slam dunk hunt, but it's an opportunity to hunt a branch-antlered bull and maybe even see some rut action. I think that's pretty cool.

Be careful what you wish for. 6 to 8 points could turn into 10+ points in a hurry if the archery hunt were scheduled during the rut. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I want to get out and chase branch-antlered bulls more times in my life, rather than less, even if it means hunting outside of the rut. That's why I apply for November rifle tags instead of September rifle tags. And I only apply for those because I value hunting with family, and my dad isn't interested in archery hunting. Once he stops hunting, I'm planning to switch to archery because of the additional opportunity it affords.

Utah's system isn't perfect, but I do think it gives good options for all types of hunters, whether they're willing to wait a long time for a "quality" hunt (whatever that means) or spend a few points and go hunting, even if the odds aren't in their favor.

I agree with your sentiment on point systems in general. As someone who got into big game hunting about 3 years ago, I hate most point systems I deal with as I apply in various states. They're going to screw me over for years/decades before they ever begin to help me.

I think Utah's preference point system works well for general deer and antlerless tags. The LE system even works fine for units where demand is low enough. But... it's a total joke for OIAL tags and high-demand LE units. Same with Wyoming. I think Nevada's is my favorite - it gives people who have been in the game awhile a significant advantage, but it doesn't reserve tags for people at the very top.

Random draw is still my favorite. What better way to equitably distribute tags?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Here's what I would do to Utah's LE elk hunting structure to increase opportunity without radically changing things:

- Keep the split between archery/muzzleloader/rifle tags as-is
- Keep the archery season dates as-is
- Keep the muzzleloader season dates as-is

- Every unit would have 3 rifle seasons: early, mid, and late; just like they do now on the Wasatch, Manti, and a handful of others
- Of the allocated rifle tags, 20% would go to early season, 40% to midseason, and 40% to late season

That way, people who really want a rut hunt with a rifle can still go for it, but more tags could be issued due to the lower success rates that would occur during the later rifle hunts. And, I think that small percentage of rifle tags during the rut would still attract a significant portion of the applicant pool, leading to better odds for the other hunts.

I tend to agree that rifles aren't needed during the rut, but I also think that if we're going to hunt elk during the rut, we may as well allow the average Joe hunter to have that opportunity without having to learn a new weapon. This approach would allow for that, but also create opportunity for more rifle hunters to go on harder hunts.

And yes, I know that approach reflects my biases, and would make a lot of people unhappy. It's not perfect. But the only way to create a perfect system would be to eradicate the point system and go straight random-draw, and I don't think I'll see that happen...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

For my 2 cents worth to help out point creep and get more hunters through the system. 

Lets up the waiting periods between being able to apply and draw a tag. 

Lets move LE elk up to 10 years and LE deer and antelope up to 5


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

The reason I play the UT point and draw game as a NR is because I have better chances than I do as a R in my home state.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> The reason I play the UT point and draw game as a NR is because I have better chances than I do as a R in my home state.


And that is a sad day where ever you happen to live when that is the case.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The easiest way to stop point creep is to cap points at a certain number. Say 25. Then there would be no point creep to 26 and people who start out now can reach the top level in 25 years. 25 years.......

..


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Packout said:


> The easiest way to stop point creep is to cap points at a certain number. Say 25. Then there would be no point creep to 26 and people who start out now can reach the top level in 25 years. 25 years.......
> 
> ..


I'd support that. Do you know if it has ever been proposed or brought up to the wildlife board or DWR?



Critter said:


> For my 2 cents worth to help out point creep and get more hunters through the system.
> 
> Lets up the waiting periods between being able to apply and draw a tag.
> 
> Lets move LE elk up to 10 years and LE deer and antelope up to 5


That would work to some extent, but it would only have limited effectiveness because hunters on waiting period for one species simply apply for another. For example, my dad drew LE elk in 2013. Then, he started applying for antelope and drew in 2016. Now that he's on waiting period for both elk and antelope, he's helping to clog up the deer point pool (apologies to everyone applying for deer; he would much rather stay in the antelope pool, but he can't). Even with those waiting periods, I think most hunters would always be applying for one of the three.

Better yet would be a universal waiting period where someone couldn't apply for any LE tag for a certain number of years after drawing one. I can't imagine that would be popular at the RACs, though. Lots of folks like their waiting-period antelope tags.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

None of these proposals will solve anything, its just shifting the effect and ignoring the cause.

The root problem is too many hunters, not enough game, period. Additional generations of new hunters only compound the issue.

Majority groups shift things in their favor, until other groups get enough mass to shift it back in their favor. People propose the stupidest Shxx for ideas, not seeing the bigger picture and realizing how it saddles us down the road making things much worse.

Capping the points at 25 merely means after a 25 year wait you are in a pool with many thousands of people trying to draw the few tags set aside. Probably better odds for everyone to just do away with points entirely.

I'd rather get rid of the points, get rid of the draw. Let the DWR issue tags at a "dutch auction". People bid whatever they want to pay for a tag. DWR sorts the bids in descending order then hands out tags to the top xxx applicants. If a deer is only worth $80 to you then put in your $80. If its worth $800 (80 x 10 years... about the length to draw bookcliffs) put in $800. Alot of people will drop out, but who cares, they are dropping out now. We used to have 280,000 deer hunters now we are a third of that. The DWR would certainly make more money, and be able to use it to enhance range lands, grow more animals, hire more enforcement offers... all of which would grow herds, and more herds = more price dilution = lower costs. It would equalize to an extent.

Maybe the DWR needs to approach big game hunting like fishing, or some upland game hunts. Raise and plant big game critters before the hunts like the chuckers and pheasants <lol>

I honestly think hunting is on its way out, you can see it in the decreased hunting permits sales country wide. 100 years from now hunting will be extremely limited to very private groups, much like Europe is now.

-DallanC


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

DallanC said:


> Capping the points at 25 merely means after a 25 year wait you are in a pool with many thousands of people trying to draw the few tags set aside.


Yup. But I know I'd much rather be sitting at the top of the desert bighorn pool in 23 more years with a bunch of other hunters than never get to the top.



DallanC said:


> Probably better odds for everyone to just do away with points entirely.


Agree 100%, but I figure it would be much more politically palatable to cap points above a level anyone has than it would be to take points away.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Privatizing a public resource. Interesting concept...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Lets just make all LE animals a once in a lifetime hunt.

Even if it is almost that way now it would help.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Clarq said:


> Yup. But I know I'd much rather be sitting at the top of the desert bighorn pool in 23 more years with a bunch of other hunters than never get to the top.


But you are in a pool that mimics this. Half the tags are in a general pool... and you are in that. Hows that working out?

People with a bunch of points will want it capped higher (ie: 25), people with no points will want it capped much lower. How do we choose what is "fair"? There way more people with less than 10 points than those that have more than 20, so the majority might choose to cap it at 10, giving them better odds and screwing over those with many more points.

/shrug too many people, not enough game / tags.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> I'd rather get rid of the points, get rid of the draw. Let the DWR issue tags at a "dutch auction". People bid whatever they want to pay for a tag. DWR sorts the bids in descending order then hands out tags to the top xxx applicants. If a deer is only worth $80 to you then put in your $80. If its worth $800 (80 x 10 years... about the length to draw bookcliffs) put in $800. Alot of people will drop out, but who cares, they are dropping out now. We used to have 280,000 deer hunters now we are a third of that. The DWR would certainly make more money, and be able to use it to enhance range lands, grow more animals, hire more enforcement offers... all of which would grow herds, and more herds = more price dilution = lower costs. It would equalize to an extent.
> 
> -DallanC


So I know this thread went from whiny archery hunters complaining about their multiple months of opportunity to a philosophical discussion on point creep, so I'm trying to keep up here. And maybe this was in jest, I don't know, but this idea above scares the living crap out of me. There are forces with very large voices in this state that want this exact thing. What a sad state of affairs that would be.

And just to bring it full circle, those talking about "making things fair" and how archery is getting shorted, I noticed that not a single bow hunter wants to switch the seasons straight up with rifle hunts across the board. I guess things aren't as bad for archery hunters as some make it out to sound...


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Let's take the NM bighorn I put in for this year as it closely resembles this discussion. One tag and 2,000 applicants. 10 points would help, but zero is possible.

Can still draw the very first time you apply, or maybe never. With max points, the never diminishes significantly. But, there is no point system in NM...


----------



## jsc (Nov 13, 2007)

I'd rather get rid of the points, get rid of the draw. Let the DWR issue tags at a "dutch auction". People bid whatever they want to pay for a tag. DWR sorts the bids in descending order then hands out tags to the top xxx applicants. If a deer is only worth $80 to you then put in your $80. If its worth $800 (80 x 10 years... about the length to draw bookcliffs) put in $800. Alot of people will drop out, but who cares, they are dropping out now. We used to have 280,000 deer hunters now we are a third of that. The DWR would certainly make more money, and be able to use it to enhance range lands, grow more animals, hire more enforcement offers... all of which would grow herds, and more herds = more price dilution = lower costs. It would equalize to an extent.

-DallanC[/QUOTE]

This is the last thing we need to do with a public resource. We already have enough public permits that are auctioned used to generate money only available to those with the deepest pockets. We also know that transparency of dollars hitting the ground for habitat improvement and the animals verses admin costs and personal gain have been in question for years. We also have the CWMU program that is available for those with money. We all have our personal interest in mind, and truth is what ever solutions or changes to the draw and distribution of permits to the public will help some and hurt some people trying to get a chance to hunt.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well of course there is too much demand and not enough supply. But that isn't going to change anytime soon. So there should be a mechanism for everyone to get to the same level. 
-No points? That won't happen. 
-Keeping points, but making them just be another chance with no 50% for the high holders. That has an outside chance of happening.
-Keeping points and making 75% go to top point holders. That may happen.
-Capping points and keeping the 50-50 split has more chance than anything else of occurring. It protects those who have applied the longest and it allows everyone to someday get on equal footing. There has to be a way for people to someday get to the top level, without having to outlive all other applicants......

..


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

DallanC said:


> But you are in a pool that mimics this. Half the tags are in a general pool... and you are in that. Hows that working out?


It's working out fine. I get a chance to draw every year, and my chance to draw gets a little better each year. I'm generally ok with the way it's set up, although if I had it my way, we'd do it like Nevada does and square points.

My main complaint is how the other half of the draw works. The other half of tags are reserved for an exclusive group I'll never join, and never will be able to join (at least in the case of desert bighorn). That's the beauty of the idea of a point cap - it allows me to join that group if I put in the time. And once I got there, it would be a random draw scenario, just like I've always wanted.



DallanC said:


> People with a bunch of points will want it capped higher (ie: 25), people with no points will want it capped much lower. How do we choose what is "fair"? There way more people with less than 10 points than those that have more than 20, so the majority might choose to cap it at 10, giving them better odds and screwing over those with many more points.


IMO the best we can do is cap it at a level higher than anyone has at the moment. I think 25 is max right now, so I'd be fine with 26. I'd even be fine with 30. It would give people near the top a few years to decide how to proceed before their point pool starts growing.

And like I said before, the best solution would be to do away with points entirely, but I just don't see that happening.



DallanC said:


> /shrug too many people, not enough game / tags.
> 
> -DallanC


I'm not complaining about my lousy draw odds. If our desert bighorn herds can only support one tag for every 136 applicants, I'll accept that. But when those precious few tags are issued, I believe they ought to be equitably distributed.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

You're welcome. Below is the solution to the point creep dilemma. 

- Immediate ban on all public land grazing
- Require all domestic sheep, goats, and camelids to be tested for M. ovi bacteria, destroy any animals that test positive, require double-layer fencing for all privately owned domestics within 25 miles of bighorn sheep habitat
- Repeal the Wild Horse and Burro Act, declare them an invasive feral species, and begin aggressive eradication efforts
- Allocate all of the AUMs on public lands previously used for domestics to the various wildlife management objectives. Conservatively this would allow for astronomical increases for bison and bighorn populations, as well as allow for us to double or even triple the elk herd, if not more.
- begin aggressive reintroductions for bison by eliminating the Antelope Island annual auction and using those ~300 animals/yr as the transplant stock; continue as much as possible with establishing new sheep populations
- figure out what we can send WY in exchange for ~10k pronghorn and strengthen/establish herds in under utilized habitat throughout the state (I seriously don't understand why UT doesn't have more antelope)
- double tag prices across the board, but only on the condition that the additional revenues must be used for water/habitat projects and to pay for transplants
- manage OIAL and LE hunts for no more than 50% success through tag increases/pressure, weapon restrictions, etc

That will all allow UDWR to increase tag numbers dramatically. Within 15 yrs bison could easily be a LE tag and not an OIAL tag. 

But of course there's gonna be haters....:mrgreen:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> And maybe this was in jest, I don't know, but this idea above scares the living crap out of me. There are forces with very large voices in this state that want this exact thing. What a sad state of affairs that would be.


+1

As for the draw system, I may be a minority, but I believe our current system is as good as can be hoped for. Any way you "change" the system will screw some group of applicants and the arguments that I read every time we have a thread about this do not convince me that the "new" ways will be better.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> You're welcome. Below is the solution to the point creep dilemma.
> 
> - Immediate ban on all public land grazing
> - Require all domestic sheep, goats, and camelids to be tested for M. ovi bacteria, destroy any animals that test positive, require double-layer fencing for all privately owned domestics within 25 miles of bighorn sheep habitat
> ...


Heck yeah. One wouldn't anticipate that much pushback, you think?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> So I know this thread went from whiny archery hunters complaining about their multiple months of opportunity to a philosophical discussion on point creep, so I'm trying to keep up here. And maybe this was in jest, I don't know, but this idea above scares the living crap out of me. There are forces with very large voices in this state that want this exact thing. What a sad state of affairs that would be.
> 
> And just to bring it full circle, those talking about "making things fair" and how archery is getting shorted, I noticed that not a single bow hunter wants to switch the seasons straight up with rifle hunts across the board. I guess things aren't as bad for archery hunters as some make it out to sound...


Whining is a matter of perspective...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Catherder said:


> Heck yeah. One wouldn't anticipate that much pushback, you think?


Nope, not much at all. Except maybe from the dirty hippies and communists.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

When it comes down to it the DOW loves point creep. It keep people putting in for a draw that they will likely never draw and the more that put in for those draws the more money they make.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> Nope, not much at all. Except maybe from the dirty hippies and communists.


Along with right wing, gubmint hating rural ranchers. But since they despise all the smelly hippies, leftists, and animal rights fanatics, and the feeling is mutual on the left, they couldn't form a cohesive opposition. It just might work.

Mr. Cakes is on to something!:shock:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Catherder said:


> Along with right wing, gubmint hating rural ranchers. But since they despise all the smelly hippies, leftists, and animal rights fanatics, and the feeling is mutual on the left, they couldn't form a cohesive opposition. It just might work.
> 
> Mr. Cakes is on to something!:shock:


Hmm, you mean those ranchers that are fighting tooth and nail to protect their ability to graze on public lands that costs taxpayers $3 spent by the gubmint to generate $1 in return on fees, and allows those ranchers to graze their animals on public lands at rates between 1/10 and 1/80 the market rate for private land grazing? Sound like commies to me. 8)O*--


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Here is an idea for all you whiney Beoches. Keep the archery hunt where it is. Dont extend it. Keep the muxxy hunt where it is. Not earlier or later. And then move the rifle hunt to Mid November-December? Nobody hunts the rut. 

That way the **** rifle hunters wont be in there bugling from every ridge and corner educating the elk. I have had 2 LE elk tags and I wanted to kill the rifle hunters who show up 1 week early and bugle like crazy, shoot guns and sight in guns the last 3 days. Think its crazy, but it has happened to me, a couple of times on each hunt.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

robiland said:


> That way the **** rifle hunters wont be in there bugling from every ridge and corner educating the elk. I have had 2 LE elk tags and I wanted to kill the rifle hunters who show up 1 week early and bugle like crazy, shoot guns and sight in guns the last 3 days. Think its crazy, but it has happened to me, a couple of times on each hunt.


Welcome to hunting in Utah no matter what the season is or when.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Critter said:


> Welcome to hunting in Utah no matter what the season is or when.


Or how many tags they cut.

.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

What the h*** happened to my thread?

Are we bringing back statewide and extended archery dates or not?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

JK.. Really If I could change anything:

-LE elk to same time as GS Elk
-Switch GS Muzzy deer and GS Muzzy Elk
-Same for the LE Muzzy deer - move to Nov^


I am a "whiny" archery hunter and wouldn't change anything. Except let old people use crossbows for a limited season duration.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I still believe that if we want a fair system, straight draw is the only way to go (unless we rotate seasons...again, very difficult to institute and manage). If you have horrible luck, that's a bummer, but you still have the same odds of drawing as the next guy going in to the draws.

What are the odds that a person just getting into the points game now is ever going to realistically pull a high value tag? Slim to abysmally non-existent. This does nothing to bring new hunters into the fold. Some may think we have too many hunters in the field these days. I believe it is exactly the opposite. Dwindling overall hunter numbers are directly proportional to the eventual loss of our hunting privileges. And make no mistake, hunting, as much as we would like it to be, is not a right - it is a privilege that we are allowed by the majority of voters in this country. If our numbers continue on their downward trajectory, hunting as we know it will not exist in 50 years.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

No easy answers. It sucks to be on the unlucky end of the stick in a complete lottery draw system. Trust me.

What's worse is when your kids can't draw the same hunts your neighbors kids do...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I used to think Utah's 50/50 system was about perfect all things considered. But watching point creep continue to worsen and realizing that by the time my kids can start applying they will be +/- 35 years too late turned me away from loving it. I would support point caps, but really I prefer a straight draw. 

Admittedly, in Alaska and it's straight draw I've managed to pull a draw tag each year (30% odds last year for my caribou tag, 4% for this year's goat). Finally getting to be "lucky" when I never was that in Utah's system might have skewed my opinion a bit!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

In order to go to a straight draw and to have it seem more "fair" would require an increase in available tags. That would then require moving hunt dates for certain weapons to prevent an outright "slaughter" that would ensue. Also, you can count on quality to go down.

Permits are minimal today because of the increased kill rate potential due to season dates. There is no reason at all to not have 100% success rate on a Sept rut hunt with a rifle, from a herd management perspective...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Permits are minimal today because of the increased kill rate potential due to season dates. There is no reason at all to not have 100% success rate on a Sept rut hunt with a rifle, from a herd management perspective...


I hate to tell ya....but, having the rifle hunt in the rut only changes the success rates a tiny bit if at all. Again, compare rifle hunt success rates between the early and late hunts--they are very similar. Also, if you compare the success rates of muzzy hunters to rifle hunters you will find that Utah muzzy hunters are successful between about 70-75% of the time depending on year...by way of comparison rifle hunters are successful between about 75-85% of the time. Do you honestly think that minimal difference is simply due to the rut?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

So here's a question to answer yours: are the rifle hunters during the rut willing to shoot any legal bull, or nothing but 360 or better? With a rut hunt they can be more selective. With a mid Oct or Nov hunt they can't.

I have a hard time believing that a rifle rut hunter comes home and says "we just didn't see any elk, not even a cow"...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Selective or not, the harvest rates or success rates aren't going to change much or at all. And, if they aren't going change, tag numbers can't be increased if season dates change.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I was blown away on my Muzzleloader hunt how many bulls were busted up from that prior peak week of the rut. Easily more than half of all the 6pt bulls had a busted off side. Most of the biggest bulls we had seen prior to the hunt were broken off. Part of the reason people want to hunt them earlier is so they have a better chance at a complete, antlered bull.


-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Agreed, not for Sept hunt dates as it currently is anyway. Anytime the competition is high between bulls you get broke antlers amd tines. When they are more spread out, not broke up so much.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

johnnycake said:


> I used to think Utah's 50/50 system was about perfect all things considered. But watching point creep continue to worsen and realizing that by the time my kids can start applying they will be +/- 35 years too late turned me away from loving it. I would support point caps, but really I prefer a straight draw.
> 
> Admittedly, in Alaska and it's straight draw I've managed to pull a draw tag each year (30% odds last year for my caribou tag, 4% for this year's goat). Finally getting to be "lucky" when I never was that in Utah's system might have skewed my opinion a bit!


Wait a minute, didn't you draw a buff tag while in UT, or am I thinking of someone else?

Man, you are a lucky man! I would love to hunt caribou one of these days. Years ago, I thought they were a goofy looking animal, but the older I get, the more i am intrigued by them. That's even a hunt I could get my wife to participate in. She lived in Finland for a couple years and was fascinated by the reindeer.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

High Desert Elk said:


> In order to go to a straight draw and to have it seem more "fair" would require an increase in available tags. That would then require moving hunt dates for certain weapons to prevent an outright "slaughter" that would ensue. Also, you can count on quality to go down.


I really don't see how going to a straight draw would require an increase in tags to seem more "fair." I don't see how the perception changes truthfully. Currently there are X number of applicants and Y number of tags. If it were magically a straight draw there would still be X number of applicants and Y tags. For many tags, yes that would hurt the odds of the max pool for sure. But there are several where even max points doesn't "guarantee" the applicant a tag.

For many tags being just 1 yr off max points drops your odds down to a few % points or in some cases less than 1% even. How much better does the average guy feel about having a .6% chance versus a .01%? Both are so remote as to not make an effective difference. Lots of hunters don't understand how Utah's system works, evidenced by how many posts/threads each and every year crop up on this site asking how it works. So many people are confused and don't even know about point creep, and think "well my neighbor drew that Henry's deer tag with 12 points last year and I have 10 so I should get it in the next couple years". I can't even tell you how many times I've tried to explain why that isn't the case to people.

With as large as the gap is between # of applicants and # of tags, I just can't continue to believe a 50/50 split is the best way to deal with it. I do also think there are too many elk units managed to have older bulls and that opportunity to hunt branch antler bulls could be increased a few ways.

One that I think would be "good" but controversial for sure would be to set age objectives on some units at 4 yrs old where people could have basically a branch antler bull hunt with better access/public land than the current GS any bull areas. I would be happy to have a hunt like that if it took just 3-4 points to draw a tag, even if it still had the 5 yr waiting period.

Another would be to break up the Wasatch and Manti units and great some GS any bull areas in some of the areas. And as much as I get where Vanilla is coming from with archery hunters getting a number of additional considerations, ultimately they have lower success rates which means more tags can be issued, which in turn increases opportunity without needing to increase herd size. I would be supportive of creating GS any bull archery only units that run Oct 1 to mid November on large chunks of the Manti and Wasatch. Yep, there would be times those archery hunters would have to wear orange due to rifle deer/cow elk hunts, and nope they wouldn't get the rut...but I think it would still be a great hunt that would scratch the itch to get after big bulls for a lot of folks--which I think would lead to less disgruntlement with the LE system.

And then of course there is the increase tags with the intent of decreasing the success ratios below 50% for all seasons. With enough pressure even rifle hunters in the rut wouldn't be as successful, and I'm ok with that. Hunter satisfaction would dip most likely, but honestly, how often on just this thread were there complaints about crowding on LE hunts?! It just isn't possible to have the whole mountain to yourself on an LE tag, buck up buttercup.

And then there's the keep the seasons the same but set tag allocations heavily skewed to archery. Like 10% total for any weapon seasons, 10% muzzy, 80% archery. Will that piss a bunch of people off? yep. But after realizing that they can draw X tag as an archery hunt with only 5-6 points but it would take 50 yrs to get the rifle hunt in the rut, how many guys will suddenly find the budget to get a bow? I bet quite a few. Which would in turn actually help improve the odds for the any weapon/muzzy tags as people switch over. And while I have a bow, I haven't even fired it in years and am hardly what you could call a bow hunter.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Oh boy...here we go!



MWScott72 said:


> I still believe that if we want a fair system, straight draw is the only way to go .


Fair? What the heck is does that even mean? And fair to which hunters? Because I assure you the guys that have been putting in for 25 years under a system they were told would allow them to get to the top of a point pool and draw a tag will not consider it fair to eliminate their points and go to a straight draw. Going to a straight draw system is only "fair" to those that benefit from it, certainly not those that have played the game in the current system. I have a high number of points in the elk pool, but that is it. Once I draw that tag in the hopefully not too distant future, I'm right back with all the "kids" everyone is so concerned about, at the bottom of every other pool. I would not turn around and then say the system isn't "fair" to me, and we need to eliminate points of those that have played the game to collect them. My kids will not get the same opportunities that I had to some extent, and that sucks. But I didn't get the same opportunities that my dad got either. Is that "fair?"



High Desert Elk said:


> There is no reason at all to not have 100% success rate on a Sept rut hunt with a rifle, from a herd management perspective...


The September early rifle elk hunt is not a 100% success rate. I've heard 90% and now 100% in this very thread, neither are true. Sure, there are some specific units that have or approach those numbers, but those units issue very few tags and they certainly are not representative of the entire state. And just as W2U says, compare those to the late hunts. If the theory was correct that the rut is too easy with a rifle and the hunts need to be in October and November held water, you'd have statistically significantly different harvest rates on the early and late hunts. There are mulitple units where the late hunt has a higher harvest rate than the early hunt.



DallanC said:


> I was blown away on my Muzzleloader hunt how many bulls were busted up from that prior peak week of the rut. Easily more than half of all the 6pt bulls had a busted off side. Most of the biggest bulls we had seen prior to the hunt were broken off.


That's interesting you saw so many. I know they get busted up some, but I helped my two brothers back to back years a handful of years ago on the Wasatch muzzy hunts. I don't recall seeing any broken bulls, and we looked at a lot of them. And I certainly see a TON of big bull sheds being posted by people that are not broken at all, although you do see some that are busted to some extent.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

MWScott72 said:


> Wait a minute, didn't you draw a buff tag while in UT, or am I thinking of someone else?
> 
> Man, you are a lucky man! I would love to hunt caribou one of these days. Years ago, I thought they were a goofy looking animal, but the older I get, the more i am intrigued by them. That's even a hunt I could get my wife to participate in. She lived in Finland for a couple years and was fascinated by the reindeer.


I did get a cow bison tag in 2012. I looked at the odds for the any bison hunts, and saw if I switched to the Henry's cow I had a 66.67% chance of drawing it in the May 2012 draw. I had 10 points and did not draw (which my lucky brother thought was hilarious, kid draws anything and everything I swear). But I got called in November when the DWR created the late season hunt and made an increase of an additional 40 bison permits split between the early and the then new late season. Had they created all of the permits that April in the regular draw I would have had 3 more bonus points than necessary to be in the max pool based on applicant numbers that year (combining the tags for both cow seasons and looking at that compared to the applicants that applied for what was in January 2012 the only cow hunt). In some ways yeah there was luck, but when you look at the numbers it was because I had the points. My LE elk tag in 2016 was a bonus pool tag too that when I applied based on the year before I had a 3 yr cushion above "max". Then they raised the age objective of the unit and reduced the tag numbers on the unit by more than 1/2. I ended up being in the last pool bracket of bonus tags; 1 fewer point and I would have not been guaranteed. 15 years of applying for that one, but if somebody has even 7 points today they won't be "guaranteed" that tag for another +30 yrs.

Heck, as a youth it took me my third try to draw a frickin' SE gs deer tag! I also had the distinguished honor of being the first person my family ever heard of to NOT draw a WY doe antelope tag when I turned 12. Before that everybody we knew for +15 yrs had always drawn their doe tags, the application was just a formality. Cow elk tags that had been every year slam dunks when I was finally eligible to apply suddenly required 1-2 points....story of my life! Lucky me!

Frustration with being unlucky in the draw is a big part of why I always wanted to move to Alaska, but would have settled for Texas if need be. The amount of over the counter hunting opportunities in both states was mind blowing to me as a kid, and still is as an adult! Now, getting access is a different story than Utah, and is similarly challenging albeit for different reasons in both AK and TX. But man, I love knowing that even had I not drawn a 4% odds mountain goat tag for this fall I could still grab a tag (or even two in some places) for a number of registration hunts this fall and could hunt goats if I wanted to get the logistics in order. Didn't draw a moose, black/grizzly bear, sheep, or caribou tag....but I can still hunt all of them with lots of areas to choose from! I don't need luck anymore, so I guess that is why I started getting lucky in the draw up here? Figures.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> I hate to tell ya....but, having the rifle hunt in the rut only changes the success rates a tiny bit if at all. Again, compare rifle hunt success rates between the early and late hunts--they are very similar. Also, if you compare the success rates of muzzy hunters to rifle hunters you will find that Utah muzzy hunters are successful between about 70-75% of the time depending on year...by way of comparison rifle hunters are successful between about 75-85% of the time. Do you honestly think that minimal difference is simply due to the rut?


This isn't accurate. Especially hunt-for-hunt. It's an 8% difference if I average averages, but when you look at total tags issued v total harvest its an even larger gap. I haven't done that for a few years but it should average the same.

Very few late/early hunts have a 5% difference. Hunts like Beaver (13%), La Sal (13%), Monroe (22%), Pauns (20%) are really common. The San Juan which is the bees nees is a 22% difference. Interesting that the Monroe and San Juan are two of the hardest to draw and have that much of a difference in success.

There are also about 40-45% less tags on late. More tags, better success, more elk killed. We can't downplay that the 3rd week of september with a rifle is the best conditions you could ever ask for in an free range elk hunt.

Muzzleloader hunts drop off on average 20% on the success. For the sake of looking at a hunt with a lot of tags, the Wasatch has the most muzzy and success drops 18%. Book cliffs south is one of the best rifle hunts (and muzzy imo) and drops 11%. That is one of the closest in terms of success. Data is skewed when you pull in these 5 tag hunts and use their average.

That said, hunting elk with a rifle in November isn't the worst thing if weather is right. Patterns start forming for winter, cover is more limited, etc...

From my experience on LE units (owning property in one) - I see a lot larger bulls during the rut and it's not hard to call them in. They are in lower, easier access areas as well. October, things get tricky. Then come november they are pushed back down and grouped up. The late and early season dates are about as perfect as you can set it up for successful harvest honestly.

If we don't hunt them at this time, what are the benefits of letting them rut in peace?

Those of you with Colorado knowledge, what is your take on Antler restricted (4+ points)areas and the benefit or cons of them?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> This isn't accurate. Especially hunt-for-hunt. It's an 8% difference if I average averages, but when you look at total tags issued v total harvest its an even larger gap. I haven't done that for a few years but it should average the same.
> 
> Very few late/early hunts have a 5% difference. Hunts like Beaver (13%), La Sal (13%), Monroe (22%), Pauns (20%) are really common. The San Juan which is the bees nees is a 22% difference. Interesting that the Monroe and San Juan are two of the hardest to draw and have that much of a difference in success.
> 
> ...


I am sorry, but none of the numbers I am looking at coincide with any of the ones you just posted. For example, 2017 hunt results show that hunters on Monroe were 100% successful on both the early and late rifle hunts. Hunters on the Pauns were about 18% more successful on the late hunt compared to the early hunt...among others.

Also, the only numbers I can find that break down overall stats comparing the rifle to archery to muzzy go back to 2015. I am not going to go back and do all the math for the other years, but in 2015 alone the difference between rifle and muzzy was a whopping 5%--76% to 71%. The difference between rifle and muzzy in 2014 was 17%--81 to 64. I can't find any that are 20% (it was an 11% difference in 2013).

So, again, I am sorry but the 5-17% between rifle and muzzy can't all be attributed to the rut.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Random,

Go look at 2017. Your numbers don't reflect the harvest rates the DWR published, and it's not even particularly close.

By my quick, non-scientific review of the harvest data, there were 7 of the 23 total units where the harvest rate on the late hunt were actually better than the early, with 3 more being the exact same--100% harvest rate on both. So 10 of the 23 units were either the same or better odds for the late hunt last year.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2017/2017_le_oial_hr.pdf

One of the biggest complaints people had when the late hunt came back to the Wasatch several years ago was that it was going to cause a slaughter because it was too easy to pick them off. I guess we should just end rifle hunting all together.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Fair? What the heck is does that even mean? And fair to which hunters? Because I assure you the guys that have been putting in for 25 years under a system they were told would allow them to get to the top of a point pool and draw a tag will not consider it fair to eliminate their points and go to a straight draw. Going to a straight draw system is only "fair" to those that benefit from it, certainly not those that have played the game in the current system. I have a high number of points in the elk pool, but that is it. Once I draw that tag in the hopefully not too distant future, I'm right back with all the "kids" everyone is so concerned about, at the bottom of every other pool. I would not turn around and then say the system isn't "fair" to me, and we need to eliminate points of those that have played the game to collect them. My kids will not get the same opportunities that I had to some extent, and that sucks. But I didn't get the same opportunities that my dad got either. Is that "fair?"


Spoken like someone with 20+ LE elk points. 

There's a reason I used the term "equitable" instead of fair (and yeah, I know you didn't respond to me, but...). Is the current system fair to you? I'm sure you could argue that it is, and I probably wouldn't disagree. After all, you've played the game according to the terms presented to you, including waiting a decade longer than you needed to if the goal was simply to hunt elk.

Are tags distributed equitably according to the current system? I don't believe they are. You'll get your shot at hunting the San Juan (or whatever the top unit is in 15 more years ) someday because you're standing on the backs of 20 years of people who will (for the most part) never get a similar opportunity, even if they apply their whole lives.

Does that make you the bad guy? No way! It just means the system sucks. IMO, of course...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Ok, so sounds like we just need to ensure Vanilla get's his tag in a couple months and then he'll jump on the bandwagon with us. Seems reasonable enough. 

Anybody here good at writing code . . . ?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Here's one more idea at tackling the point creep problem. I'm interested to know what you guys would think about this:

Stop awarding preference/bonus points, and freeze everyone at the level of points they have. When you draw, you're back to 0 and you stay at 0. Then conduct business as usual. Half of tags go to high point holders, and half are distributed randomly according to the bonus point system. Give it enough time, and we'd clear all the high point holders out and then return to a random draw scenario.

The advantage to this approach is that it respects the investment of those who have been playing the point game. High point holders would have every advantage they have now, and would still be free to wait for their tag of choice while the top clears out. Meanwhile, there are fewer and fewer points in the draws each year, giving better odds to those on the lower end.

The obvious argument I see to this approach is, "what about the kids, or new applicants? Aren't they disadvantaged being stuck at 0 points while everyone above them has points?

My answer to that would be: yes, they are. But they're also disadvantaged in the current system. I haven't run any numbers yet, but I think there is a possibility that freezing points might make them similarly (or less) disadvantaged than they are now. If I could mathematically demonstrate that, would anyone have a problem with that approach?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Clarq said:


> Here's one more idea at tackling the point creep problem. I'm interested to know what you guys would think about this:
> 
> Stop awarding preference/bonus points, and freeze everyone at the level of points they have. When you draw, you're back to 0 and you stay at 0. Then conduct business as usual. Half of tags go to high point holders, and half are distributed randomly according to the bonus point system. Give it enough time, and we'd clear all the high point holders out and then return to a random draw scenario.
> 
> ...


That is an interesting variation, but ultimately doesn't that translate to "the same" thing as the status quo at least for the next +80 yrs? Sure, point creep won't continue to grow on paper, but the realistic effects of point creep would continue for the next ~80 yrs until everybody with points is dead. It would still take the same +400 yrs to clear out the backlog on moose points. It would still take "as many years" at 50% to clear out each point group as if they were still accumulating. But that might be the kind of fix people would be able to get behind.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> The September early rifle elk hunt is not a 100% success rate.


Never said it was 100%. Said there was no reason for it not to be. Bulls sounding off in mid Sept and the ability to shoot across a canyon? Really...?



johnnycake said:


> I really don't see how going to a straight draw would require an increase in tags to seem more "fair."


So, the max point holders and on down to one have the advantage over a guy with zero (straight draw status). In order to balance it out for a comparative advantage for an across-the-board-straight-draw-no-points an, increase in permit numbers would be needed, and trust me, the point holders would think it unfair to have their points taken away without the chance to use them.

Otherwise, do as suggested and freeze the points already earned and whittle the point holders down to nothing to get rid of them to set the playing field to zero all the while, the guy that starts with zero at this point has a way less chance to none every year for years (maybe decades) once you start doing this, so essentially, only point holders can apply. Every year a zero point guy draws, it prolongs clearing out the point holder guys.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I understand this concept may be difficult to get hands wrapped around it, but coming from a state with no point system and an "open season" draw every year - there ain't many other alternatives to convert.

The other problem is the trophy status UT prides itself in statewide. Why else is it nearly "impossible" to draw a SJ bull tag? We have had a few Blue Mtn. bulls come into our taxidermy shop that touch, and exceed, the 400 mark. They're big. Until that changes, it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a point system - it will be tough to draw no matter what...


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

johnnycake said:


> That is an interesting variation, but ultimately doesn't that translate to "the same" thing as the status quo at least for the next +80 yrs? Sure, point creep won't continue to grow on paper, but the realistic effects of point creep would continue for the next ~80 yrs until everybody with points is dead. It would still take the same +400 yrs to clear out the backlog on moose points. It would still take "as many years" at 50% to clear out each point group as if they were still accumulating. But that might be the kind of fix people would be able to get behind.


It doesn't take the problem away very quickly, but at least it halts its perpetuation. It's the best way I can think of to handle it without violating the expectation that the high point holders have been given. And given enough time, it's back to a random draw.

I do think it would be functionally similar to the current system in the case of OIAL tags, at least until enough people start dying. I believe it has potential for LE, though. Some of the lower demand units (like Paunsaugunt or Cache Meadowville elk) could clear all point holders (who are willing to spend points on a unit like that) out and effectively become random draw units in just a few years. The high-demand units would still take awhile, but progress would come eventually.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Ok, so sounds like we just need to ensure Vanilla get's his tag in a couple months and then he'll jump on the bandwagon with us. Seems reasonable enough.
> 
> Anybody here good at writing code . . . ?


Let's make this happen and we can talk. Get er done cake!

But in reality, as I said before, once that glorious day comes I am right back at the bottom. I still won't say we should just scrap it all and go to a no-point system, even if it would benefit me personally. Clarq's last proposal is a interesting one. I might actually be able to be convinced of that proposal. It's the best alternative I've heard yet to leaving it as is. I'll have to ponder on that one for a bit.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

No question every year more and more people realize the Utah draw is a pyramid scheme stealing from those with few points to give to those with more.
If you have ten points right now you will NEVER be in a top tier max point pool EVER to many people above you not to mention the number in the pool with you. Eventually the loss of hope in the system with decrease license sales enough that change will come. Not even sfw lobby money can't make up for lost federal dollars of the Pittman Robertson match money if the state doesn't sell hunting licenses. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

The bonus point problem that we are discussing here was substantially worsened by Utah's decision to allow hunter mentoring and then to expand the mentoring program to non-family members. Now folks will continue to buy points even after they are physically unable to hunt or lose interest in hunting. Hordes of folks have also started buying points for spouses, grandma, grandpa, etc., who have no interest in hunting but can "mentor" somebody else. The current system sucks and is getting worse year by year.

Hawkeye


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Sorry all - I used big game draw odds which I believed was up to date.

That said, the La Sal had a 44% difference between rifle hunts and a 29% between rifle and muzzy; Pauns had a 25% difference and a 13% difference for muzzy. Also, you have to remember the late hunts have less permits- I understand it is an end of year hunt but less hunters afield and elk grouping you should expect that fewer tags would be easier to fill. If it was equal number of permits, would success drop? 

It isn't far fetched that the early rifle is absolutely the prime time. If the rut doesn't make that much of a difference, why are you all arguing against moving the hunt?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am sorry, but none of the numbers I am looking at coincide with any of the ones you just posted. For example, 2017 hunt results show that hunters on Monroe were 100% successful on both the early and late rifle hunts. Hunters on the Pauns were about 18% more successful on the late hunt compared to the early hunt...among others.
> 
> Also, the only numbers I can find that break down overall stats comparing the rifle to archery to muzzy go back to 2015. I am not going to go back and do all the math for the other years, but in 2015 alone the difference between rifle and muzzy was a whopping 5%--76% to 71%. The difference between rifle and muzzy in 2014 was 17%--81 to 64. I can't find any that are 20% (it was an 11% difference in 2013).
> 
> So, again, I am sorry but the 5-17% between rifle and muzzy can't all be attributed to the rut.


Look at ONLY early rifle success vs muzzy. The late rifle success rates pull the overall rifle rates down.

You are correct. The pauns is one of the worst early rifle hunts. The heat maybe? It's tough terrain to hunt in regardless and the best elk areas that I have seen seem to not be conducive to a rifle (thick and flat)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Fine.

I pulled all of this years data:

Early Rifle Success - 80% (723 harvested)
(Early rifle without Wasatch is 81% - 140/188 on wasatch.)
Other Rifle Success - 71% (482 harvested)
Muzzy - 71% (327 harvested)


So a 9% difference on rifle hunts (what's that attributed to?), and 57% of the tags go to early rifle. It may seem like 9% isn't a big deal, it's also a lot more tags and harvest then either of the other hunts. I am sure the 195 "other" rifle season hunters that didn't harvest would have liked the odds (17.5 more elk) and the 133 muzzy hunters (12 more elk). Some hunts have a really large difference, others don't. 

If the early rifle had a 71% success rate, 639 elk would have been harvest. 84 less than the current rate. That would allow 119 more hunters a field each year for the same harvest - almost 8% more "early" tags.


Again, I don't know how bugling bulls in the rut with a high powered rifle isn't the easiest elk hunt you can get, but I don't know anything.


**% success are excluding the 9 rifle hunters who did not go afield, and the 2 muzzy hunters. Also excludes the 3 rifle deloras late tags with no data available.


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

Hawkeye is 100% correct. It is ridiculous to have a high power rifle hunt during the elk rut. In addition to rifle hunters having the best time to hunt, when elk are the most vulnerable, they also do not have to share their time frame with any other season. Archery LE Elk hunters share their season with general archery deer and general spike hunters. Muzzy has to share with muzzy deer hunters. Rifle also receives the vast majority of tags. Why are the rifle hunts so privileged? Rifle LE Elk during the rut is all about politics and money from special interest groups. If seasons were realigned as Hawkeye suggests, and tags were more evenly distributed, the DWR would still sell every tag available and not loose income. I also believe that moving rifle out of the rut and allocating that time for primitive weapons, there would be a few less bulls taken each year, potentially increasing herd health and bull quality in each Unit. There is no reason why Rifle hunters can’t share their time with other seasons, no different that the archery and muzzy folks.


----------



## BGD (Mar 23, 2018)

New member to the Forum though I have lurked about for quite some time without joining. This discussion finally coaxed me to join. It is easy to argue about which group of hunters/weapons should get to hunt in the rut and much of the discussion has been asking why rifle hunters need the added advantage of the rut. I as a rifle hunter readily admit we really DON’T need the advantage but it doesn’t mean I don’t want the experience. Bottom line for me is I think every elk hunter dreams about hunting screaming bulls. I know I sure do! My main reason for applying every year for the rut hunt isn’t so I can kill a giant bull (though that would certainly be great). I put in so hopefully one day I will have a chance at the experience of hunting elk in the rut. Why should only archery hunters get to have a rut hunt experience? Why should only muzzleloader hunters get to have that experience? Why should only rifle hunters get that experience? It would be great to find a way to accommodate everyone in their weapon of choice. But really probably none of us should be allowed to hunt in the rut but that wouldn’t make much money for DWR. I am glad opportunity is out there for rifle rut hunts. From my perspective, a rifle hunt as a weapon choice is the least discriminating or limiting and allows for the broadest range of hunter ability, age, health, strength, etc. I am not sure health-wise my body could hold up to the rigors of archery hunting and at the rate we are going with point creep by the time I draw a tag I will be too old to even be tempted to consider archery as an option.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Here’s a novel idea...

If you don’t like the season you have then why don’t you switch?

Personally, I’ve been thinking about switching to archery from rifle. Not for the dates on the calendar but for the increased opportunity.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

BGD said:


> New member to the Forum though I have lurked about for quite some time without joining. This discussion finally coaxed me to join. It is easy to argue about which group of hunters/weapons should get to hunt in the rut and much of the discussion has been asking why rifle hunters need the added advantage of the rut. I as a rifle hunter readily admit we really DON'T need the advantage but it doesn't mean I don't want the experience. Bottom line for me is I think every elk hunter dreams about hunting screaming bulls. I know I sure do! My main reason for applying every year for the rut hunt isn't so I can kill a giant bull (though that would certainly be great). I put in so hopefully one day I will have a chance at the experience of hunting elk in the rut. Why should only archery hunters get to have a rut hunt experience? Why should only muzzleloader hunters get to have that experience? Why should only rifle hunters get that experience? It would be great to find a way to accommodate everyone in their weapon of choice. But really probably none of us should be allowed to hunt in the rut but that wouldn't make much money for DWR. I am glad opportunity is out there for rifle rut hunts. From my perspective, a rifle hunt as a weapon choice is the least discriminating or limiting and allows for the broadest range of hunter ability, age, health, strength, etc. I am not sure health-wise my body could hold up to the rigors of archery hunting and at the rate we are going with point creep by the time I draw a tag I will be too old to even be tempted to consider archery as an option.


Welcome BGD! I agree 100%.

Way to crash the party, take all the wine and leave us with nothing but cheese with your first post!! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

I have to disagree with your first statement. If archery were moved into the rut, the harvest statistics may increase slightly but would not necessarily mean less tags available. Actually, you could increase the archery tag allocation and archery hunters would still harvest considerable less bulls than the rifle hunters take during the rut, currently.


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

I have experienced the same behavior from the rifle hunters every year. They come up the last week of archery. Run ATV’s all over the mountain and try bugling into every Canyon. I had a guy and his son walk right into the middle of my setup and spooked off the elk. He said he was scouting for the rifle and heard the bugling. Rifles being sighted in in camp and we even had a group of rifle hunters decide to shoot clay pidgeons all afternoon in camp. That was fun. You could hear all the shooting for miles.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Ok so we do it on a rotation then. Year 1 seasons stay as they currently are. Then the next year, Year 2, muzzy moves to August (both LE and GS), archery takes the any weapons dates, and any weapon takes the muzzy dates. Then in Year 3 they rotate into the next position: start with any weapon, then muzzy then archery. Then lather, rinse, repeat.

Same number of days, but keep things just confusing enough that everybody has no idea what's happening. Oh, and just for giggles make any and every hunting or fishing violation come with a loss of all bonus and preference points. (I actually kinda really like that one...hmm)

That ought to spice up the mathemagics of draw forecasting. It's getting a bit too stale and easy for anybody to figure out these days


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

johnnycake said:


> Oh, and just for giggles make any and every hunting or fishing violation come with a loss of all bonus and preference points. (I actually kinda really like that one...hmm)


That's deep.. Do convicted poachers keep their points and just receive a suspension? I never thought about that (as I usually just think about how mild/inconsistent punishments are).

If not, I 100% would want that to occur.

I am still on the "move LE Rifle, issue them more tags, and change nothing else" kick.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Early Rifle Success - 80% (723 harvested)
> (Early rifle without Wasatch is 81% - 140/188 on wasatch.)
> Other Rifle Success - 71% (482 harvested)
> Muzzy - 71% (327 harvested)
> ...


A couple things you are not recognizing: 1) those numbers vary from year to year. The consistency in percentages don't play out like the 2017 numbers. In other words, the differences between success rates from one hunt to the next vary greatly from year to year 2) the late rifle hunt SHOULD have a lower success rate than the early rifle hunt because it is the last LE hunt for bull elk. In other words, fewer bulls are available to be killed because a significant number of bulls have already been harvested 3) you keep talking about more tags that can be given out if the rifle hunt is moved...but, you are forgetting that if you move another hunt into the rut that you will also increase the success rates of those other hunts. In the end, I would certainly contend that you are gaining very few, if any, extra tags because you must compensate for the increase in success for that next hunt.

Personally, I believe that hunting bull elk with a rifle is easy regardless of the season. Remember, on some hunts the late hunt is easier than the early hunt. Personally, I believe the statistical difference between the late and early hunt is going to be statistically insignificant once you factor in the net loss of bulls from the early to the late hunt.

And, FWIW, if you move the archery hunt into the rut. Not only would you definitely lose some archery tags because harvest rates would increase, but you would also make it more difficult to draw archery tags. And, you wouldn't be reducing the number of bulls harvested by rifle hunters significantly.

To me, the only way you can get more people through the system is to either change tag allocation percentages or give out more tags by reducing the management objectives for each unit (change the harvest age objectives on more units to allow more liberal bull harvest).

Interestingly, the biggest unit with the most hunters--the Wasatch--has a consistently higher success rate on the late hunt compared to the early rifle hunt during the rut. Why?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> you keep talking about more tags that can be given out if the rifle hunt is moved...but, you are forgetting that if you move another hunt into the rut
> I actually haven't mentioned increasing tags in many posts. I also stated, I don't want to move another hunt to the rut. I would prefer we move rifle and leave those two weeks alone. Only move the rifle to the GS dates and move nothing else. Yes, you could increase tags if this occurred.
> 
> Personally, I believe that hunting bull elk with a rifle is easy regardless of the season. Remember, on some hunts the late hunt is easier than the early hunt. Personally, I believe the statistical difference between the late and early hunt is going to be statistically insignificant once you factor in the net loss of bulls from the early to the late hunt.
> ...


I appreciate the points you have made. We can agree to disagree that the rut has absolutely no effect on success rates.

I looked at a few years and separated the late and early.. 10% difference in success isn't uncommon. It's actually greater some years. With everyone shooting long range super shooters though, I think the gap could actually close. I agree, rifle hunting on an LE unit is not that hard.

You mentioned that their are less elk on the late.... It isn't like they are all the sudden all gone! And in some areas they migrate or group up, so yes some late areas will be great. But the supply argument is minimal. Also, as I said, less tags accommodate the change. I would take this argument if we were issuing the same tag number because I do believe success rates would go down even more, yes.

I have to clarify, I do not want archery moved. I archery hunt and am fine with it and don't need a bigger pool. Archery is a real hunt, success rates are low and it's tough. That's what we sign up for. I personally would love the rut left alone, but maybe a biologist can tell us why there isn't a benefit in that. (lonetree where are you? )


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> But long range is easy now right? Ya just turn the knob things.
> 
> Skip to 44 sec
> 
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> I appreciate the points you have made. We can agree to disagree that the rut has absolutely no effect on success rates. )


No, I think the effect is minimal comparing the success of early and late rifle hunts and even muzzy hunt success rates. To put it simply, I think a lot of people exaggerate the impact the rut has on success rates for rifle hunters.

And, I think the idea of moving the early rifle hunt from the rut and putting a different hunt into its place will have a negligible effect on tag numbers.

Again, in terms of tag numbers, I think the only real way of improving point creep and moving people through the system is to either change tag allocations and give archery hunters more tags, or decrease the harvest age objectives on units to increase tag numbers.

I think the argument to move the early rifle hunt away from the rut is predicated upon the idea that the archery hunters should be given this time to increase their chances of success. Though you may not be saying that, I know others have and often do. I disagree and feel like archery hunters have been given enough accommodations and have little problem with the rifle hunters being given that one caveat to take the place of their shorter hunt.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

dkhntrdstn said:


> shooting at foam is differnt then live game. I shoot 90+ yards at foam targets, it make the closer shots easier. i would never shoot at a live game that long and I know he dont ether.


Yeah, well there are more than you think who do. Many are dumb enough to put it on Youtube. Look at the drop on this arrow when it comes into frame...






-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> You mentioned that their are less elk on the late.... It isn't like they are all the sudden all gone! And in some areas they migrate or group up, so yes some late areas will be great. But the supply argument is minimal.


I disagree on this point as well...one of the negative consequences Utah has seen with the increased quality of its elk hunting are the increased expectations hunters have for their hunts. It isn't just about huntable animals but meeting hunter expectations. I think the late season hunters often struggle finding the "quality" bulls they want to shoot because so many of those bulls have either been harvested or are broken up. I believe if you took a unit and eliminated the early rifle hunt and only had a late season hunt you would have exceptionally high harvest rates.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> I disagree on this point as well...one of the negative consequences Utah has seen with the increased quality of its elk hunting are the increased expectations hunters have for their hunts. It isn't just about huntable animals but meeting hunter expectations. I think the late season hunters often struggle finding the "quality" bulls they want to shoot because so many of those bulls have either been harvested or are broken up. I believe if you took a unit and eliminated the early rifle hunt and only had a late season hunt you would have exceptionally high harvest rates.


So if the "quality" bulls are gone, is that only a product of their being an early hunt - or can you agree yet that it might be at least a tiny bit related to rifles during the rut?

I absolutely agree here, not only would the rut impact success - but the quality of that.

My point you disagreed with wasn't based on quality - because I felt that was being ignored in the rut discussions. In terms of mature bull elk though, the numbers are still there. They aren't issuing 30 tags total on a unit that only has 30 mature elk.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Are we not supposed to shoot long range archery at live animals?

:shock::mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> So if the "quality" bulls are gone, is that only a product of their being an early hunt - or can you agree yet that it might be at least a tiny bit related to rifles during the rut?
> 
> I absolutely agree here, not only would the rut impact success - but the quality of that.
> 
> My point you disagreed with wasn't based on quality - because I felt that was being ignored in the rut discussions. In terms of mature bull elk though, the numbers are still there. They aren't issuing 30 tags total on a unit that only has 30 mature elk.


Personally, I certainly don't believe the "quality" is gone, but "quality" is relative to each hunter's expectations. When we are talking about a limited entry and hard to draw hunt, though, expectations certainly rise and hunters will certainly try to harvest higher-quality animals.

I would agree that the desire to shoot something large impacts not only harvest rates but also that the rut impacts the quality of animals taken.


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> That's deep.. Do convicted poachers keep their points and just receive a suspension? I never thought about that (as I usually just think about how mild/inconsistent punishments are).
> 
> If not, I 100% would want that to occur.
> 
> I am still on the "move LE Rifle, issue them more tags, and change nothing else" kick.


That is interesting. I'm not sure, but if you don't put in for at least points every couple years, you lose them automatically, is that right? I know it is in Wyoming.

So, then a convicted poacher who loses the right to hunt for say 5 years, would they be able to continue to buy points? Or would they just naturally expire?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I believe Utah tried to implement this but after significant backlash it was scrapped. You still keep your points even if you don't apply for years and years


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

dkhntrdstn said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> > But long range is easy now right? Ya just turn the knob things.
> ...


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Clarq said:


> Here's what I would do to Utah's LE elk hunting structure to increase opportunity without radically changing things:
> 
> - Keep the split between archery/muzzleloader/rifle tags as-is
> - Keep the archery season dates as-is
> ...


See, I would radically change things. 3 seasons with a 33% tag allocation.

Archery LE - August 1 - September 30

Spike Archery- August 1 - September 15

Rifle LE - October 1 - October 30

Spike Rifle - October 15 - October 30

Muzzleloader LE - November 1 - November 30

Spike Muzzleloader - November 1 - November 15


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Why would you give 1/3 tag allocation to each weapon when the use is not equal among hunters? There are far less people that use archery equipment than those that use a rifle. Why wouldn't the tag allocation mirror the hunting population here in Utah?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> See, I would radically change things. 3 seasons with a 33% tag allocation.
> 
> Archery LE - August 1 - September 30
> 
> ...


These are pretty extreme to say the least..


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Why would you give 1/3 tag allocation to each weapon when the use is not equal among hunters? There are far less people that use archery equipment than those that use a rifle. Why wouldn't the tag allocation mirror the hunting population here in Utah?


A lot of this is about crowding issues.

Longer seasons = less crowding

Equal amount of hunters spread across 3 seasons = less crowding.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Less crowding, except you've just bunched all the rifle hunts together, instead of splitting between and early and a late (and for some units, a middle). On top of that, you have put it during the rifle deer hunt. 

So, while this would be an insane advantage and improvement for archery hunters, you have just screwed the vast majority of the hunters (rifle hunters) in the state of Utah. Also, I'm not sure this is a great advantage for muzzy hunts, except for if those were the general deer seasons as well. I know I'd be shifting to muzzy deer if that were the case. And then you are no longer reducing crowding for muzzy elk hunters either. So, it seems like this is a huge advantage for archery hunters. Again, I guess some of them just think they should get it all.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Less crowding, except you've just bunched all the rifle hunts together, instead of splitting between and early and a late (and for some units, a middle). On top of that, you have put it during the rifle deer hunt.
> 
> So, while this would be an insane advantage and improvement for archery hunters, you have just screwed the vast majority of the hunters (rifle hunters) in the state of Utah. Also, I'm not sure this is a great advantage for muzzy hunts, except for if those were the general deer seasons as well. I know I'd be shifting to muzzy deer if that were the case. And then you are no longer reducing crowding for muzzy elk hunters either. So, it seems like this is a huge advantage for archery hunters. Again, I guess some of them just think they should get it all.


I'd move the deer hunts to the same dates. If Montana can hunt MD during the rut with a rifle, then I do not see a reason why Utah cannot do the same with the ML season.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I think unit 135 in WY should have a month long rifle deer hunt in Oct and a 15 day scoped ML deer hunt in Nov. haha Just razzing you muscle.

The UDWR sells a permit to hunt. Hunters should use the privilege as they want. Maybe we should just issue tags in one draw and the hunter can then choose the one season they want to hunt.....


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Why would you give 1/3 tag allocation to each weapon when the use is not equal among hunters? There are far less people that use archery equipment than those that use a rifle. Why wouldn't the tag allocation mirror the hunting population here in Utah?


Good point, however, the tags from a previous season or weapon type would simply convert to the following type upon the close of that weapon's season. That way if more people wanted to hunt archery the tags would be available to them and if they didn't the tags would be there for MZ and then rifle after that.

Same total number of tags, increased opportunity across all weapon types and possibly less people carrying points from year to year....there MIGHT be some potential in a plan such as this. You might see an increase of pressure due to an increased number of rifle hunters though if all the leftovers pushed to rifle and suddenly there were that many more successful applicants. Still, that helps to reduce the number of top end point holders.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I'd move the deer hunts to the same dates. If Montana can hunt MD during the rut with a rifle, then I do not see a reason why Utah cannot do the same with the ML season.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Utah move the muzzleloader deer hunt out of December because the harvest rates were too high? I was young when this happened, so forgive me if I am remembering incorrectly.

But hey, again, so long as we benefit the archery hunters and give them EVERYTHING they want, what else do we need to do?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

KineKilla said:


> Good point, however, the tags from a previous season or weapon type would simply convert to the following type upon the close of that weapon's season. That way if more people wanted to hunt archery the tags would be available to them and if they didn't the tags would be there for MZ and then rifle after that.


I don't get this. Can you explain it in more detail? Sorry if I'm dense, but I'm not understanding this principle clearly.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> I don't get this. Can you explain it in more detail? Sorry if I'm dense, but I'm not understanding this principle clearly.


Well, in theory if you had 30 LE tags in total divided in 1/3rd increments across all of the weapon types you'd have 10 tags per type.

If only 5 archers choose to hunt that year, then you'd end up with 15 MZ tags and if only 10 MZ hunters hunted you'd end up with 15 rifle tags. The 5 unused tags from the Archery season would just push down the line until they got used up at the end in the rifle hunt or wherever.

This is already the practice, sort of. Currently we have people put in for the draw then sell the extras as OTC LE tags (I don't think there are very many leftovers though). If those don't sell though I'm not sure what happens to them.

In this example those would convert to the next type of weapon so available tags are not going unused, and we continue to pull as many people out of the pool as possible every year. I'd rather see a few more people draw each year than see tags go unused and the point pool continue to grow.

I really don't know that it would make any difference in the end because we are still dealing with a system that has very high demand and very low supply...there will always be more demand than supply in the wildlife management game.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Thanks for the clarification. I now understand the point you were making.



KineKilla said:


> I really don't know that it would make any difference in the end because we are still dealing with a system that has very high demand and very low supply...there will always be more demand than supply in the wildlife management game.


This is basically how I feel. You wouldn't ever see any tags move on to the next group. You'd just see a higher percentage of archery hunters get to hunt, and a very large number less percentage of rifle hunters get to hunt each year. It would make people have to decide to pick up a new weapon, or wait in even longer lines than what is the longest line already.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> On top of that, you have put it during the rifle deer hunt.


Why is this an issue?

Archery:
- LE Elk, LE Deer, GS Elk, GS Deer all run during the same time frame

Muzzleloader:
- LE Deer, GS Deer, and LE Elk all run during the same time frame

Meanwhile, the only overlap for rifle is LE Deer and GS Deer. They even made an adjustment to that now with the "Early Rifle Deer". If you are a muzzleload hunter, you can't hunt LE elk and GS deer the same year (unless it's the same unit, but that still would suck to prioritize.) Same goes with Archery.

I am genuinely curious why this isn't reasonable?

(My whole stance on this would be the Early Rifle LE Elk should be the exact dates of the GS Elk and should be the first weekend in October.)


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Packout said:


> I think unit 135 in WY should have a month long rifle deer hunt in Oct and a 15 day scoped ML deer hunt in Nov. haha Just razzing you muscle.
> 
> The UDWR sells a permit to hunt. Hunters should use the privilege as they want. Maybe we should just issue tags in one draw and the hunter can then choose the one season they want to hunt.....


Yeah, I would be for 135 rolling like that . Longer seasons for all. Where's Oprah when you need her ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Utah move the muzzleloader deer hunt out of December because the harvest rates were too high? I was young when this happened, so forgive me if I am remembering incorrectly.
> 
> But hey, again, so long as we benefit the archery hunters and give them EVERYTHING they want, what else do we need to do?


I went once as a young lad and I do not remember either

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Utah move the muzzleloader deer hunt out of December


Was it ever in December? Back in the day - lol - it was November. Still should be! (with no powered scopes.)

Love how you mention Archery again - it's any proposed change that would affect RIFLE that people get pissed about


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I now understand the point you were making.
> 
> This is basically how I feel. You wouldn't ever see any tags move on to the next group. You'd just see a higher percentage of archery hunters get to hunt, and a very large number less percentage of rifle hunters get to hunt each year. It would make people have to decide to pick up a new weapon, or wait in even longer lines than what is the longest line already.


Agreed.

As long as we don't have tags going unused every year than we're probably doing the best we can with the supply we have. I'd rather see LE tags go to someone in the "line" than go to someone OTC though. OTC LE tag sales do nothing to reduce the point creep...or do they?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

KineKilla said:


> OTC LE tag sales do nothing to reduce the point creep...or do they?


If you buy a LE tag OTC, you lose your bonus points and incur a waiting period. So yes, they do help with point creep to some extent.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

I thought about this as well but if you are buying an OTC tag then chances are you didn't really have any points to begin with...that's my thinking anyway.

I'm sure it's a moot point anyways because there are seldom any leftovers for areas that are not primarily private land and/or that are not high demand units (as far s I know) so even if those tags were to convert to MZ you'd still have the same access and desirability issues driving hunter numbers in that area.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> See, I would radically change things. 3 seasons with a 33% tag allocation.
> 
> Archery LE - August 1 - September 30
> 
> ...


Except I would propose:

Archery LE/GS Sept 1 - 20, 
Archery Spike only/ES Aug 15 - Sept 20

Muzzy LE/GS Oct 5 - Oct 12

Rifle LE/GS Oct 15 - Nov 15
Rifle Spike only Nov 1 - Dec 1

Antlerless elk spread out as needed between muzzy and rifle hunts with one more in mid Dec thru late Jan depending on unit. Take away the ability to use antlerless tag throughout all other hunts you have a tag for.

Just because the rifle hunt is one month, does not mean everyone in the state hunts the same time frame for 30 days, divide it up for different dates throughout the unit to manage crowd control. Same applies for archery.

This is how most states do it with medium populations of elk like UT, CO being the exception.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

High Desert Elk said:


> Except I would propose:
> 
> Archery LE/GS Sept 1 - 20,
> Archery Spike only/ES Aug 15 - Sept 20
> ...


See, I dislike the New Mexico and Colorado style of dividing up the hunts into a bunch of mini hunts. I prefer the Montana Style with forever seasons. Give people options of what to do on their own free time rather than forcing them to badger into 4-7 dates in the calendar year.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Let's get everyone mad and do it close to what Colorado does. 

Archery deer, LE elk and spike elk: The last weekend of August through the last weekend in September

Muzzle loader deer, LE elk, and spike elk the weekend after Labor day-9 days. 

General and LE rifle elk the first weekend of October to the weekend before the general deer hunt. 

General deer same as it is now. 

If you want to cow hunt then have it the same time as the other elk hunts are except for certain areas where there needs to be weather to get them off of private. Doe deer hunts the same time as all the other deer hunts. 

I might of left something out but it wouldn't be hard to set it up this way.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Lets also make even more hunters mad and do away with both buck/doe, bull/cow points and make them one and the same. 

If you have 10 points for elk and want to draw a cow tag as your first choice you loose all your points. Same with deer. 

This would make hunters make a decision if they want to stay in the system for a bull in 15 years or be able to shoot a cow.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Let's also allow people to modify applications up until a week before the actual draw. 

I mean I saw the proposed permit numbers in Wyoming and modified by Goat, Sheep, and Moose draws today. The app period closed around a month ago.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Why is this an issue?
> 
> Archery:
> - LE Elk, LE Deer, GS Elk, GS Deer all run during the same time frame
> ...


To understand why, you have to look at the context. What was the stated purpose of the change? To reduce crowding. I showed how it wouldn't. Context in a quote is important.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> Lets also make even more hunters mad and do away with both buck/doe, bull/cow points and make them one and the same.
> 
> If you have 10 points for elk and want to draw a cow tag as your first choice you loose all your points. Same with deer.
> 
> This would make hunters make a decision if they want to stay in the system for a bull in 15 years or be able to shoot a cow.


Soooo you want to combine everything into one points pool? What do you do with the Lifetime permit hunters who are guaranteed a tag for life. If general hunts gets blurred with LE and OIL... does the lifetime hunter now get to choose bookcliffs for his free tag? If it all becomes interchangeable, can he get a elk tag over deer?

I not sure this is the road we want to go down... but I'd for sure cash in all my moose points for another LE elk tag, just say'n.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The LL holders would still get their general deer tag unless they draw a LE deer same as it is now. I didn't say do away with LE hunts, just run them at the same time as the general tags are good for.

I also didn't mean that you could use moose points for elk points, just that elk points are elk points cow or bull, just one set of points. You use them you loose them. Same with deer, moose and all the other animals.

Utah needs to do something with the points system. Now they have hunters with both antlered and anterless animals and they keep building them for both.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> To understand why, you have to look at the context. What was the stated purpose of the change? To reduce crowding. I showed how it wouldn't. Context in a quote is important.


Make rifle elk and deer the same time, and they have to choose one rifle hunt or be on the same unit. Crowding reduced


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> See, I dislike the New Mexico and Colorado style of dividing up the hunts into a bunch of mini hunts. I prefer the Montana Style with forever seasons. Give people options of what to do on their own free time rather than forcing them to badger into 4-7 dates in the calendar year.


Well, I suppose your proposal would work well since there are very few tags available in most units so there wouldn't be any crowding. We're not counting the OTC spike guys though...

Longer hunt timeframes would be beneficial, especially when taking kids out. Problem is, most wildlife board members are pretty dense and can't seem to see past maintaining status quo.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> Utah needs to do something with the points system.


Well, don't wish for something like what NM has. You won't like it...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> Well, don't wish for something like what NM has. You won't like it...


At least everyone going into NM draw has the same odds. Why give people a pipe dream on a lot of these hunts where the odds of them drawing are next to zero, at least for 20+ years.

Utah also needs to turn the LE hunts into OIL hunts if they want to get people through the system faster. You draw it and you are done for that animal except for the general season.

Also with the number of points that it takes to draw a lot of the OIL tags why not just make it one OIL spiecies in your lifetime and then you are done.

I know why not, then they can't collect the application fees that are coming in.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> Utah also needs to turn the LE hunts into OIL hunts if they want to get people through the system faster. You draw it and you are done for that animal except for the general season.
> 
> Also with the number of points that it takes to draw a lot of the OIL tags why not just make it one OIL spiecies in your lifetime and then you are done.
> 
> I know why not, then they can't collect the application fees that are coming in.


I know the app fee conspiracy is a popular one. But I am not sure I know any hunter that would be in favor of the proposal you just made, critter. And we are not getting a penny of the application fees, so that can't be our reason for not wanting that. So maybe there is more to it for the DWR/Wildlife Board as well?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

They are always saying that they want ways to push the hunters through the system. 

They then keep coming up with roadblocks that prevent it. 

There is no answer to the problem.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Critter said:


> They are always saying that they want ways to push the hunters through the system.
> 
> They then keep coming up with roadblocks that prevent it.
> 
> There is no answer to the problem.


Stop giving tags to SFW to make a massive profit on. Put them back into the draw or hold your own lottery.

Increase "Bonus Pool" tags by 10%. Take some from the "random" group. That sucks for the "hail mary" guys, but would help a bit with the max pool.

I like the cactus buck hunt on Pauns. Another opportunity in an area with a TON of deer. In all honestly - the "management" hunts on the Henry's are pointless and should just be a second rifle hunt. OR they need to do what they do on the Pauns and have guys come help them age them and take out the old ones!

I like that Zinke has been talking about landlocked public lands. I look at cache meadowville as a unit that could pull some pressure in the draw from other units. We also might be able to increase tag numbers with some of these additional areas. Except, then we "lease" it out and lose the land anyways.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> There is no answer to the problem.


There is no good or easy answer to the problem. And maybe the actual problem is not the DWR/Wildlife Board's to fix.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Critter said:


> At least everyone going into NM draw has the same odds. Why give people a pipe dream on a lot of these hunts where the odds of them drawing are next to zero, at least for 20+ years.
> 
> Utah also needs to turn the LE hunts into OIL hunts if they want to get people through the system faster. You draw it and you are done for that animal except for the general season.
> 
> ...


3 Choices in a random lottery, tag fees up front, 84% Resident 10% Outfitter 6% Non Resident with the ability to buy landowner tags for the whole unit or just private land for like 10-15k. Different fees for different elk units, one elk unit is an OIL. A refundable license.

New Mexico is a very interesting state.

As far as draw odds next to 0 Ibex and Oryx are right their.

No, Utah does not need to turn LE hunts into OIL hunts. The waiting period is fine and it is possible to wait and jump back into the draw and hunt again.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> we are not getting a penny of the application fees, so that can't be our reason for not wanting that.


What? Who is we? Because the UDWR gets the majority of the app fees.

I tend to think that they want more application categories to draw in more application fees. The Bighorn ewe proposal which passed just last Fall is a great example of this. They had the option to run the ewe hunts under the current system which would have given an avenue for sheep applicants to use their points- just like they do with Mtn Goats and Bison. But they chose to make a new ewe application and ewe point which could bring in 10s of thousands.

..


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> At least everyone going into NM draw has the same odds. Why give people a pipe dream on a lot of these hunts where the odds of them drawing are next to zero, at least for 20+ years.
> 
> Utah also needs to turn the LE hunts into OIL hunts if they want to get people through the system faster. You draw it and you are done for that animal except for the general season.
> 
> ...


If you turn LE hunts into OIL, then you have to increase OTC opportunities in more units and offer more any bull as part of the OTC. The OIL hunt would just allow for hunting in prime conditions, such as rifle on Sept 16 - 25th.

If anyone thinks a complete random draw is the way to go, come talk to me when you only draw a deer tag twice in the past 20 years and see how well you like it.

NM has a few hurdles to get over before you have a chance. The first is to outcompete everyone in the draw for a low assigned random number - last year all 188,000 + applications. Then you have to have a low enough random number to be considered for an elk tag, again last year 73,000 + apps for 21,793 available tags. And it doesn't stop there, you also have to outcompete everyone else's 2nd and 3rd choice which may be your 1st.

In NM, your elk app is competing for a low enough random assigned number against all the other elk apps in addition to an antelope, oryx, ibex, barbary sheep, javalina, bighorn sheep, and deer app. If you are lucky to draw, you truly win a lottery.

Fair? Sure. Nobody has an advantage over someone else, but the grass ain't always greener on the other side...


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

High Desert Elk said:


> If anyone thinks a complete random draw is the way to go, come talk to me when you only draw a deer tag twice in the past 20 years and see how well you like it.
> 
> Fair? Sure. Nobody has an advantage over someone else, but the grass ain't always greener on the other side...


If I started applying for LE deer in Utah next year, I'd need to be very lucky to draw two decent tags in 20 years. I think the issue in NM is simply supply vs. demand, not the system itself.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The biggest problem that I see is where a person can hunt a LE elk or even deer unit a couple of times before another person can hunt it even once. 

I saw this on a LE elk hunt. A person that I know hunted the unit twice while his father in law was trying to hunt it for the first time. The one hunter drew out with 3 or 4 points the first time and they came the waiting period. He drew out the second time with only 1 point while his father in law was still waiting, this was for the same hunt. 

I have seen the same thing happen on LE deer hunts. 

Anymore the vast majority of us will have to wait 15+ years to draw that LE elk tag and for me it took me 14 years to draw a LE deer tag. I'm still waiting for my bison tag with 17 points. Granted I am now a non resident but I have seen resident hunters in the same boat. 

How is this pushing the hunters through the system as the wildlife board says they are trying to do?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Critter said:


> The biggest problem that I see is where a person can hunt a LE elk or even deer unit a couple of times before another person can hunt it even once.
> 
> I saw this on a LE elk hunt. A person that I know hunted the unit twice while his father in law was trying to hunt it for the first time. The one hunter drew out with 3 or 4 points the first time and they came the waiting period. He drew out the second time with only 1 point while his father in law was still waiting, this was for the same hunt.
> 
> ...


This happens in lottery states as well. People draw tags. Sometimes in back to back years. The only way you would get around that would be to go a 100% preference point game or do the OIL circumstance.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Clarq said:


> If I started applying for LE deer in Utah next year, I'd need to be very lucky to draw two decent tags in 20 years. I think the issue in NM is simply supply vs. demand, not the system itself.


Not really even talking about decent tags. App numbers are way up because there is no point system, further reducing your odds.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> What? Who is we? Because the UDWR gets the majority of the app fees.
> ..


We is the hunters I was referring to that would not be in favor of the proposal I was responding to. I know the DWR gets the majority of the app fees. But that is not who I was talking about.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

No easy answers for sure. Taking tags away from special interest groups sounds like a great idea...until the money generated by those tags is lost and has to.be made up somewhere else (raising general fees likely). Straight draw sucks for some unlucky people, and works great for others that are lucky. Point systems suck for those just coming in the door and then having to compete (often thru no fault of their own) against those with 25 years vested in the system. What to do?

Guess if UT wanted to move the bonus point pool through faster, they could use the 75% / 25% split that WY uses for max point vs random draw. Each state obviously looks at issues differently. I believe the most important thing a state can do is TO BE CONSISTENT. Other than that everything else is a crap shoot


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MWScott72 said:


> I believe the most important thing a state can do is TO BE CONSISTENT. Other than that everything else is a crap shoot


This is the crux of it all for me. There will always be tweaks along the way, but a massive change to the system will cause more chaos than it will help. While Utah's system is not perfect (I'm not sure there is a perfect system), consistency so we know what to expect is important.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

The only perfect system is you own 10,000 acres of prime elk, deer, and antelope country and able to choose your season anytime from Sept to Jan.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Amen to that HDE!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> The only perfect system is you own 10,000 acres of prime elk, deer, and antelope country and able to choose your season anytime from Sept to Jan.


I'd prefer it to be 100,000 acres...

#totp


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> I'd prefer it to be 100,000 acres...
> 
> #totp


And I also want 2 species of bighorn, mtn goats, bison, moose, black and grizzly bears, wolves, cougars, bobcats, lynx, wolverines, and more small/upland game and waterfowl than you could shake a stick at. And that ignores the fishing that I would also require....And a 25% owner's interest royalty share with a couple dozen highly productive gas and oil wells and gold nuggets the size of my fist every time I dig a new fence post.

You know, since we're just dreamin'.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> You know, since we're just dreamin'.


Well, the term "perfect" was used. So...?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Well, the term "perfect" was used. So...?


Ain't nothing wrong with a perfect dream system...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MWScott72 said:


> No easy answers for sure. Taking tags away from special interest groups sounds like a great idea...until the money generated by those tags is lost and has to.be made up somewhere else


This wouldn't be the case - since the money generated from those tags goes to the "special interest" groups and not the state. The state gets 30% of the app fees. Big deal!


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> So just to be clear-Archery hunters have to go first. And then they have to have the rut. And then they have to have the extended.
> 
> Anything else we can do for the archery hunters? Maybe a free pedicure voucher to go along with their tag each year?


Oh and don't forget they have to have their OIL Bison, Mtn Goat and soon to be sheep tags


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

300 Wby said:


> Oh and don't forget they have to have their OIL Bison, Mtn Goat and soon to be sheep tags


Already do - they're called 'Any Legal Weapon' and as limited as the OIL tags are anyway, there isn't enough competition to worry about someone shooting an animal out from underneath them [us].


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

I think the best thing Utah can do, with out screwing everyone involved, is to stop with the points. You keep the points you have but can not gain a point each year. Eventually (I KNOW, a really long time) we will get rid of the point system and do 100% random. 

Or, another idea is to do the same as above, but if you dont draw, you have 1 point. If you do draw, 1 year wait for GS, 3 or 5 for LE. But if you dont draw after 2 years, you still just have 1 point. Thats better than the guy who just drew and cant draw multiple years in a row.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

robiland said:


> I think the best thing Utah can do, with out screwing everyone involved, is to stop with the points. You keep the points you have but can not gain a point each year. Eventually (I KNOW, a really long time) we will get rid of the point system and do 100% random.
> 
> Or, another idea is to do the same as above, but if you dont draw, you have 1 point. If you do draw, 1 year wait for GS, 3 or 5 for LE. But if you dont draw after 2 years, you still just have 1 point. Thats better than the guy who just drew and cant draw multiple years in a row.


Problem is once you enter a system it's so hard to change it. Most people with 1+ point want to have better odds than the "average".

A lot of people had a hard time with the preference point concept changing. I know this because this year their was an entire page explaining "if you draw a general deer - you lose your points". Simple concept but some still seem to have missed the memo.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

RandomElk16 said:


> This wouldn't be the case - since the money generated from those tags goes to the "special interest" groups and not the state. The state gets 30% of the app fees. Big deal!


How do these other states ever survive without selling tags through special interests?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> MWScott72 said:
> 
> 
> > No easy answers for sure. Taking tags away from special interest groups sounds like a great idea...until the money generated by those tags is lost and has to.be made up somewhere else
> ...


I don't disagree with you on the app fees, but what I was referring to was the actual money generated by the auction tags given to the special interest groups. IF I understand correctly, the $$ generated by the sale of an auction tag are legally supposed to go to conservation efforts tied to that species. Am I correct or off base? That is my current understanding.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

MWScott72 said:


> I don't disagree with you on the app fees, but what I was referring to was the actual money generated by the auction tags given to the special interest groups. IF I understand correctly, the $$ generated by the sale of an auction tag are legally supposed to go to conservation efforts tied to that species. Am I correct or off base? That is my current understanding.


_After the auction, the conservation organization returns 30 percent of the money raised directly to the DWR. The conservation organizations may keep up to 10 percent of the proceeds to cover administrative costs, and the remaining 60 percent is held by the conservation organizations for a short time as they work cooperatively with the DWR to choose approved conservation projects to fund._

The 10% works out to be a big number for "admins" - The 60% though is the looming question. When SFW used it to pay an attorney for the great wolf fight... Is that a worthy "conservation project"?

The truth is, I don't know where that 60% goes. I think that is part of the problem.

These tags don't have any additional value being given to these organizations. I am sorry, but these big names are going to come in and have a peeing contest regardless of who is selling.

Here is what they did in 2017: https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/conservation_permit_report_2017.pdf

What has SFW gotten since 2001? $15,704,861 and 2075 tags.

MDF? $13,095,459 and 1488 tags.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

$250k for a land exchange for Lee Kay Center and what appears to be a purchase of a bulldozer.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> $250k for a land exchange for Lee Kay Center and what appears to be a purchase of a bulldozer.


Best I could figure: NRO=North Region Office and Bulldozer=Bulldozer.

Is $100K a good deal for one of those? Would be great in traffic.


----------

