# Statewide Spike Hunting



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

There is a directive from the Wildlife Board to the DWR to draft up a proposal to implement spike tags on *every* LE unit for elk. They say there is a huge need to increase opportunity, which I agree with. Question is, how many people think increasing the number of spike elk tags from 11,000 to 19,000 is the answer? How many would prefer the state simply issue MORE mature bull tags and allow hunters to have increased opportunity to hunt mature, not immature, elk?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> There is a directive from the Wildlife Board to the DWR to draft up a proposal to implement spike tags on *every* LE unit for elk. Question is, how many people think increasing the number of spike elk tags from 11,000 to 19,000 is the answer?


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
O|* O|* O|* O|* O|* O|* O|*


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I will speak for myself, and the 6 people I hunt with the most, we would rather hunt mature bulls. No to the state wide spike hunt!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Welllllll me being the spike hunter that I am I will also have to say NO to this idea.



> How many would prefer the state simply issue MORE mature bull tags and allow hunters to have increased opportunity to hunt mature, not immature, elk?


Pro this is a true statement, but I feel that you should word it differently so that it does not seam so negative about spike hunting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Pro this is a true statement, but I feel that you should word it differently so that it does not seam so negative about spike hunting.


Not possible!!! :twisted:


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Myself my brother and my son all vote NO for the statewide spike hunt. In fact we were discussing this very issue at a family get together and we would like to see all the spike tags gone, these tags have served there purpose. 
I would like to see more mature bull tags issued.

Allen


----------



## Hunt1Fish2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Before you answer No, No, No to state wide spike elk hunting, maybe you should ask “what is the non-hunting mortality on spike elk”. How close are the elk herds to management objective?

I do not know what the non-hunting mortality on spike elk is. If it is significant, then why not let hunters have them? Or do you want them to die of natural causes. Is this an anti-hunting statement?

The DWR states that much of the state’s elk herd is either at capacity or above it. I believe that the result of keeping more spike elk will be to increase the number of cow permits issued so the herd numbers are kept in line with objects.

The DWR is already proposing to increase cow permits by 2,598 this year, for a total of 14,577 permits. This equals 22% of the total post 2007 hunt population. If we do not return to issuing more spike elk permits, we will see the number of cow permits increased even more. At some point the production capacity (breading cows) within the population may be too small to recover quickly from a sever winter.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Before you answer No, No, No to state wide spike elk hunting, maybe you should ask "what is the non-hunting mortality on spike elk". How close are the elk herds to management objective?


The herds are OVER objectives for bull/cow ratios AND harvest age averages. So, we can harvest spikes, which will REDUCE the number of mature bulls available to harvest, or we can simply issue MORE mature bull tags to accomplish the SAME thing.



> I do not know what the non-hunting mortality on spike elk is. If it is significant, then why not let hunters have them? Or do you want them to die of natural causes. Is this an anti-hunting statement?


 The DWR says the mortality is minimal and NOT a factor.



> The DWR states that much of the state's elk herd is either at capacity or above it. I believe that the result of keeping more spike elk will be to increase the number of cow permits issued so the herd numbers are kept in line with objects.


If the bull/cow ratios are lowered from harvesting more mature bulls it would accomplish the same end result with an increase in mature bull elk hunting opportunities.



> The DWR is already proposing to increase cow permits by 2,598 this year, for a total of 14,577 permits. This equals 22% of the total post 2007 hunt population. If we do not return to issuing more spike elk permits, we will see the number of cow permits increased even more. At some point the production capacity (breading cows) within the population may be too small to recover quickly from a sever winter.


I am troubled by this, according to the numbers on the DWR site, many units are UNDER objective, with OVER objective bull/cow ratios AND harvest age objectives. Yet, the DWR still recommends an INCREASE in cow tags on those units UNDER population objectives. What am I missing?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> How many would prefer the state simply issue MORE mature bull tags and allow hunters to have increased opportunity to hunt mature, not immature, elk?


I'm with you. Forget the spike elk. Open up *EVERY* LE unit to mature bulls. 19,000 statewide mature bull tags. Sounds great!

Good idea Pro! What do we do to get this pushed through?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

PBH said:


> I'm with you. Forget the spike elk. Open up *EVERY* LE unit to mature bulls. 19,000 statewide mature bull tags. Sounds great!
> 
> Good idea Pro! What do we do to get this pushed through?


Not going to happen PBH. There is still, and will always be "Premium" units.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > How many would prefer the state simply issue MORE mature bull tags and allow hunters to have increased opportunity to hunt mature, not immature, elk?
> ...


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> There is still, and will always be "Premium" units


Correct me if I am wrong but the idea is to have Spike hunts on ALL units which means the "premium" will be no more.



> Not possible!!!


Why not?? Think that maybe if you reword your point a little you might get more people to see your side of it other then get upset and not listen to what you have to say. I know that if I did not allready agree with you on this that I would be really upset and be agureing for the spike tags with the way you worded it.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > There is still, and will always be "Premium" units
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but the idea is to have Spike hunts on ALL units which means the "premium" will be no more.


What I am saying is, that even if they issued spike tags on all of them, there still would be some premium units that would be managed different that the rest. Also, even if we do away with spikes and issue mature tags, there still would be premium units. PBH isn't that big of a fan of premiums, and I was just saying that there will still be some.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

suave300 said:


> PBH isn't that big of a fan of premiums, and I was just saying that there will still be some.


did I say that? I don't remember saying that. Is someone posting as PBH?

Are we talking about Premium units, or LE units? Or both?

My issue is opportunity. I have no problem with allowing 19,000 hunters the opportunity to hunt spike elk. I'm currently in my 5 year waiting period before I can start entering LE hunts again. I love being able to hunt spike elk every year. I'll take a spike elk over store-boughten hamburger any day!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

PBH said:


> suave300 said:
> 
> 
> > PBH isn't that big of a fan of premiums, and I was just saying that there will still be some.
> ...


No you didn't. Is it true though? If not, then I am sorry. I tought that is where you stood?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby, I have reread what I said in the original post, and for the life of me I can't see what you are complaining about. Please explain.

As for the spike tags doing away with 'premium' LE units, I don't see a scenario where a large and vocal segment of Utah sportsmen will sign off on anything close to what you or PBH is saying. I know PBH is trying to make a point and applying some humor into the conversation, but I in NO means am endorsing issuing 19,000 'new' mature bull tags in 2009. I do believe we need to issue many more tags, and we MUST get bull/cow ratios closer to objectives, but not in one year, and not with the current weapon allotment and season dates. That would undo a majority of what has taken 10+ years to build up.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> My issue is opportunity. I have no problem with allowing 19,000 hunters the opportunity to hunt spike elk. I'm currently in my 5 year waiting period before I can start entering LE hunts again. I love being able to hunt spike elk every year. I'll take a spike elk over store-boughten hamburger any day!


Do you support the current EMP as it is written, not as it is followed?

Have you ever heard of cow tags? The success rates are HIGHER and the meat every bit as good. :wink:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> there still would be some premium units that would be managed different that the rest


If there are spike tags on the premium units does that now make not as much of a premium unit. The premium units are managed for a very few huge bulls to come off of it each year. Add spike tags to that and that quality goes down and that to me makes the premium unit no more. As I have said and as I am sure most know I am a spike hunter. This idea of a state wide spike hunt just hurts the state as a whole. I see it turning the state into a state wide general season type of hunt and that is not a good way to manage. As Pro has said many many many times we need a good balance of general season and LE/premium units. Heck I 400 is a better then this idea.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> This idea of a state wide spike hunt just hurts the state as a whole. I see it turning the state into a state wide general season type of hunt and that is not a good way to manage. As Pro has said many many many times we need a good balance of general season and LE/premium units. Heck I 400 is a better then this idea.


**** straight!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> As for the spike tags doing away with 'premium' LE units, I don't see a scenario where a large and vocal segment of Utah sportsmen will sign off on anything close to what you or PBH is saying


I hope you are right, but yet the board is asking for a state wide spike hunt. Where is the large and vocal group at to stop this before it goes any farther?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Have you ever heard of cow tags? The success rates are HIGHER and the meat every bit as good. :wink:


I like young cows better than old cows.

I think there are many of you that confuse "hunting" with "killing". "Hunting" doesn't always include "killing". I want the opportunity to "hunt" every year. That doesn't mean that I "kill" every year. I can't hunt cows every year, because the opportunity isn't there every year. I enjoy hunting "elk" whether they have 1 point, 6 points, or no points at all. I love being in the field hunting, and while I wait to draw my second LE tag, I want to be able to continue hunting, even if that means I get the opportunity to hunt spike elk. I don't want that opportunity taken away. I400 does just that. I don't believe for a second that by passing I400 that I would have _more_ elk hunting opportunities. On the contrary, I think it would limit opportunity.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

While I in no way support a state wide elk hunt, from an optomistic point of view, if the DWR is not willing to increase mature bull elk tags, spike tags are the only tool to help bring balance to the bull/cow ratios on these units. 

Say no to statewide spike hunts and demand more mature bull tags!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> I like young cows better than old cows.
> 
> I think there are many of you that confuse "hunting" with "killing". "Hunting" doesn't always include "killing". I want the opportunity to "hunt" every year. That doesn't mean that I "kill" every year. I can't hunt cows every year, because the opportunity isn't there every year. I enjoy hunting "elk" whether they have 1 point, 6 points, or no points at all. I love being in the field hunting, and while I wait to draw my second LE tag, I want to be able to continue hunting, even if that means I get the opportunity to hunt spike elk. I don't want that opportunity taken away. I400 does just that. I don't believe for a second that by passing I400 that I would have _more_ elk hunting opportunities. On the contrary, I think it would limit opportunity.


 Then get a cow tag and shoot a yearling cow. They are proposing issuing 22,000+ cow tags while they only issue 11,000 spike tags. _(O)_

I think you mistake us for other hunters. Most of those speaking up on here are not just about killing. As for there not being the opportunity to hunt cows every year, there are many that go under-subscribed, and if the bull/cow ratios get lowered to being close to objectives the number of cow tags issued each year will INCREASE! One more time, I400 does NOT take away opportunity, no matter how many times you and W2U say it, it is still not true. If you LOWER the success rates on mature bull tags, improve bull/cow ratios, the opportunity WILL be increased for elk hunters in Utah, while maintaining quality better than open bull units could ever hope to be.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> I don't want that opportunity taken away. I400 does just that. I don't believe for a second that by passing I400 that I would have more elk hunting opportunities. On the contrary, I think it would limit opportunity.


PBH

Having just graduated in finance, I look at the I400 in a different light.

Take our current elk hunting opportunities and consider them investments in a typical CD drawing 5% interest, which is better than a kick in the nuts, but at the same time not all that great of an investment. Every 5-20 years we can cash out that interest (drawing a LE tag), but for some people they will die before they will reap the rewards from there investment, they are comfortable with the security (opportunity) that it offers.

Let's say you hear about a stock (I400) that sounds like it has potential to reap huge rewards, but you are cautious because it doesn't sound as secure (potential loss of opportunity) as your current investment (elk hunting as it is now). All you would have to do is invest a little less than 20% (5 of 28 LE units) into this stock. At the same time the interest rate on the remaining balance of your CD would increase (rotating spike hunts on other units) to cover any loss in income you incur due to moving a portion of your investment. Win, Win right?

Now if the stock tip (I400) is a success, you just made one of the best financial decisions of your life. If it sinks, you haven't taken much of a loss and everything will return to what it was before in 5 - 10 years and you can return to your secure, 5% CD.

Sure you may have to drive a feww extra miles to a new financial institution (hunting grounds) once a year, but the pay offs could be huge.

We have to take a chance on something sometime. You will never get anywhere, with hunting or investing, if you aren't willing to take a risk. Elk hunting as it is right now sucks for anyone who desires to hunt mature bulls.

Just my .02


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > I400 does NOT take away opportunity, no matter how many times you and W2U say it, it is still not true.


Will I be able to draw an I400 tag EVERY YEAR? If not, then opportunity is taken away. I can purchase a spike archery elk tag EVERY year, as long as I purchase it early and don't wait until they sell out (how many times have the tags sold out? Isn't this why they are proposing upping the number of available tags?).


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

You can still hunt anybull units, or get a cow tag, or a spike on the remaining units=hunting every year.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

The DWR doesn't allow or disallow tag numbers. The DWR can only make recommendations. Period.

So, who really prevents more mature bull tags when it's obvious that responsible management calls for them to be issued? Everybody knows, but nobody wants to address the issue...still.

I strongly oppose statewide spike hunting as a mandated and regulated option. Always have. Spike hunting is short sighted because of what it potentially does to the elk herds.

Either we stand together and call it like it is, or all this unending yack about spike hunting or no spike hunting is just farting in the wind. Issue the appropriate number of any bull tags. That comes first; I400 and all else comes after.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

> spike elk tags from 11,000 to 19,000 is the answer? How many would prefer the state simply issue MORE mature bull tags and allow hunters to have increased opportunity to hunt mature, not immature, elk?


So Pro what are you talking 500 more LE tags verses 8000 spike tags i thought the idea was to get more meat in the freezer not more antlers on the wall. I am all for increasing both LE and Spike for a proposed say 5 year plan to get the management back in wack.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I have never killed a branch antlered bull elk. I've killed several spikes while waiting to draw a deer tag for the past decade. I'm in favor of increased opportunity on branch antlered bulls. It's like was mentioned earlier, you can get a spike or cow tag almost every year if you just get in on it early enough. What I'm most opposed to is giving more and more tags to the highest bidder.


----------



## GSPS ROCK (Sep 14, 2007)

No on the spike, that is just a waste of my money! More mature bulls is the direction we need to go especially if you use a bow!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH has talked about 'lost' opportunity if I400 were to be implemented, so I started thinking about 'lost' opportunity if statewide spike hunting were to be implemented. They want to issue 8000 more tags, and at 12-20% success rates, that equates to 920-1600 additional spikes harvested each year. But, that is still 920-1600 LESS bulls that can later be hunted as mature bulls. Add that up to a 5 year total, and the number of mature bulls LOST equals: 4600-8000 mature bulls not alive to be hunted. Factor in the statewide LE success rate average of 84% and that is 5336-9280 tags available for LE applicants, or 1067-1856 fewer mature bull tags available each year if the same number of bulls were to be harvested as mature bulls instead of as spikes. So, while the 'lost' opportunity is smaller as far as tag numbers of bulls go, the 'loss' of mature bull opportunity is great, and we all know the demand for mature bull tags is HIGHER than for spike tags. And, for those who just want to hunt, or want meat in the freezer, if the bull/cow ratios are brought into objective the number of cow tags available will INCREASE, in fact I dare say they would increase by MORE than the 'lost' opportunity from NOT adding 8000 NEW spike tags.


----------



## Gus Orviston (Mar 25, 2008)

I just have to pipe in again, the DWR has been trying to increase LE tags for how many years now??? They have been unable to get the increases they have asked for. What does this mean??? Bull to Cow ratios that are out of wack (too D#@$ many bulls) on a lot of LE units. Simple solution: Let people do what people want to do......GO HUNTING. Simply stated: If you (the hunters) wont let us (UDWR) increase the number of mature bull tags we (UDWR) will let you (the hunters) shoot them as spikes!!!

Just one more coment, it has been the combination of spike hunting and LE opportunity in this state that has made it one of the best elk hunting states in the nation!

By the way were is W2U on this one? I was looking forward to a 12 round bout between Pro and W2U. Come on you got a spring on 4lb test your tasle'n with?

Gus Orviston

"Will the girl who ran from the guy who recited Izaak Walton in the tree please contact Gus on the other river he named. He has your rod and fish and wants to return them. He is totally harmless, but urges you to bring a loaded gun if frightened, as long as you come. Thank you."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Gus Orviston said:


> I just have to pipe in again, the DWR has been trying to increase LE tags for how many years now??? They have been unable to get the increases they have asked for. What does this mean??? Bull to Cow ratios that are out of wack (too D#@$ many bulls) on a lot of LE units. Simple solution: Let people do what people want to do......GO HUNTING. Simply stated: If you (the hunters) wont let us (UDWR) increase the number of mature bull tags we (UDWR) will let you (the hunters) shoot them as spikes!!!
> 
> Just one more coment, it has been the combination of spike hunting and LE opportunity in this state that has made it one of the best elk hunting states in the nation!
> 
> ...


Gus, I agree the battle to increase LE tags to the right number is difficult. That is ONE reason some of us have came up with I400, rather than trying to turn the Titanic on a dime, we are trying to turn a small yacht in the right direction. But, the Wildlife Board is NOT innocent in this situation, they are the ones who have final say and have lacked the courage to do what needs to be done, and now are looking for an easy way out while putting the full blame on the consumer. If the end product is bad is it the consumers fault, or is it the producers fault?

As for the spike hunting making this the *best * elk hunting state for elk hunting, I agree it served it purpose of managing PEOPLE while allowing bulls to mature. But, we no longer have that problem, we have too many mature bulls. To say we are going to harvest an unpredictable number of immature bulls to 'control' the mature bull population is nonsensical.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I would love to hunt spikes on Monroe Mountain...I could just hop on the ol' ATV and ride up the canyon from my home after work and hunt elk every year! Such an increase in my hunting opportunity would be fantastic! I know that the number of days I will be able to hunt elk will go up as soon as we have statewide spike elk hunting!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I would love to hunt spikes on Monroe Mountain...I could just hop on the ol' ATV and ride up the canyon from my home after work and hunt elk every year! Such an increase in my hunting opportunity would be fantastic!


And *you* call into question my motives. :?


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

I have been chasing cows and spikes my whole elk hunting career while waiting for an any bull tag. It would sure be nice to have a chance to hunt something besides spikes. I would love to hunt a branch antlered bull. It wouldn't have to be a 350-400 inch bull, anything bigger than a spike would be fun for me. I'm not a trophy hunter yet but a nice 4 or 5x5 would make me pee my pants. To summarize my babbling, more any bull opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

My motives have nothing to do with money!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> My motives have nothing to do with money!


Give me a break!! :roll: Yeah, he really wants to guide people to smaller bulls. :roll: :roll:


----------



## Gus Orviston (Mar 25, 2008)

ding ding......end of round 1......

Gus Orviston

"Fisherman should be the easiest of men to convince to commence the search for the soul, because fishing is nothing but the pursuit of the elusive. Fish invisible to laymen like me are visible to anglers like you by a hundred subtle signs. how can you be so sagacious and patient in seeking fish, and so hasty and thick as to write off your soul because you can’t see it?"


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> My motives have nothing to do with money!


Huh? Does this mean that pro's ideas are motivated by money? To the contrary. Like he has stated many times, I400 is CONTRARY to what makes pro money, as far as hunting goes.

I'm not throwing my vote in one way or another, but assuming money is his motivator is asinine and a lie.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

What are his motivations? Are they not motivated by personal gain in one form or another just like anyone else's?

A few things I am willing to bet on are these: if statewide spike elk hunting were implemented, Utah would 1) see an increase in hunting opportunity through tags and through hunter days 2) strides would be made to decrease bull/cow ratios 3) the number of trophy bull elk would not decrease

What would decrease? Nothing! In fact, Utah would still increase the number of LE tags...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> My motives have nothing to do with money!


Let's say for the hell of it my motives are based on money, which would make my motives selfish. Is that any worse than one having motives that are selfish, like being able to ride his atv after work and be elk hunting in no time? I don't see how it is, but I am sure you can 'enlighten' us how one person's selfish motives are better/worse than another's.

And, again if I were motivated by money, I would be strongly OPPOSED to I400. Your ignorance as to what generates money for me as a guide is amazing. You might want to get educated on the subject before making accusations on a subject you have proven to know little/NOTHING about. :idea:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> What are his motivations? Are they not motivated by personal gain in one form or another just like anyone else's?
> 
> A few things I am willing to bet on are these: if statewide spike elk hunting were implemented, Utah would 1) see an increase in hunting opportunity through tags and through hunter days 2) strides would be made to decrease bull/cow ratios 3) *the number of trophy bull elk would not decrease*
> 
> What would decrease? Nothing! In fact, Utah would still increase the number of LE tags...


You must quickly repent and say 30 Hail Mary's for you have sinned. You have gone and disagreed with the 'experts'. You say the number of trophy bull elk would not decrease, how is that possible if MORE bull elk are being killed as BABIES? Even the Big Game Coordinator ('expert') as openly admitted an increase in spike tags and making it statewide *would* have an impact in the number of mature bull tags available on many/most LE units. If you remove 40-60% of the bull population from the new recruitment class on the Monroe for 5 years, how can you seriously say this would have NO negative impact on the number of trophy bull elk on that unit? Is 1+1=2 down in Monroe, or do you use 'other' math?


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

sure the numbers are up, but whittle them down on both ends statewide is silly.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > My motives have nothing to do with money!
> ...


Exactly my point...what makes my motives any more selfish than yours?

Umm...also, wouldn't statewide spike elk hunting also lower the number of 400 bulls on some units in your opinion?


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Pro you say it doesn't make any sence to have spike only hunts in LE or Premium areas. Like others have said, were do you think the great elk hunting in Utah has come from? As a result of spike and limiting the hunting in the premium units. 
But as a result, espically in the premium units, bull to cow ratios are way out of wack. Why are they way out of wack on premium units? I'll answer. NO SPIKE HUNTS! They are not killing the amount of bulls needed to sustain a healthy number of bull to cows. This is also true in the LE areas but not to the same extent. 

I dont want spike tags in all areas either but the fact is we all know the answer to the problem, give out more tags! Probably double the amount on some units. DWR has tried to do that but wether the head DWR guys dont have the guts to stand up to the unmentioned political figures, we all know who they are, the fact is still the same. More tags need to be issued. 

I feel that even if the DWR was able to get a substantial tag increase all in favor of I400 would still want that too become a reality. Because it is what you feel is right. I dont agree. I want to be able to hunt with my kids every year wether it is a spike or not. Sure I want to kill a big bull every year but it is not being realistic. I do hunt in open bull areas and when it comes to crunch time if I want to fill my tag I go to a spike only area because there is more elk on them. I wonder why? 

I dont want spike only on all units but it has been proven to be an effective management tool for bull to cow ratios. Anyone who disagrees on that point needs to look at what has happened to the Elk herd in Utah in the past 15 years. You cant argue. 

If I400 goes through we might as well just do what Colorado has done. But wait till 3-4 years so my dad and I can get our tags to have a chance at a 350+ bull. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: We are the only ones out of our group of hunter who haven't got a LE tag yet.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

clean pass through said:


> .... But wait till 3-4 years so my dad and I can get our tags to have a chance at a 350+ bull. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


=more mature bull tags...


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

Everybody has has their own opinions, obviously! So heres mine, thank goodness, our deer herds are not managed like our elk are. Imagine our deer herds being at an unhealthy buck/doe status, (due to over managing them, and not following the numbers of the original plan) so the board says to go kill yearlings to put it back in check, When the majority of the hunters would rather hunt mature bucks. Such as one famous man once said, "It don't make no sense, its like wipin' before you poop"


----------



## Gus Orviston (Mar 25, 2008)

clean pass through said:


> Pro you say it doesn't make any sence to have spike only hunts in LE or Premium areas. Like others have said, were do you think the great elk hunting in Utah has come from? As a result of spike and limiting the hunting in the premium units.
> But as a result, espically in the premium units, bull to cow ratios are way out of wack. Why are they way out of wack on premium units? I'll answer. NO SPIKE HUNTS! They are not killing the amount of bulls needed to sustain a healthy number of bull to cows. This is also true in the LE areas but not to the same extent.
> 
> I dont want spike tags in all areas either but the fact is we all know the answer to the problem, give out more tags! Probably double the amount on some units. DWR has tried to do that but wether the head DWR guys dont have the guts to stand up to the unmentioned political figures, we all know who they are, the fact is still the same. More tags need to be issued.
> ...


and we have a winner!

Gus Orviston

"Like gamblers, baseball fans and television networks, fishermen are enamored with statistics. The adoration of statistics is a trait so deeply embedded in their nature that even those rarified anglers, the disciples of Jesus, couldn't resist backing their yarns with arithmetic. When the resurrected Christ appears on the morning shore and directs his forlorn disciples to the famous catch of John 21, we learn that the net contained not "a boatload" of fish, nor "about a hundred and a half," nor "over a gross," but precisely "a hundred and fifty and three."


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

clean pass through said:


> Pro you say it doesn't make any sence to have spike only hunts in LE or Premium areas. Like others have said, were do you think the great elk hunting in Utah has come from? As a result of spike and limiting the hunting in the premium units.
> But as a result, espically in the premium units, bull to cow ratios are way out of wack. Why are they way out of wack on premium units? I'll answer. NO SPIKE HUNTS! They are not killing the amount of bulls needed to sustain a healthy number of bull to cows. This is also true in the LE areas but not to the same extent.
> 
> *I dont want spike tags in all areas either but the fact is we all know the answer to the problem, give out more tags! Probably double the amount on some units. DWR has tried to do that but wether the head DWR guys dont have the guts to stand up to the unmentioned political figures, we all know who they are, the fact is still the same. More tags need to be issued. *
> ...


My question to you is, why does it have to be spike tags? I think most agree with increasing tags, but just not with issuing spike tags. :?:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Exactly my point...what makes my motives any more selfish than yours?
> 
> Umm...also, wouldn't statewide spike elk hunting also lower the number of 400 bulls on some units in your opinion?


No one said your motives are any more selfish than mine,but it was *you* and your brother who have called into question *my* motives several times. I was just pointing out the irony of it all.

Yes, statewide spike hunting would lower the number of 400 bulls on LE units, but so would lowering the bull/cow ratios through more mature bulls being harvested each year, so would I400. What's your point?

cleanpassthrough, if the state would issue the needed number of mature bull tags during the right seasons and with the right amount going to primitive weapons, we could see well-balanced herds w/o issuing a single spike tag and STILL have great quality. "You can't argue." :wink:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Yes, statewide spike hunting would lower the number of 400 bulls on LE units, but so would lowering the bull/cow ratios through more mature bulls being harvested each year, so would I400. What's your point?


The point? Wouldn't the units you guide on be affected in your opinion by a statewide spike hunt? But, with I400, wouldn't those same units be unaffected?



jahan said:


> My question to you is, why does it have to be spike tags? I think most agree with increasing tags, but just not with issuing spike tags. :?:


It doesn't have to be spike tags to bring bull/cow ratios back into line; however, by offering spike tags, the state can offer far more opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> cleanpassthrough, if the state would issue the needed number of mature bull tags during the right seasons and with the right amount going to primitive weapons, we could see well-balanced herds w/o issuing a single spike tag and STILL have great quality. "You can't argue." :wink:


Pro, if the state would issue the needed number of mature bull tags, we could see well-balanced herds without issuing a single I-400 tag, change season dates, or tag allotments for different weapons and STILL have great quality. "You can't argue." :wink:

Also, if the state would issue the needed number of mature bull tags with spike tags, we could see well-balanced herds without issuing a single I-400 tag, changing season dates, or changing tag allotments for different weapons and STILL have great quality. "You can't argue." :wink:


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

I've posted this before, it is not a result of my thinking but listening to others much wiser than myself.

The spike hunt was origonally implimented to help the mature bull cow ratio get back in check. On the Hardware there were *WAY* TOO MANY dry cows. The reason was that the spikes just couldn't reach up and service those big ol' ohnery cows.

The spike hunt and LE combination on the Cache allowed the bull to cow ratio to get back where it needed to be to optimize calf production. Having said that it is time to cut back on the spikes in the Cache unit (and more than likely other units) until the bull to cow ratios are back in check (winter surveys on the Millville face, and Hardware indicated 1 mature bull to 3 or 4 cows ). After cutting back on the spike tags and increasing te LE tags, post hunt ratios may indicate that we need to increase spike tags again.

My opinion is this:

First we kill cows to keep the over all population of the herd in check. (If we have a 1 to 1 ratio of bulls to cows you don't necessarily want to kill your cows because you won't beable to renew your resource.);

Second we only need spike hunts on the units where the bull to cow ration is too low (example: 1 bull to 25 or 30 cows).

Third: Drastically increase the number of Bull Tags on Units where the Bull to Cow ratio is approaching 1 to 1. Then adjust the following year.

LAST: The only reason we are in this dilema is that we are trying to grow HORN. While I am not against HORN, the value of Horn has increased to a point where it is dangerous to our herds. The reason we killed 30+/- 400 class bulls in Utah, is that our age ratios are too high. We have a great deal of elk dieing of old age that are never harvested. ANSWER MORE TAGS, (More than even have been increased this year)

IMO I-400 goes in the correct direction to resolve some of the above problems.

Enough of the rant. :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The point? Wouldn't the units you guide on be affected in your opinion by a statewide spike hunt? But, with I400, wouldn't those same units be unaffected?


I will go on record and state: I am in favor of getting bull/cow ratios down to objectives, even in the units I guide on. In fact, I would LOVE to see the bull/cow ratio improved on my favorite unit , the Dutton. Right now the herd is under population objective, over harvest age objective, over bull/cow ratio objective, yet the DWR has recommending issuing only a few more LE bull tags and issuing several hundred MORE cow tags than bull tags. I don't mind working hard to put a 400 class bull on the ground for me or a client. I welcome the challenge of fewer 400 class bulls around each year but having healthier herds. I400 has been pushed for the simple reason the current climate in the elk hunting world has been so strongly opposed to change on a grand scale. If there is a way to get ratios in check w/o taking a huge hit on quality across the board, I am all for it.

As long as 60% of the tags go to rifle hunters in the peak of the rut, the opportunity is limited on how many tags can be issued and maintain quality animals.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

To answer the question I was asked. I wish they would give more mature bull tags but they have not been sucessful in getting the tags for what ever reason political or not. Something needs to be done and I dont see managment bull tags doing what needs to be done. Spike hunting has been proven. On most units in the state with spike tags you can get a 350+ bull on them if you hunt! 400 class bulls if you bust your butt yourself or hire a guide who gets payed to hunt and be on the mountain every day. But unfortunatly the spike only hunting is more likely to pass than the tried before extra mature bull tags with which I agree with more. 

DWR is just trying to fix a problem before tragic consiquences arise. They have made the problem though because they wont stand up to the big money and do what should be done for the good of the whole herd and not a select few hunters and conservation groups. However unfortunate politics in state goverment stinks. It is a reality so instead of doing nothing spike only tags would be in my opinion a good option not the best though. That being said I want to make my opinion clear (more tags for mature bulls are the proper answer but it won't happen yet.)


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

> As long as 60% of the tags go to *rifle hunters in the peak of the rut*, the opportunity is limited on how many tags can be issued and maintain quality animals.


AMEN :!:

I have no problem with the bulk of tags going to rifle hunters. If Rifle tags were pulled out of the rut there could be a TON of tags added across the board.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

> DWR is just trying to fix a problem before tragic consiquences arise. They have made the problem though *because they wont stand up to the big money and do what should be done for the good of the whole herd and not a select few hunters and conservation groups*. However unfortunate politics in state goverment stinks.


*political biology is the proper term.*


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

["Firstarrow"]quote=


> As long as 60% of the tags go to *rifle hunters in the peak of the rut*, the opportunity is limited on how many tags can be issued and maintain quality animals.


Pro continually makes this assertion; however, Arizona has LE hunts at almost identical dates as I400 proposes and with similar bull/cow ratios as Utah's LE hunts....and, do you know what their success rates are? Almost identical to Utah's. Changing season dates WILL NOT have the impact that Pro or anybody else asserts...the bottom line is that hunting elk with a high-caliber rifle, with numerous helpers/spotters, and with advanced technological tools such as optics just isn't difficult.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

Here is a question you all may have answered but it seems to be the best scenario for all to me and a simple answer without changing anything. Move the overpopulated elk to other areas that could use the boost.
Pro you are the self proclaimed expert here why could this not be accomplished? I know you say this is not motivated by money but I have a hard time believing that anyone not getting paid to hunt, and quite well I WILL add does not motivate himself to benefit himself. I for one give up hunting this state during general season elk. So an increase of mature bulls would help me.
Like most I feel a 20 % chance a harvesting an elk is not good enough and would prefer buying CWMU tags to ensure a greater success rate. I personally feel that all the money I spend every year on hunting elk should at least increase my chances at getting one. Last year just hunting and getting ready to hunt I spent 800.00 per person (3) not including my time away from work fuel for the truck, ATV’s and everything else that runs on the liquid gold.
I figure if I pocket that money for a few years I can afford elk for us three every 3 to 6 years on CWMU property and all of us get elk instead of hoping and paying to see them. All the while I keep adding to an already broken point system that can not or will not get fixed.
When my time comes I will like others be grateful to the great DWR god for letting me hunt my once in a life time Trophy elk for a mere fraction of what I could have paid PRO to take me too this year on his almost private mountain. (if they can keep the roads blocked) seems like a fair trade for our 18 years of trying to get a tag I think.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Isn't the simple solution to replace the spike tags with any bull tags?

If anyone's motives are strictly for the benefit of the herd, then we need to just eliminate point restrictions and allow more tags. 

who's up for that?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

clean pass through, this idea is NOT the DWR's idea, it is coming from the very people who have allowed the ratios to get where they are, the Wildlife Board. And, if you think the 'money' folks are opposed to more mature bull tags, what do you think they feel about statewide spike tags? Hint, it is NOT favorable I assure you.

W2U, remember also, that as ratios go down, and the 400 class bulls are 'thinned' out either through spike hunting or additional mature bulls harvested, success rates WILL go down allowing for MORE mature tags to be issued as well as MORE cow tags. One big gripe I have with spike tags is there is no way to forecast/control the number of spikes harvested each year and on any given unit. That makes for difficult 'management' of the number of bulls harvested each year. So, if the weather induces a higher than 'normal' success rate for spike hunters on a given unit, the reduction of bulls recruited into the herd suffers, mandating a reduction in mature tags issued in ensuing years, all the while maintaining the unknown variables that are MORE numerous than the unknown variables for mature bull tags. Is this really the 'desired' management practice 'science' would support? There is more control of the number of animals harvested by issuing any bull tags versus spike tags, and having control is essential to controlling the outcome. Intentionally targeting the youngest of the bull population statewide is not what the MAJORITY of hunters want, the evidence is in the number of tags bought/applied for. Even if the top end bulls was to 'slide' to 350 class animals, the demand for those type of tags would ALWAYS be higher than for a yearling bull tag. I like to match my wit/skills with the smartest/wisest of the herd, not the youngest/dumbest. That is what I consider one of the best aspects of hunting, the challenge of outsmarting the animal I hunt, not just being able to locate the animal.

Rich, you are correct, the term is *POLITICAL BIOLOGY* that is being used in Utah.

W2U, the success rates on one or two of the higher quality managed units in Arizona have high success rates, but they do not on AVERAGE have as high success rates as LE units in Utah. The ones that do have the high success rates have at least 40/100 ratios like Utah's units have. Those that have ratios in the 20-30/100 ratios have no where near 90% success rates. True, rifle hunters will always experience higher success rates than archery or muzzle loader hunters will due to being effective at such long distances. But, I see NO evidence of success rates staying at 90+% with lower cow ratios and rifle hunts held when the bulls are less vulnerable. The tendency to be picky will decrease as well, allowing MORE of the older/bigger class bulls to escape year to year allowing for quality to remain high. A hunter who has to work harder to locate bulls will be less likely to pass up a 340 class bull than a hunter who is seeing dozens of 340 class bulls close to the road and knowing there are several bulls bigger than that nearby and vulnerable.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> Here is a question you all may have answered but it seems to be the best scenario for all to me and a simple answer without changing anything. Move the overpopulated elk to other areas that could use the boost.
> Pro you are the self proclaimed expert here why could this not be accomplished? I know you say this is not motivated by money but I have a hard time believing that anyone not getting paid to hunt, and quite well I WILL add does not motivate himself to benefit himself. I for one give up hunting this state during general season elk. So an increase of mature bulls would help me.


 We don't have a shortage of elk, so why would we go through extensive cost to relocate elk? Elk are a renewable resource, we can harvest a fairly large portion of the herd and still have enough to quickly replace them with new 'recruits'.

How do you know what I I get paid to guide? Many times I LOSE money doing what I love. Very few in the biz get wealthy guiding. That is one of MANY myths of the guide biz. Believe what you want, those who personally know me, know my motivations and what drives me.

PBH, we MUST manage for the 'benefit' of the herd AND to the desires of the hunters. To dismiss either is unwise and near-sighted. I see no reason we can't have BOTH. That is what I am "up for".


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I have followed every post on this subject, here and other places. For those of us that are against the 2009 spike hunting proposal, how can we help to get it stopped and push something else in? Seemes like all posts lead to the same point, Pro and someone bicker back and forth, back and forth. Enough of the defense, lets see some action. So what can we do to help? I have been told we need a voice, so there are a lot of people yelling, how can we be heard, or more importantly how can we be listened to?


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> I have followed every post on this subject, here and other places. For those of us that are against the 2009 spike hunting proposal, how can we help to get it stopped and push something else in? Seemes like all posts lead to the same point, Pro and someone bicker back and forth, back and forth. Enough of the defense, lets see some action. So what can we do to help? I have been told we need a voice, so there are a lot of people yelling, how can we be heard, or more importantly how can we be listened to?


E-mail the wildlife board is where I would start, and voice your oppinions to them. They are the ones that make the changes. I would also e-mail the DWR as well. The more people that voice it, the more the greater the opportunity that it will be stopped.

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... embers.php

[email protected]


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> I have followed every post on this subject, here and other places. For those of us that are against the 2009 spike hunting proposal, how can we help to get it stopped and push something else in? Seemes like all posts lead to the same point, Pro and someone bicker back and forth, back and forth. Enough of the defense, lets see some action. So what can we do to help? I have been told we need a voice, so there are a lot of people yelling, how can we be heard, or more importantly how can we be listened to?


SHOW UP at RAC's, e-mail WB members, set up a get together with fellow sportsmen, let whatever, if any, conservation group(s) you belong to know how you feel. A group of concerned sportsmen got together and came up with I400, which I still believe is a solid plan that is light years better than statewide spike hunting. Get something going, or lets plan something on here that will get something going. I agree on the 'action', I am willing and able to SHOW UP and fight the good fight, are you?


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

lets get something going now!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I sent my email.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

I sent my email also


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

> We don't have a shortage of elk, so why would we go through extensive cost to relocate elk? Elk are a renewable resource, we can harvest a fairly large portion of the herd and still have enough to quickly replace them with new 'recruits'.
> 
> How do you know what I I get paid to guide? Many times I LOSE money doing what I love. Very few in the biz get wealthy guiding. That is one of MANY myths of the guide biz. Believe what you want, those who personally know me, know my motivations and what drives me.


You yourself admit that there are too many bulls to cows in these areas. As you say they are a renewable resource that can and will procreate in any area they live in. so what you call added expense I call more opportunity. With more elk in more areas means more tags in larger areas. Its simple supply and demand if you studied any economics we have a limit number of areas we all hunt elk in. The best way for us as a state to increase hunting opportunity is to put more elk in areas that can sustain larger herds. In your other posts you are all for relocating big horned rams that are also a renewable resource to areas that can once again sustain a herd. There are many such areas that could use a boost to the current population. The real problem is this does not help YOUR herd. I have no agenda again I am done hunting Elk on public land for reasons I have disclosed. 
You also ask how I know what you get paid everyone has seen the advertisements of your area offering 400 class bulls for $15,000 with your tip that in the last forum you as much as old us all you expect or at least strongly recommend you get one. I know there are many CWMU people that lose money I doubt you are one. Not that there is anything wrong with guiding PRO I just feel you should quit looking to benefit yourself and start looking to benefit the state as a whole become more healthy


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

...e-mail pile on Karpo! :mrgreen:


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

My emails are sent too. I go to the RACS as well, but I will mention to the groups that I am a member of, how I feel on the spike plan. The spike plan solves the problem, but there are better ways to fix it. Spreading the word of how to help fix/correct/stop things to every hunter you know, will give the common hunter a bigger voice. Which I think we dearly need.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> You yourself admit that there are too many bulls to cows in these areas. As you say they are a renewable resource that can and will procreate in any area they live in. so what you call added expense I call more opportunity. With more elk in more areas means more tags in larger areas. Its simple supply and demand if you studied any economics we have a limit number of areas we all hunt elk in. The best way for us as a state to increase hunting opportunity is to put more elk in areas that can sustain larger herds. In your other posts you are all for relocating big horned rams that are also a renewable resource to areas that can once again sustain a herd. There are many such areas that could use a boost to the current population. The real problem is this does not help YOUR herd. I have no agenda again I am done hunting Elk on public land for reasons I have disclosed.


What parts of Utah are low in elk numbers where MORE could be sustained? We are at or over objectives for herd population on most elk herds throughout Utah. So, I don't see where elk transplants are needed/warranted. The sheep transplants being compared to elk transplants is apples and oranges. Elk were transplanted in the 1930's and have since gone on to thrive in many parts of Utah. In fact, in Tooele County the herd as expanded to the Stansbury Range where 10 years ago there were no elk, now some of the best elk in the Oquirrh herd are found on that part of the unit. The sheep that are on the Stansbury numbered ZERO in 2004, now there is 110 +/- sheep and growing.



> You also ask how I know what you get paid everyone has seen the advertisements of your area offering 400 class bulls for $15,000 with your tip that in the last forum you as much as old us all you expect or at least strongly recommend you get one. I know there are many CWMU people that lose money I doubt you are one. Not that there is anything wrong with guiding PRO I just feel you should quit looking to benefit yourself and start looking to benefit the state as a whole become more healthy.


I have NEVER received anywhere close to $15,000 for info or for help putting a 400 class bull on the ground. I have never claimed to either. I do expect a decent tip fro a job well done, along with a daily wage. But, when you add in costs of gas/food/equipment/etc, the net gain in bread crumbs. I LOSE money while guiding because I make more in my 'real' job. Even a highly successful outfitter like Mossback struggles some years, in fact if Mossback just relied on guide fees, he would be broke. They make the bulk of their money through merchandise sales, not guide fees. To assert I400 or any other idea I support regarding elk hunting is based on my wallet is flat out wrong My motive is my/others kids having chances to enjoy the great things I have enjoyed throughout my hunting life. As things stand now, my 3 year old son, Hunter, has a slim shot at EVER acquiring a mature bull tag on a quality unit. To me, that is unacceptable considering how we are 'wasting' mature bull tags needlessly for a few short-sighted hunters. I have been involved in my share of 400 bulls hitting the ground, and I hope to help a couple of good friends and myself put a couple more on the ground this year. But, I expect to work for them and 'earn' them, not have them 'behind every tree'. When callofthewild and Berg walk up to their trophy elk, I want to be there and to know we did it right. If that is selfish, so be it.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I received this email from Anis earlier today:

Mr. Hugger of trees and king of all things living (Ok, I changed that part),

Thank you for voicing your concern.

The reason we may propose statewide spike hunting on all LE units is to maintain older age class bulls for limited entry hunters and still harvest enough bulls to maintain a bul to cow ratio that maintains herd growth.

This approach has proven to be effective on the 9 units where it is in place. Those units that currently have spike hunts are still able to provide many limited entry permits. Example are the Wasatch and Manti Units. I agree with you that there are many ways to reduce bull to cow ratios. The easiest is increasing limited entry bull permits. Even when we reach our harvest age objectives we cannot harvest enough older bulls to maintain a low bull to cow ratio. managing for older age class bulls in the harvest forces you to carry too many bulls.

You are also correct that most of the decisions are more driven by politics than biology. We try to involve the public in the process. The spike hunting approach is only one method to reach the goal and one that would satisfy both those that just want to hunt every year and those that want to wait and draw a limited entry permit.

There will be no gap in age classes because there will always be enough yearling bulls that make it to the two year old age class. Once they make it there they are safe for several years. Those several years is how we build the numbers of older age class bulls.

This all seems complicated but its well thought out and biologically sound. I agree that your approach will get us there but then we will sacrifice quality for quantity. * The public that currently attends the RAC and Board Meetings wants to harvest older age class bulls and at the end of the day we serve the public. *

Please come to the November RAC meeting where this issue will likely be discussed.

Thank You.

Anis Aoude
Big Game Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PO Box 146301
Sal Lake City, Utah 84114
801-231-XXXX (cell)
801-538-4777 (office)
801-538-4709 (Fax)


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Yes, he has turned into a politician!

What a shame!!!!!


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

Sorry Pro I herd you where with the mossback outfit there in the paugnts. I apologize for the accusation. However; my theory of relocating elk is still sound. North slop of the cache could use more. All over the Uinta from the gorge to Kamas could use a few all over boxelder county could use on influx I have ridden most the area on horse and 4 wheeler and have never seen a herd except on grouse creek and then only about 15 head. Unless you want to count promontory which I don’t because this does not help the average hunter only the CWMU and gun club people. These are just examples up north. Lets look to central Utah everone knows Fishlake and Monroe are doing well how about castle valley? Of just west of Richfield in the redrocks I have only seen few elk in that area a place that could hold a much bigger herd. Going further down south now Cedar valley, Kolob, Milford. All have LE units around them that hold great elk numbers but across the mountain range little to nothing. Everyone hunts in confined areas not spread out like the herds should or could be. I hunted Colorado near Durango and saw tons of elk and hardly another hunter. Elk are moving like mice on the barn floor out there because they are not confined to just one or two great areas. Seems like all the ideas people have on making this a great elk state is to make it almost a private club where I need a secret knock to enter. I am the voice of the average hunter and if my money is going to help the elk hunting it should help the average hunter not the PRO or the CWMU or the private land hunters it should help the herds through out UTAH!! And give more opportunity for the guy working 2 jobs to get enough money to pay his bills and still hunt. Not those of us who have forgotten what that was like or never knew what that was like.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> Sorry Pro I herd you where with the mossback outfit there in the paugnts. I apologize for the accusation. However; my theory of relocating elk is still sound. North slop of the cache could use more. All over the Uinta from the gorge to Kamas could use a few all over boxelder county could use on influx I have ridden most the area on horse and 4 wheeler and have never seen a herd except on grouse creek and then only about 15 head. Unless you want to count promontory which I don't because this does not help the average hunter only the CWMU and gun club people. These are just examples up north. Lets look to central Utah everone knows Fishlake and Monroe are doing well how about castle valley? Of just west of Richfield in the redrocks I have only seen few elk in that area a place that could hold a much bigger herd. Going further down south now Cedar valley, Kolob, Milford. All have LE units around them that hold great elk numbers but across the mountain range little to nothing. Everyone hunts in confined areas not spread out like the herds should or could be. I hunted Colorado near Durango and saw tons of elk and hardly another hunter. Elk are moving like mice on the barn floor out there because they are not confined to just one or two great areas. Seems like all the ideas people have on making this a great elk state is to make it almost a private club where I need a secret knock to enter. I am the voice of the average hunter and if my money is going to help the elk hunting it should help the average hunter not the PRO or the CWMU or the private land hunters it should help the herds through out UTAH!! And give more opportunity for the guy working 2 jobs to get enough money to pay his bills and still hunt. Not those of us who have forgotten what that was like or never knew what that was like.


Transplants to the N. Cache would be futile. They would be reduced to current populations due to Idaho late season hunts, same with the N. slope (Except for Wy. would be shooting them.)

Elk spread like wildfire and fill in habitable gaps very quickly, without transplanting them. Of course, that's just my opinion, but I am the great hugger of trees, so that should count for something. :wink:

We could have more elk like Colorado (to a point), but the vocal majority has shunned the idea of managing like they do, so what we have is limited to monster bulls every 20-30 years and spikes. We need more diversity, it's not black and white. Manage some units for colorado -like hunting and some for Trophies. I think it's rather simple, but it will never happen if nobody pipes up and accurate public input data is collected.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> Sorry Pro I herd you where with the mossback outfit there in the paugnts. I apologize for the accusation. However; my theory of relocating elk is still sound. North slop of the cache could use more. All over the Uinta from the gorge to Kamas could use a few all over boxelder county could use on influx I have ridden most the area on horse and 4 wheeler and have never seen a herd except on grouse creek and then only about 15 head. Unless you want to count promontory which I don't because this does not help the average hunter only the CWMU and gun club people. These are just examples up north. Lets look to central Utah everone knows Fishlake and Monroe are doing well how about castle valley? Of just west of Richfield in the redrocks I have only seen few elk in that area a place that could hold a much bigger herd. Going further down south now Cedar valley, Kolob, Milford. All have LE units around them that hold great elk numbers but across the mountain range little to nothing. Everyone hunts in confined areas not spread out like the herds should or could be. I hunted Colorado near Durango and saw tons of elk and hardly another hunter. Elk are moving like mice on the barn floor out there because they are not confined to just one or two great areas. Seems like all the ideas people have on making this a great elk state is to make it almost a private club where I need a secret knock to enter. I am the voice of the average hunter and if my money is going to help the elk hunting it should help the average hunter not the PRO or the CWMU or the private land hunters it should help the herds through out UTAH!! And give more opportunity for the guy working 2 jobs to get enough money to pay his bills and still hunt. Not those of us who have forgotten what that was like or never knew what that was like.


1)I work *THREE* jobs myself, plus go to school, so you are preaching to the wrong person.
2)I have only guided for Mossback on the Dutton for elk. All my other guiding has been either under my own biz or out of state.
3)The areas you mentioned do NOT need elk transplants. The N Cache does just fine when the elk are allowed to multiple, the restriction there is winter range and livestock. The Uintas has Wyoming harvesting 'our' elk by the buckets on winter range. The area west of Richfield is part of a LE unit that is world class, if elk are not there it is because do NOT want to be there. Same goes for the areas west of I15 in Beaver and Iron counties. I guided for many years in the SW part of Colorado, it is as different habitat wise as apples and oranges with the areas you have listed.
4)Who on here isn't "the voice of the average hunter"? What is your definition of the "average hunter"? I gather you feel you and your 'type' are some how more 'real' as hunters and do it 'old school', but I believe you are way off.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I have to agree with the "lover of trees with small holes that hunts" on this one. Elk move around, it would be a waste of money moving them around. You would have to transplant every year to have any real effect. Managing is an easier way to get more or less elk in certain areas.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> W2U, remember also, that as ratios go down, and the 400 class bulls are 'thinned' out either through spike hunting or additional mature bulls harvested, success rates WILL go down allowing for MORE mature tags to be issued as well as MORE cow tags. One big gripe I have with spike tags is there is no way to forecast/control the number of spikes harvested each year and on any given unit.


So, what you are saying is that high success rates are more of a result of high bull/cow ratios than they are season dates...I agree. So, why change the season dates when this isn't the factor influencing high success rates?



proutdoors said:


> . One big gripe I have with spike tags is there is no way to forecast/control the number of spikes harvested each year and on any given unit. That makes for difficult 'management' of the number of bulls harvested each year. So, if the weather induces a higher than 'normal' success rate for spike hunters on a given unit, the reduction of bulls recruited into the herd suffers, mandating a reduction in mature tags issued in ensuing years, all the while maintaining the unknown variables that are MORE numerous than the unknown variables for mature bull tags. Is this really the 'desired' management practice 'science' would support? There is more control of the number of animals harvested by issuing any bull tags versus spike tags, and having control is essential to controlling the outcome.


How do you figure that forecasting/controlling the number of spikes harvested is any different than forecasting/controlling the number of mature bulls harvested on any given year? Wouldn't the changes in weather have the same kinds of affect on spikes as they would mature bulls? Also, if you were to look at spike success rates year-in and year-out, they are very stable; there isn't much variance in how successful hunters are. What this tells me is that spike hunting success rates are highly predictable. In the end, the DWR has no more control over how many mature bulls are killed compared to spike bulls.

Also, by changing the spike hunt to a statewide hunt, many units could actually see a decrease in pressure despite the increase in tag sells.



proutdoors said:


> W2U, the success rates on one or two of the higher quality managed units in Arizona have high success rates, but they do not on AVERAGE have as high success rates as LE units in Utah. The ones that do have the high success rates have at least 40/100 ratios like Utah's units have. Those that have ratios in the 20-30/100 ratios have no where near 90% success rates. True, rifle hunters will always experience higher success rates than archery or muzzle loader hunters will due to being effective at such long distances. But, I see NO evidence of success rates staying at 90+% with lower cow ratios and rifle hunts held when the bulls are less vulnerable. The tendency to be picky will decrease as well, allowing MORE of the older/bigger class bulls to escape year to year allowing for quality to remain high. A hunter who has to work harder to locate bulls will be less likely to pass up a 340 class bull than a hunter who is seeing dozens of 340 class bulls close to the road and knowing there are several bulls bigger than that nearby and vulnerable.


1) The success rates are high because of high bull/cow ratios more than any other factor.
2) Units with low bull/cow ratios will have automatically lower success rates for rifle hunters because there are fewer animals to be harvested...it is the same reason spike hunting success rates are low...because the spike population is not numerous.
3) The difference changing season dates will have on success rates is so minute that it is not worth changing. IN fact, all it really does is lower the quality of the hunting experience for the main hunting body of elk hunters...
4) Like has been already mentioned in this thread, the best way to preserve high-end bulls to harvest the yearling bulls. Any increase in mature bull tags will automatically reduce quality...

Also, Utah's elk hunting, right now, offers these options: 1) general season open bull hunts (similar to Colorado) 2) Premium limited entry any bull hunts (high quality...low opportunity) 3) Limited entry any bull hunts (high quality...low opportunity) 4) general season spike hunting (high opportunity...low quality). Personally, I believe that this is a very well-rounded system that offers opportunity to all types of hunters. The problem is that everybody wants the best of both worlds--high opportunity and high quality. Balance is important...in my opinion, though, we have about as much balance as we can possibly have. By moving to a statewide spike elk program, I don't believe we are changing really anything other than how much spike hunting we offer. Like Anis said in his presentation, even if we institute statewide spike elk hunting, we can STILL offer more LE opportunity than what we currently are. However, I-400 DOES and WOULD eliminate some general season hunting opportunity.

The last point I wanted to make revolves around mandatory harvest reporting. I have heard many people mention their desire for the DWR to institute this idea. Personally, I think mandatory harvesting could give the DWR some good information, but it is really not that valuable of a tool in determining tag numbers. Population estimates including bull/cow ratios are determined after hunts. Also, the recruitment numbers and estimates are usually figured during spring counts....this is important because available animals means much more in determining tag quotas than does past harvested animals. If, for example, the DWR knows that its bull/cow ratio is higher than objective on a unit, they are able to issue more tags for the upcoming hunts than the previous year. On the other hand, if bull/cow ratios are lower than objective on a unit, fewer tags should be given the following year. The DWR doesn't need to see harvest rates to determine this.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> So, what you are saying is that high success rates are more of a result of high bull/cow ratios than they are season dates...I agree. So, why change the season dates when this isn't the factor influencing high success rates?


I am saying BOTH affect success rates. Anyone who doesn't think hunting elk during their most vulnerable time is either in denial or hasn't hunted elk much during different times of the year. Why do you think very few rifle hunts outside of Utah are held in September, just to 'punish' rifle hunters? :?



> How do you figure that forecasting/controlling the number of spikes harvested is any different than forecasting/controlling the number of mature bulls harvested on any given year? Wouldn't the changes in weather have the same kinds of affect on spikes as they would mature bulls? Also, if you were to look at spike success rates year-in and year-out, they are very stable; there isn't much variance in how successful hunters are. What this tells me is that spike hunting success rates are highly predictable. In the end, the DWR has no more control over how many mature bulls are killed compared to spike bulls.
> 
> Also, by changing the spike hunt to a statewide hunt, many units could actually see a decrease in pressure despite the increase in tag sells.


 One way is that spike hunters are 'free' to hunt all the units that issue spike tags, if it was statewide that would mean they would be able to hunt spikes on any/all units. So, the number of hunters on a given unit is uncontrolled, which then means the number of spikes killed is uncontrolled. Harvest on the LE units is fairly steady year in year out regardless of weather, and when you are 'micro-managing' the number of hunters based on an educated guess on harvest rates there is MORE control over harvest numbers.

Good logic, issue more tags and some how the 'pressure' will decrease. :roll:



> 1) The success rates are high because of high bull/cow ratios more than any other factor.
> 2) Units with low bull/cow ratios will have automatically lower success rates for rifle hunters because there are fewer animals to be harvested...it is the same reason spike hunting success rates are low...because the spike population is not numerous.
> 3) The difference changing season dates will have on success rates is so minute that it is not worth changing. IN fact, all it really does is lower the quality of the hunting experience for the main hunting body of elk hunters...
> 4) Like has been already mentioned in this thread, the best way to preserve high-end bulls to harvest the yearling bulls. Any increase in mature bull tags will automatically reduce quality...


1)Agreed
2)Somewhat agree. Other factors like access, number of hunters, season dates also MUST be factored in.
3)Not true. Why is it that the over-whelming majority of rifle elk hunts are conducted OUT of September? Is it to "lower the quality of the hunting experience" or is it to INCREASE the experience of hunting for MORE hunters? By lowering the success rate, MORE hunters can acquire a tag, and I am just guessing, but having a tag in October is a better option for MOST hunters than no tag at all.
4)Like has already been mentioned in this thread, the best way to preserve high-end bulls is to increase the escapement possibilities for the high-end bulls by lowering success rates.



> Balance is important...in my opinion, though, we have about as much balance as we can possibly have. By moving to a statewide spike elk program, I don't believe we are changing really anything other than how much spike hunting we offer. Like Anis said in his presentation, even if we institute statewide spike elk hunting, we can STILL offer more LE opportunity than what we currently are. However, I-400 DOES and WOULD eliminate some general season hunting opportunity.


If 50-60% of the bull population is removed as yearlings, the number of mature bulls to harvest MUST DECREASE. Anis was talking short term, not long term. I400 does NOT and would NOT eliminate *any* general season hunting opportunities.



> The last point I wanted to make revolves around mandatory harvest reporting. I have heard many people mention their desire for the DWR to institute this idea. Personally, I think mandatory harvesting could give the DWR some good information, but it is really not that valuable of a tool in determining tag numbers. Population estimates including bull/cow ratios are determined after hunts. Also, the recruitment numbers and estimates are usually figured during spring counts....this is important because available animals means much more in determining tag quotas than does past harvested animals. If, for example, the DWR knows that its bull/cow ratio is higher than objective on a unit, they are able to issue more tags for the upcoming hunts than the previous year. On the other hand, if bull/cow ratios are lower than objective on a unit, fewer tags should be given the following year. The DWR doesn't need to see harvest rates to determine this.


My problem with population 'estimates' is just that, they are estimates not exact counts/numbers. Look at the numbers posted by the division on the Boulder unit. They say there is *500 elk total*, yet recommend more than 100 LE bull tags, unknown quantity of spike tags, and cow tags on a unit that according to their numbers are *1000 elk below population objective*. Is this the data you claim to be "good information"? If they do NOT know actual bull/cow ratios and recruitment numbers, having a known harvest number would be very beneficial.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)I work *THREE* jobs myself, plus go to school, so you are preaching to the wrong person.
> 2)I have only guided for Mossback on the Dutton for elk. All my other guiding has been either under my own biz or out of state.
> 3)The areas you mentioned do NOT need elk transplants. The N Cache does just fine when the elk are allowed to multiple, the restriction there is winter range and livestock. The Uintas has Wyoming harvesting 'our' elk by the buckets on winter range. The area west of Richfield is part of a LE unit that is world class, if elk are not there it is because do NOT want to be there. Same goes for the areas west of I15 in Beaver and Iron counties. I guided for many years in the SW part of Colorado, it is as different habitat wise as apples and oranges with the areas you have listed.
> 4)Who on here isn't "the voice of the average hunter"? What is your definition of the "average hunter"? I gather you feel you and your 'type' are some how more 'real' as hunters and do it 'old school', but I believe you are way off.


#4) you are wrong I don't do it "old school" I do not have an agenda that is what makes me an average hunter. The average hunter is out for the enjoyment not the politics as you have seemed to always make it. And the average hunter does not want a secret knock to get into the club. 
If you where the voice of the average hunter you would acknowledge that this plan is a benefit to those that want to hunt for the meat and see county that only gets seen (during a hunt) by the select few that draws a tag. Just like your I400 plan would screw the average hunter out of letting there kids shoot their first ever elk. Spike or not kids don't care. 
If the DWR is spending hunter's money we should see an increase in hunting opportunity.
Where is all the winter range and habitat that my habitat dollars are going to? Move a few of the elk or open up the hunting access so the average hunter gets a better than 20% chance at an elk every year. That is the point here isn't it? Better chances to put meat in the freezer. This is not a "Sport" to me it's my life as it is to those who are not out to make there pockets fatter off the government teat. All I ever get from your ideas PRO is a "Guys club" feel where you will allow whom ever you deem worthy in. That is why I say I am looking after the little guy. What has anything you have ever proposed opened more opportunity instead of restricted it? The DWR has done a great job of bring an almost nil elk herd to the point of overcrowding in areas simple solution MOVE THE ELK!!! Hu no can't do that then I wouldn't get a chance to hunt them they may go to Idaho or Wyoming. So what last I herd we where not at war with Idaho or Wyoming and I can buy a tag there muck easier than getting an LE tag. 
:roll:


----------



## itchytriggerfinger (Sep 12, 2007)

pro wrote


> One way is that spike hunters are 'free' to hunt all the units that issue spike tags, if it was statewide that would mean they would be able to hunt spikes on any/all units. So, the number of hunters on a given unit is uncontrolled, which then means the number of spikes killed is uncontrolled. Harvest on the LE units is fairly steady year in year out regardless of weather, and when you are 'micro-managing' the number of hunters based on an educated guess on harvest rates there is MORE control over harvest numbers.


This is a very good point that needs to be looked at alot closer

i have a question of my own. If it is a statewide spike hunt does that mean that the state wide spike hunters are allowed to go into the any bull units? (it may be a stupid question) not just the le areas? or are they not allowed into the anybull units?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am saying BOTH affect success rates. Anyone who doesn't think hunting elk during their most vulnerable time is either in denial or hasn't hunted elk much during different times of the year. Why do you think very few rifle hunts outside of Utah are held in September, just to 'punish' rifle hunters? :?


You are basing your argument on an assumption. If this is true, why do late season hunts also offer high success rates? Why do late hunts in Arizona offer similar success rates as early hunts? Also, your changing the seasons but not making a significant season change--you would still see some bugling bulls. I hunted the rut in Wyoming multiple years in a row during October...maybe not the peak, but still the rut. Again, your changes would make minute differences if any at all.



proutdoors said:


> One way is that spike hunters are 'free' to hunt all the units that issue spike tags, if it was statewide that would mean they would be able to hunt spikes on any/all units. So, the number of hunters on a given unit is uncontrolled, which then means the number of spikes killed is uncontrolled. Harvest on the LE units is fairly steady year in year out regardless of weather, and when you are 'micro-managing' the number of hunters based on an educated guess on harvest rates there is MORE control over harvest numbers.


But that doesn't mean the number of spikes changes...on any given unit there are so many spikes available to be killed. So, more spikes may be killed statewide, but not unit wide. Again, you make the faulty assumption that tag numbers are determined by harvest rates; they are NOT. Tag numbers are determined by how many animals exist on a unit, not how many have been killed.

Again, spike harvests are very constant and do not change...changing to a statewide spike hunt would probably only lower the number of spikes killed on some units and increase it on units where spike hunting hasn't taken place in the past.



proutdoors said:


> Good logic, issue more tags and some how the 'pressure' will decrease. :roll:


OH come on, Pro, pull your head out...statewide spike hunting would more than double the amount of huntable area for spikes. Even if the number of spike tags increased, the pressure will thin out on some areas because new huntable areas are added. Case in point: if the Monroe unit would be added as a spike unit, I would no longer hunt the Beaver. I am sure others would do similar things.



proutdoors said:


> If 50-60% of the bull population is removed as yearlings, the number of mature bulls to harvest MUST DECREASE. Anis was talking short term, not long term. I400 does NOT and would NOT eliminate *any* general season hunting opportunities.


Again, we could STILL give out more LE tags than what we are currently giving even if we implemented statewide spike hunting. You are talking about 10 years down the road...you are talking hypothetically. The reality is that we could increase LE hunting right now and still add statewide spike hunting. Also, if we want to maintain the higher-end bulls (like many in the public do and have continually pressed for the DWR to do), we cannot shoot as many bulls...UNLESS we harvest them as spikes. The email conversation posted in this thread by Anis states this very thing.

Also, I-400 WOULD without doubt eliminate opportunity....1) it would eliminate the OPPORTUNITY to hunt certain units 2) it would reduce the OPPORTUNITY to kill or harvest a spike bull because you are moving spike hunters from large units to small units with far fewer elk. THIS IS A HUGE LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY!



proutdoors said:


> My problem with population 'estimates' is just that, they are estimates not exact counts/numbers. Look at the numbers posted by the division on the Boulder unit. They say there is *500 elk total*, yet recommend more than 100 LE bull tags, unknown quantity of spike tags, and cow tags on a unit that according to their numbers are *1000 elk below population objective*. Is this the data you claim to be "good information"? If they do NOT know actual bull/cow ratios and recruitment numbers, having a known harvest number would be very beneficial.


Again, Pro, it really doesn't matter how many bulls are killed one year...that number isn't really relative to tag numbers the following year. When determining tag numbers, you have to have an estimate of where your herd stands now, alive. Knowing how many animals were killed last year doesn't mean we know how many can be killed this year...

Pro, have you spoke with any of the big game biologists for the southern region? Have you had any conversations with them regarding why the numbers on the Boulder look the way they do? Do you have any idea whether they know or do not know how many animals are on that unit?


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Spike hunting is not a popular item, but people do it because it is available. Before they reduced the tag numbers a few years back, tag sells were not even close to the 19,000 mark that was alloted. In fact they reduced tag numbers to reflect the amount of tags sold annually. 

Opening the spike hunt statewide is not going to solve anything, 8-10% of the bulls killed will not offset the crazy bull/cow ratio. 

This is a dumb idea that was probably thought of by someone who procratinated on getting a tag this past year, and had his feelings hurt.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

one hunting fool said:


> The average hunter is out for the enjoyment not the politics as you have seemed to always make it.


This is exactly why the average hunter is never heard from. "Politics" is the ONLY thing that matters anymore. So go ahead and excuse yourself for not being a politician, that's fine and I understand your stance, But don't ever expect to accomplish anything in their world, because politicians are king.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> one hunting fool said:
> 
> 
> > The average hunter is out for the enjoyment not the politics as you have seemed to always make it.
> ...


Sad, but true.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

quote="Treehugnhuntr"]


one hunting fool said:


> The average hunter is out for the enjoyment not the politics as you have seemed to always make it.


This is exactly why the average hunter is never heard from. "Politics" is the ONLY thing that matters anymore. So go ahead and excuse yourself for not being a politician, that's fine and I understand your stance, But don't ever expect to accomplish anything in their world, because politicians are king.[/quote]

Oh Don't you worry about me tree hugger I can hang with all the big dogs I got enough bite. Politics or whatever you want. But any good politician knows it's the people he has to keep happy and it is watch dogs that keep them in check so they don't screw the little guy while back dooring their parties. Someone has to keep an eye on what's really important. I just don't sell out or hide from the powers that be


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Spike hunting is not a popular item, but people do it because it is available. Before they reduced the tag numbers a few years back, tag sells were not even close to the 19,000 mark that was alloted. In fact they reduced tag numbers to reflect the amount of tags sold annually.
> 
> Opening the spike hunt statewide is not going to solve anything, 8-10% of the bulls killed will not offset the crazy bull/cow ratio.
> 
> This is a dumb idea that was probably thought of by someone who procratinated on getting a tag this past year, and had his feelings hurt.


1) Your opinion...based on your opinion, general season any-bull hunts are not popular either because they sold out for the first time last year. They were forced to cap spike tags at a lower number to assure that high number of bulls were reaching trophy size...this reduction was because of hunters. Not some kind of PR scam like you think.

2) If you kill 8-10% more bulls from each unit every year, you will undoubtedly make an impact on the bull/cow ratios...proof is in the pudding. Look at the LE areas that have spike hunting compared to those that do not...

3) This idea was brought out by one of the WB members and has been presented at all the RACs across the state with only a little resistance (by Pro).


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) Your opinion...based on your opinion, general season any-bull hunts are not popular either because they sold out for the first time last year. They were forced to cap spike tags at a lower number to assure that high number of bulls were reaching trophy size...this reduction was because of hunters. Not some kind of PR scam like you think.
> 
> 2) If you kill 8-10% more bulls from each unit every year, you will undoubtedly make an impact on the bull/cow ratios...proof is in the pudding. Look at the LE areas that have spike hunting compared to those that do not...
> 
> 3) This idea was brought out by one of the WB members and has been presented at all the RACs across the state with only a little resistance (by Pro).


Well said and i agree you can look at the overpopulations in LE areas compaired one to another. lets look at Fishlake and Monroe MT same area one hunts spike and is manageable every year with just a few cow tags for every 1000 Spike tags Monroe has more bull on bull action that San Francisco (not that there's anything wrong with that) :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

There is no need to issue 19,000 spike tags. 11,000 spike tags are enough. The 19,000 spike tags proposal came up because they wanted to look at ways of reducing the bull/cow ratios without hurting the quality. There are better ways of accomplishing this and its by also increasing the number of mature bull tags, moving the rifle hunt out of the rut, rotating spike tags and ACTUALLY USING THEM AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL.

People are afraid to hurt the quality and its very laughable that the San Juan has almost a 80/100 bull to cow ratio and they only issue 10 additional Archery Management tags. Why not 100? Why not rotate the spike tags from the Nebo Unit to the San Juan unit. The Nebo unit has a 31/100 bull/cow ratio which isnt bad compared to the San Juan (which has almost 3 times as many bulls) No spikes killed on Nebo wont hurt the unit because you just simply give out more tags on the Nebo unit. PLUS DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF TAGS ON THE SAN JUAN UNIT THE FIRST YEAR TO BRING THE BULL/COW RATIO TO 40/100.

The San Juan unit would benefit from spikes tags where as more mature tags issued on the Nebo because no spikes are being killed therefore more future bulls.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You are basing your argument on an assumption. If this is true, why do late season hunts also offer high success rates? Why do late hunts in Arizona offer similar success rates as early hunts? Also, your changing the seasons but not making a significant season change--you would still see some bugling bulls. I hunted the rut in Wyoming multiple years in a row during October...maybe not the peak, but still the rut. Again, your changes would make minute differences if any at all.


As a rule, when the bull:cow ratios are lower than 40:100 the success rates are *lower* on the later rifle hunts, even in Arizona.



> But that doesn't mean the number of spikes changes...on any given unit there are so many spikes available to be killed. So, more spikes may be killed statewide, but not unit wide. Again, you make the faulty assumption that tag numbers are determined by harvest rates; they are NOT. Tag numbers are determined by how many animals exist on a unit, not how many have been killed.


But, under the current system, the number of hunters from unit to unit is unregulated and unmanaged, making it impossible to predict/control the number of spikes harvested year to year. If you are claiming that LE bull elk tags on different units is NOT based in part on harvest rates you are mistaken. Think about it, the number of tags issued is based on how many bulls they want removed each year, how is that possible if you do not look at harvest numbers/success rates?


> Again, spike harvests are very constant and do not change...changing to a statewide spike hunt would probably only lower the number of spikes killed on some units and increase it on units where spike hunting hasn't taken place in the past.


Again, how do you control how many of the 19,000 hunters would be on a given unit? I would be willing to make a sizable wager that if this were passed, year one would see a majority of spike hunters hunting the 'premium' LE units like the Pahvant/San Juan/Monroe/SW Desert. This would have huge impacts on the LE hunters on those units, especially the LE archery elk hunters, and the LE archery deer hunters on units like the San Juan and Book Cliffs. And for what, so *you* can hunt spikes closer to home? What about all those negatively impacted? Do they matter? Or do they not because they are just ignorant 'trophy' hunters?



> OH come on, Pro, pull your head out...statewide spike hunting would more than double the amount of huntable area for spikes. Even if the number of spike tags increased, the pressure will thin out on some areas because new huntable areas are added. Case in point: if the Monroe unit would be added as a spike unit, I would no longer hunt the Beaver. I am sure others would do similar things.


Let's look at your Monroe unit. How many elk are on that unit, what is the objective, what is the bull:cow ratio, what is the calf:cow ratio, how many spikes are in that herd on an average year, what would uncontrolled numbers of spike elk hunters do for the LE archery elk hunters on the Monroe? Please answer, help me "pull my head out". :?



> Again, we could STILL give out more LE tags than what we are currently giving even if we implemented statewide spike hunting. You are talking about 10 years down the road...you are talking hypothetically. The reality is that we could increase LE hunting right now and still add statewide spike hunting. Also, if we want to maintain the higher-end bulls (like many in the public do and have continually pressed for the DWR to do), we cannot shoot as many bulls...UNLESS we harvest them as spikes. The email conversation posted in this thread by Anis states this very thing.


For how many years? If you remove 50% of the future bull population each year while maintaining/increasing mature bull tags, are you saying that would keep quality were it is today? I do NOT think so, and neither do several wildlife biologists I have talked to that are NOT employed by the state of Utah, but still are 'experts' in the field. I'll be meeting with Anis in the next few weeks to address this very thing.



> Also, I-400 WOULD without doubt eliminate opportunity....1) it would eliminate the OPPORTUNITY to hunt certain units 2) it would reduce the OPPORTUNITY to kill or harvest a spike bull because you are moving spike hunters from large units to small units with far fewer elk. THIS IS A HUGE LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY!


For every 'door' closed there will be two 'doors' opened by I400. The number of spike hunters WILLINGLY switching to "small units" from "large units" will happen with statewide spike plan, yet you are a cheerleader for this. :roll:



> Again, Pro, it really doesn't matter how many bulls are killed one year...that number isn't really relative to tag numbers the following year. When determining tag numbers, you have to have an estimate of where your herd stands now, alive. Knowing how many animals were killed last year doesn't mean we know how many can be killed this year...


That is NOT what the DWR says, but I suppose I should believe you over them. :lol:



> Pro, have you spoke with any of the big game biologists for the southern region? Have you had any conversations with them regarding why the numbers on the Boulder look the way they do? Do you have any idea whether they know or do not know how many animals are on that unit?


I'll address this in another post. 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro, have you spoke with any of the big game biologists for the southern region? Have you had any conversations with them regarding why the numbers on the Boulder look the way they do? Do you have any idea whether they know or do not know how many animals are on that unit?


I have not, but I will be meeting with Anis in the next few weeks, I'll be sure and ask for you. 8)

I did do a little research on some data provided by the division, which I assume came from, in part at least, from the local biologist(s) from that region. Here is what I found that does not add up to me:

Here is the link I got most of the info from: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_mee ... march2.pdf



> Page 157
> *Population
> *
> The elk population trend on this unit is currently *under* the objective of 1500 but is slowly increasing. A total of 293 elk were counted during a helicopter census completed in February 2006. Using a 75% sightability index this census _estimates_ the population to be roughly *400* elk on this unit. Over the last five years the bull harvest has been maintained at a stable level. The average age of harvested bulls is currently 7.1 (2007 data), which is down slightly from 7.2 the year before. The bull:cow ratio is currently 51:100 with 31 of those bulls being mature(branched antlered). The calf:cow ratio is currently 38:100. Average success on limited entry bull permits is 81.1%.
> ...


Then using this data and data from : http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/bi ... report.pdf starting on page 69 I came up with the following numbers:

Bull:cow ratio is 51:100 
*500 TOTAL ELK*
That equates to:
260 cows
*190 bulls*
100 calves
Factor in harvest rates:
63 killed bulls out of 77 mature bull tags issued, 105 spikes killed for a total of 168 bulls harvested in 2006. Remember, according to the PUBLISHED numbers there is only 150 bulls TOTAL on the unit.

These numbers DO NOT ADD UP. Please 'enlighten' me on what I am missing.


----------

