# Watch the Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board meeting begins this morning at 9 a.m. If you're interested, you can watch it live on YouTube.

Here's a look at today's agenda.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Thank you Amy! We appreciate you keeping us in the loop


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Man, the Expo Contract stuff is hard to watch. I'm having a difficult time believing there's really that much "confidential" information associated with the proposals. Sounds more like they don't want the public to know why they are going to keep it with SFW...


----------



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

I have been listening to this most the day. All I can say is very interesting.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Justin: I don't agree with that. Boundaries are as consistent as we can make them at this point.

Board: Question, question, push, question... Do you agree yet? Question.. Push.

Justin: Ummmm....


After all the no's and rational why.. Board: "Let's defer and talk about this again."


Some of this has been painful today. I have a management degree, I try and develop leadership skills. I am fit to lead people. It is apparent that "Management" skills are not applicable to wildlife though. There are many mangers on the board, but it doesn't sound like they even hunt. They don't know anything about equipment or the animals. The most concerning thing is when someone has a legit view with data, John instantly dismisses it. It looks like it is the John Opinion show. I don't even know the guy or have any basis for this view other than watching him today.

He just bashed the 1X and said its "negative" magnification. That is a quote. For a guy with astigmatism, I sure enjoy it. "They know how far they can shoot, it's still a muzzleloader" "They won't shoot any further"... Tell that to Gunwerks 700+ yard shots. People will without a doubt shoot further.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

ML magnification is Officially Approved.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

John is actually a BIG TIME hunter. But I see what you are saying.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

So, looking at their Chart. Henry Mountains. B looking for 40-50 (big range). They had a pop objective of 2000, at 2200, new objective is 2700. What is the basis of this? 125% increase because? 

Just trying to get a scope on if these proposals are based on simplistic management of "More is better" or what.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> John is actually a BIG TIME hunter. But I see what you are saying.


Good to know. It's just hard listening to some of this. Not because my opinion is correct, but because many of the statements are OPINIONS that could effect our state's hunting in major ways. I haven't heard many facts.

I am sure it isn't an easy job. But hard to watch.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> ML magnification is Officially Approved.


So much for the board giving 2 shxts about what the RACs think.

-DallanC


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

DallanC said:


> So much for the board giving 2 shxts about what the RACs think.
> 
> -DallanC


Have you listed to it? The RACs have given the impression that they supported the plan mostly as it stands. So even though we heard otherwise at the meetings, they aren't reporting that to the board...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

SFW(John Larsen I think?): Manti is 14,000 under population, but we lowered B for opportunity.

We understand that, but scratch our heads. But we are ok with the plan.


So are you objecting and kissing butt at the same time? Stand up and ask why are we killing so many bucks, young bucks at that, on a unit WAY below objective. Great almost concern.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

DallanC said:


> So much for the board giving 2 shxts about what the RACs think.
> 
> -DallanC


DallanC - I agree with you! I, for my own selfish reasons, wanted the ML regulations to stay the same. I would be in the top point category for a LE Elk unit and have been looking forward to that hunt for some time now. As stated in the broadcast, 53% of people surveyed agreed with allowing magnified scopes, but 3 out of 5 RAC meetings voted against allowing magnified scopes - which is 60%. All those comments about how the "majority" has already voted, were not really spot on.

One thing that stuck out to me, was when Troy Justensen said, "Lets not kid ourselves, an inline muzzleloader is basically a .308." - I don't not know Troy, and I am not taking a shot at him, but that would be all the more reason to not allow magnified scopes on muzzleloaders.

My soapbox rant is now over, I am going to go drown my sorrows in a nice cold Diet Dr. Pepper!

I am appreciative to all those who work for our wildlife here in Utah, whether for a state agency or a conservation group. It'll be interesting to see how things shake out with the changes.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Have you listed to it? The RACs have given the impression that they supported the plan mostly as it stands. So even though we heard otherwise at the meetings, they aren't reporting that to the board...


Shocked at how little the RACs have said. They have approved basically everything with little or no voiced concern.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

the board is a joke. and the rac's are all for show..


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Scofield Canyon CWMU made a dang good point, and it just seems like they don't have enough political friends to get the benefit from their RAC. The board doesn't understand the justification either.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

utahgolf said:


> the board is a joke. and the rac's are all for show..


Agreed. The RAC is all for show. Maybe I am naive, but it appears year after year, the board generally approves 90%+ of what the DWR proposes for wildlife management. It is too bad that they then add or subtract something for hunter management.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

RandomElk16 said:


> Scofield Canyon CWMU made a dang good point, and it just seems like they don't have enough political friends to get the benefit from their RAC. The board doesn't understand the justification either.


This was one of the better parts I personally viewed today. The guy had requested 2 additional elk permits for his cwmu. He currently had the highest acres per tag of the 5 cwmu's within 5 miles. Even with the 2 additional tags he would be the lowest, or close to. The board was shocked to learn we don't have a uniform way to distribute tags.

Many were reluctant to open the can of worms because it is a large task. I actually commend John on this because he acknowledged that, but said it needed to be fair. Another board member brought up, and these aren't for sure the numbers he said, but 48 moose tags go to private, 38 public. Somewhere along a 60/40 split which he called unfair. I completely agree. So this is on the agenda to review.

Honestly, we raise and lower tags on public units and the same should be for CWMU's. We should have the acreage documented, and the amount deemed habit. They are reviewed if they sell or gain land. Tags are reviewed based on this documented information and distributed accordingly.

I was pretty surprised(but not) that they don't review this and that it was kind of a guess when tags initially handed out and its held that way.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Soapbox Rant #2:

After listening for the entire day yesterday, the common crux and justification behind moving tags out of the early and late hunts by creating the October LE hunts was to allow more hunter opportunity and *reduce the pressure on mature bulls during the rut*. As it now seems, mature bulls will be pressured with high-powered rifles (no longer muzzleloaders) for the vast majority of the rut - give or take a week.

Using the hunt dates from the fall of 2015, I understand that the dates will be different in 2016, but data from 2015 will be plenty to paint the picture.

September 12 - 20 LE Early Rifle 9 Days
September 21 - October 2 LE Muzzleloader 12 Days
October 3 - October 15 General Season (which will now be the mid-season LE in 2016) 13 Days

That is 34 days straight of hunting pressure during the rut or thereabouts. Not to mention the rutting action that the LE archers get to enjoy, the last 3-5 days of their hunt. Some of these changes do not make sense, if we are trying to reduce the amount of pressure the bulls get during the rut.

I am done with my rant now! O|*


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> Soapbox Rant #2:
> 
> After listening for the entire day yesterday, the common crux and justification behind moving tags out of the early and late hunts by creating the October LE hunts was to allow more hunter opportunity and *reduce the pressure on mature bulls during the rut*. As it now seems, mature bulls will be pressured with high-powered rifles (no longer muzzleloaders) for the vast majority of the rut - give or take a week.
> 
> ...


I seriously do not understand some of those that hold positions. Completely clueless. and then there's the ring leader who only likes to hear himself talk and crack lame jokes. I hope a few of those guys don't weasel their way in on the expo proposal decision. You could tell a couple of them were combing with a fine brush on what means "conflict of interest." Nothing surprises me anymore.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

utahgolf said:


> I seriously do not understand some of those that hold positions. Completely clueless. and then there's the ring leader who only likes to hear himself talk and crack lame jokes. I hope a few of those guys don't weasel their way in on the expo proposal decision. You could tell a couple of them were combing with a fine brush on what means "conflict of interest." Nothing surprises me anymore.


Probably why we got to hear SFW agree to a bunch of stuff they didn't actually agree with lol.

I agree with the lame jokes. "If they want to duct tape a spotting scope on the ML, so be it. Whatever they can fit.." Sounds like you came up with your stance after some serious thought....


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Interesting to here John's comments at the board meeting about putting scopes on muzzleloaders. I attended a banquet earlier this year where he was trying to get top dollar out a Remington Ultimate Muzzleloader, he knows EXACTLY what they are capable of! After hearing what he had to say about the R.U.M. at the banquet and then his comments at the board meeting all I can say is WOW!!!:shock:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> Interesting to here John's comments at the board meeting about putting scopes on muzzleloaders. I attended a banquet earlier this year where he was trying to get top dollar out a Remington Ultimate Muzzleloader, he knows EXACTLY what they are capable of! After hearing what he had to say about the R.U.M. at the banquet and then his comments at the board meeting all I can say is WOW!!!:shock:


We already have long range rifles and bows.
Now muzzleloaders.
It was bound to happen.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

Was there a limit to the magnification on the scopes or no? 4 x? 9x? Or no limit?


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

UtahMountainMan said:


> Was there a limit to the magnification on the scopes or no? 4 x? 9x? Or no limit?


No limit.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Your right about it being bound to happen but to hear his analogies about putting scopes on muzzys being like putting rims on a ford pinto and then his comments at the banquet about how amazing these new muzzleloaders are makes me question his comments at the board meeting. I would be SHOCKED if this coming fall he's not out hunting with a long range muzzy topped with a high dollar scope.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Next up for 2017, crossbows on the archery hunt... followed by Scoped crossbows for 2018.


-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, when is the decision about the expo going to be made? That is what I am most worried about...


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, when is the decision about the expo going to be made? That is what I am most worried about...


They said that their "tentative" date was Friday the 18th I believe.

I'm really worried as well, as it's behind closed doors. When they kept asking about "conflicts of interest", some asked if it mattered if they were past board members for any of the interest groups. We obviously have some folks there who are tightly tied to SFW and others.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> They said that their "tentative" date was Friday the 18th I believe.
> 
> I'm really worried as well, as it's behind closed doors. When they kept asking about "conflicts of interest", some asked if it mattered if they were past board members for any of the interest groups. We obviously have some folks there who are tightly tied to SFW and others.


To me, watching that leads me to believe the decision was made long ago. Just hasn't been announced.

SFW can in no way compete with what RMEF is putting on the next 11 days. They still win this though.


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

*Wildlife Board*

Another year and same old thing.......politics at its finest! Until we as the public stand together, things will never change.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

RandomElk16 said:


> Shocked at how little the RACs have said. They have approved basically everything with little or no voiced concern.


I thought for sure they would be furious about the scopes on Muzzle-loaders.

I had some popcorn ready to watch the heated debate, but I was really disappointed that they didn't bring anything up about it in the comments section.

Hell, the other groups that made comments did more for addressing issues than the Rac's.

They said almost nothing, I guess those with little faith in the RAC's were right.

It looks like the RAC's are just a way for the public to voice their opinion and nothing more, because the WB will do whatever it wants.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

CPAjeff said:


> Soapbox Rant #2:
> 
> After listening for the entire day yesterday, the common crux and justification behind moving tags out of the early and late hunts by creating the October LE hunts was to allow more hunter opportunity and *reduce the pressure on mature bulls during the rut*. As it now seems, mature bulls will be pressured with high-powered rifles (no longer muzzleloaders) for the vast majority of the rut - give or take a week.
> 
> ...


The dude who was made fun of with the jeans actually made the most sense in regards to the pressure during the rut.

I learned a few interesting things from this meeting.

Hunt dates for all of Utah's hunts are predicated on the General Season Deer Hunt, which to me is strange.

Spike tags go down if the harvest is above 20% or 3000 spikes taken for 15,000.

It was interesting to say the least.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The RAC Chairs are not there to debate the issue. They simply are there to state the report and vote from their RAC. The Wildlife Board members are supposed to attend at least one RAC meeting and read the RAC minutes. Anyone who attended the Central RAC and watched the Board members in attendance would have seen the scope issue was decided well before a RAC meeting was held. 

After listening to the Board meeting, it just felt like a "good-ol'-boys club" affair. And people ask why public involvement in the RAC process is declining. Most of the public attending are lobbyists with incentives to attend and the group buddies. Anyone thinks those guys care to listen to the average sportsmen not involved with their organization is somewhat mistaken. Give us a Perkins or Bond, Fennimore, etc... The Reps on the Board have shown little interest in listening to the public at large.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

OK, here is a new one. 

Last year the WB said that they would address the problem and loop hole about the general deer hunt tags and bonus points. 

So did they or did they just table it again because they have a lot of points and are using the loop hole to hunt every year?


----------



## nebocreel (Mar 18, 2014)

One other thing--- if you want to make the RACs more "relevant" we would have to make it so that whatever that RAC decided on a particular issue would be "law" for that region and the WB would have to accept that.... Chances are that we would then have to have rules and regs in the proclamation that were region specific.. how would that be for complicating an already complicated guide and rule book.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

LMAO... if that were implemented the southern rac would vote to put a wall around their unit to keep out the 'Front folk. :mrgreen:


-DallanC


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

nebocreel- I have edited my post also. You have my phone number, give me a call.


----------



## nebocreel (Mar 18, 2014)

Not attacking -- just my opinion just like you give your opinions. You would make a valuable member on a RAC-- was disappointed when you must have chose not to continue with the process-- don't know the reasons. I know for a fact that you would have been offered a seat. Most of us want public input from "the average hunter". None of what I stated was personal, I have always respected your opinions and you know that. I know you have been on many committees, so you know how the process works. The post was not just for you, it was for others that seem to think that the RACs don't matter-- maybe they don't in many ways, but at least they are willing to try. Out of respect for you I will delete those other posts, just remember they were not meant just for you-- just giving my opinions.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

So, Who is NEBOCREEL?

I have a huntch, but just curious.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Mike I gotta tell ya, you are one of the brightest people I've ever had the pleasure of being associated with. Welcome to the disillusioned crew.

I pretty much suspended all involvement with big game matters in the state after the corruption displayed by the Wildlife Board and their ram rodding Opt 2 down our throats. I'd seen enough to realize the process as currently constituted was not just imperfect but also easily corrupted.

The current system is beyond repair. It hasn't fairly represented the hunters in the state for quite some time and it's only getting worse.

Richard I do appreciate your years of service.

December 18th will be an interesting day to say the least.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

nebocreel said:


> The post was not just for you, it was for others that seem to think that the RACs don't matter


Pardon us, but the RACs are a near failure. We've seen the results time and time again. You have ZERO control over what the wildlife board does... their agenda is established by outside influences. Whats the point of a RAC then? People might as well gather at the local bar to commiserate the lousy direction things seem to be going in than sit through a RAC meeting to get a vote on some issue that gets promptly ignored by the board.

-DallanC


----------



## Driftwood (Nov 29, 2015)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:


> Man, the Expo Contract stuff is hard to watch. I'm having a difficult time believing there's really that much "confidential" information associated with the proposals. Sounds more like they don't want the public to know why they are going to keep it with SFW...


Of course it's corrupt, it's big business!!!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

So what new late season muzzy hunt units
passed this time around?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> So what new late season muzzy hunt units
> passed this time around?


Looks like all of them in the packet got approved.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Alot of guys complain on here but feed right into the corruption in the state. By being the first in line at the expo show. Even though they know that Is the head of the monster.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

hazmat said:


> Alot of guys complain on here but feed right into the corruption in the state. By being the first in line at the expo show. Even though they know that Is the head of the monster.


As long as those tags are offered corrupt or not its another chance to live the dream.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

hazmat said:


> Alot of guys complain on here but feed right into the corruption in the state. By being the first in line at the expo show. Even though they know that Is the head of the monster.


I won't be first in line, but otherwise count me guilty as charged! I hate what SFW stands for, but this is the ONLY chance I have to currently apply for a LE deer tag or 4 OIL tags. I'm not going to pass it up. Sometimes to play the game, you have to play by their rules.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I have never been to the expo, I refuse to visit the expo while SWF has the reins. If RMEF gets it, I'll be there with bells on. 


-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I won't be first in line, but otherwise count me guilty as charged! I hate what SFW stands for, but this is the ONLY chance I have to currently apply for a LE deer tag or 4 OIL tags. I'm not going to pass it up. Sometimes to play the game, you have to play by their rules.


 Or work to change the rules!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

For all you guys that don't think one person can't make a difference.
Check out this thread I posted less than two years ago.
I thought it would be a good idea to have a limited number of late season LEs on general units with higher amounts of private lands and higher buck/doe ratios.
I felt this could help more people get through the LE deer process and give more opportunity.
I even said I wouldn't mind seeing it a muzzy hunt during the same time as the general elk season.
In less than a year from that time, five units were created and this year five more added.
As far as I know, I was the first person to bring up the idea publicly and it seems a few folks liked the idea and ran with it.
Here's the original link: 
http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/76345-thoughts-2nd-season-late-deer-hunt.html


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

And don't forget 1-I. He single handedly got rifle spike hunting banned on the Monroe. We all laughed at him but who was laughing while we were shooting muzzleloaders and bows at spike elk??------SS


----------

