# trib article



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I am sure most of you have already read this, but for those who haven't:
http://www.sltrib.com/outdoors/ci_6941121

It seems like Utah is a good bet for trophy elk.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> It seems like Utah is a good bet for trophy elk


You think? :roll: :wink:

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Think? No, I know...just like I have said many times. Utah has been pumping out more record book animals than any other state...even your Arizona can't keep up. Yet, you want to change the whole system...sounds stupid to me!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Think? No, I know...just like I have said many times. Utah has been pumping out more record book animals than any other state...even your Arizona can't keep up. *Yet, you want to change the whole system*...sounds stupid to me!


Yet another flat-out lie! What is your deal? You for some reason feel the need to* LIE*, not sure why. Who has advocated changing the "whole system"? Not me, that is for certain. We want to 'tweak' a few things on *FIVE* of 28 LE units, I hardly consider that "changing the whole system", to say it is "sounds stupid to me".

You have credited the spike tags as the reason for these big bulls, yet the BIGGEST bulls killed so far this year have come from the Pahvant and SW Desert, two units that do NOT issue spike tags. How can this be possible?

Oh, and Arizona is not 'mine', that would be great if it were though. I did talk over dinner with one of the top outfitters from Arizona a couple of weeks ago. He was very helpful in giving me some insight into the MANY different methods of game management out there. I realize that since he isn't a 'educated expert', you will dismiss his many hours in the field in many different states, but I found his observations to be very insightful and benifical to me.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

No, I haven't credited spike tags as the reason we have big bulls...another "flat-out" lie...I am not sure why you feel the need to lie. I credit the limited number of tags for our big bulls...

...also, doesn't your proposal include eliminating spike tags on these five units: North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and LaSal. And, introducing spike spike tags to the following five units: San Juan, Monroe, Pahvant, Pansagaunt, and SW Desert? So, doesn't that mean a change of management on at least 10 units? Hmmm...why do you feel the need to lie?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

We have tossed about the idea of adding spike tags to five 'new' areas, but it has not been agreed upon, nor PROPOSED, so no lying. Good try though. :wink: 

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Utah has been pumping out more record book animals than any other state...even your Arizona can't keep up.


Wyo2ut, if you look at the chart listed in the article then it shows that from 2000 to 2006 then 48 record bulls were killed in Utah and 39 in Arizona. Utah is only ahead by 9 bulls. Look at the amount of big bull permits that Arizona gives compared to Utah. They give out double the number of tags, but yet they are only 9 bulls behind. YES Utah is a great state for producing big bulls but dont discredit Arizona that much. If Arizona gave out as many tags as Utah then what would the chart look like for Arizona? Arizona gives way more tags than Utah, but yet they are killing about just as many record bulls. WHY??? Because they dont hunt them with a rifle during the rut.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

And......they give out alot more primitive weapon tags percentage wise, which lowers the success rates. The record book animals mentioned are B&C *ONLY*, include P&Y and smokepole entries and see who has more. Utah has the biggest bulls on the planet, but at what cost to the 'average hunter'? By simply moving the rifle hunt out of the rut, giving a higher percentage of tag allotments to primitive weapons, and eliminating the killing of baby male elk, Utah could put even *MORE* elk in the books, plus allow *MORE* hunters in Utah to *HUNT*. I see that as a win/win/win for elk, elk hunters, and the record book clubs. Let's do it!!

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yep Pro it's about time for us to DO IT!!!!!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Why do we care about having the most elk in the books???


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Why do we care about having the most elk in the books???


Who wants Arizona or Montana to be 'better' than us? For me, it is nice to know we have big elk. It's kind of a bragging rights thing, although I believe we manage a much larger percentage of the state for the 'books' than needed. I think 8-10 premium units would be plenty, then have the rest of the current LE units be managed for mature bulls rather than 'book' bulls. This would still allow for 'book' bulls to be taken on the 'mature bull units', just not as many as on the 'premium units'. This would enable the elk to still thrive, yet allow for more hunters to enjoy the awesome experience of hunting mature bulls in Utah where they have a good chance of killing a good mature bull.

Oh wait, that is what I400 is all about, my bad. :twisted:

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

yet...we give out almost double the amount of total tags that Arizona does. To me, that is the bottom line...which state truly offers the most opportunity? Utah, hands down...and, we still have more record book animals!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Who wants Arizona or Montana to be 'better' than us?


What does it matter? Bragging to who? Again why do we care if we have bigger bulls then any other state?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Lets see, we have *twice *the number of elk, give out *one-third* the number of mature bull tags, I don't see that as a bargin. We have double the elk, yet only entered 9 more animals in the books. That 'opportunity' you tout is spike tags, where the success rate is less than 15% and requires one to hunt immature animals. You call that a better deal than what Arizona offers, I see it as a wasted 'opportunity' for Utah to offer *triple* the number of mature bull tags, that would be 'real' opportunity for a 'real' hunt, not an appeasement tag like the spike tags ARE!

weatherby, are you a sports fan? If so, why do you care if 'your' team has a better record than someone else's? In truth, I see it as a measuring stick as to how we are managing our elk to their potential, both in quality and quanity.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> yet...we give out almost double the amount of total tags that Arizona does. To me, that is the bottom line...which state truly offers the most opportunity? Utah, hands down...and, we still have more record book animals!


Wrong again Wyo2ut, Arizona gives out way more opportunity that Utah does. Arizona gives out double the amount of tags and they kill almost as many bulls as Utah


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> weatherby, are you a sports fan? If so, why do you care if 'your' team has a better record than someone else's? In truth, I see it as a measuring stick as to how we are managing our elk to their potential, both in quality and quanity.


Now that makes sense.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Pro, I believe Utah could and should give out more LE tags...but, I believe that Arizona sacrifices way too much general season opportunity. Arizona's elk population numbers around 35,000...Utah's population numbers around 64,000. If Utah turned the entire state into a limited entry style of management, we would nearly double the number of record book bulls of Arizona. The reason we don't have more record book bulls is because Utah offers a lot of general season tags--both spike tags (11,000) and any-bull tags (12,300) as well as unlimited general season archery tags. That is the beauty of our system...we can offer general season opportunity and trophy opportunity. Also, in a time when hunting numbers continue to drop and we lose more and more hunters annually, general season opportunity is vital and the best way we can recruit new hunters.

Coyote, you need to check your facts because you are dead wrong.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote, you need to check your facts because you are dead wrong.


haha, no wyo2ut you are wrong, coyote is right haha. Arizona gives more Big bull tags that Utah does. They have less elk and kill only 9 less record book bulls. You need to get your facts straight. Im not talking about Spike tags and Anybulls tags. Im talking about LE bull elk tags


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wrong again Wyo2ut, Arizona gives out way more opportunity that Utah does. Arizona gives out double the amount of tags and they kill almost as many bulls as Utah


This is what you said. What you said is wrong. Utah gives out more tags than Arizona, and Utah kills more bulls than Arizona. Sorry, but I can't read what you don't write! There is no way for me to decipher what you mean if you don't write it...duh!

You said nothing about LE tags or big bull tags.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Wyo2ut, if you look at the chart listed in the article then it shows that from 2000 to 2006 then 48 record bulls were killed in Utah and 39 in Arizona. Utah is only ahead by 9 bulls. Look at the amount of big bull permits that Arizona gives compared to Utah. They give out double the number of tags, but yet they are only 9 bulls behind. YES Utah is a great state for producing big bulls but dont discredit Arizona that much. If Arizona gave out as many tags as Utah then what would the chart look like for Arizona? Arizona gives way more tags than Utah, but yet they are killing about just as many record bulls. WHY??? Because they dont hunt them with a rifle during the rut.


I figured you already read what I wrote before but I guess I need to make it simpler for you


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Let's talk about the spike tags. Utah gives out 11,000 general season rifle spike tags on 15 of the LE units, on *every* one of the 15 units, they kill atleast *twice* as many spikes as they do mature bulls. Utah gives out less than 3000 LE mature bull tags on 28 LE units, where the total number of elk is well above the entire population of elk in Arizona, where they give out over 9000 mature bull tags, yet they have only killed 9 fewer B&C animals while providing a much better ratio of tags/hunter. There, one has a good chance of drawing a mature bull tag every 4-5 years, here you have to wait five years before you can even apply, little lone draw again.

You mentioned hunter numbers are dwindling, I say giving a kid the option of either hunting spikes(lower than 15% success rate) or open bull(less than 15% success rate) where even seeing a legal animal is a longshot, is a good way to get youth to lose interest in the sport and be lost forever. Give them a chance to hunt mature bulls with a realistic chance of being successful, or atleast likely to see legal animals, and you will increase the odds of that youth from being a lifetime dedicated hunter, which bodes well for ALL hunters. How many 14 year olds dream of killing a spike versus dream of killing a mature bull?

Spike tags should be used as a means to manage bull/cow ratios, not as a means to manage hunters. If they would issue spike tags when/where needed yearly instead of saying unit"A" is a spike unit as a means of providing 'opportunity', I would have less heart burn on issuing immature elk tags. Let the bulls grow up and have a chance to contribute to the herd, right now a spike is nothing more than a critter taking up space waiting to be put in the freezer. A mature bull can contribute to the herd, a spike does not.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Good post Pro and talking about the youth. In Arizona you can hunt when you are 10 yrs old and they have youth only hunts for LE bulls


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

1) Arizona gives out 3 times more LE tags than us, yet we shoot more record book bulls...hmmm, to me that sounds like we are doing something right. I believe we could offer almost 3 times more tags right now without going to your dumb I400 and not hurt quality significantly.

2) The ratio of tags/hunter is better in Utah than Arizona for the simple reason that we give out way more tags than Arizona. True, 11,000 of those tags are spike tags, but that is still more opportunity and more tags/hunter. Utah offers far more opportunity than Arizona...that is fact.

3) Pro, you can hunt a mature bull *every year*...you just have to hunt an any-bull unit. In Arizona, you cannot hunt every year.

4) I say if you give a kid the option between not hunting and hunting, he would rather have the chance to hunt. We don't recruit more hunters because kids can't hunt every year. It is really difficult to recruit new hunters if they don't have the chance to hunt at all. I believe spike hunts are an excellent way of recruiting new hunters...if you get a kid into the outdoors with the opportunity to shoot something and he sees animals, you are more likely to get the kid back out. With my first hunts, I didn't care whether the animal was a trophy or not...in fact, I still don't.

5) Spike tags are being used as a means to manage bull/cow ratios...in fact, if you look closely at the bull/cow ratios of spike units, you would notice that bull/cow ratios on these units are better than on LE units without spike hunting. By this reasoning, we should offer spike hunting on ALL LE units because spike hunting does help manage bull/cow ratios. What it boils down to is this: you don't like the idea that more spikes are killed than big bulls; you feel that this is a waste of opportunity. I disagree...I believe it is wasting opportunity when we are unable to hunt. I believe the single largest factor in Utah's decrease in hunters has been the reduction of opportunity...had our deer herds not crashed and our opportunity not been reduced and if our elk herds were large enough to sustain more general season opportunity, Utah's hunter numbers would NOT be down.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I believe we could offer almost 3 times more tags right now without going to your dumb I400 and not hurt quality significantly.


Hey Wyo2ut, easy there, that isnt the way you talking about a one of the greatest proposal for elk. Arizona gives more hunters the opportunity to hunt *BIG BULLS *(I put that in caps for you, wait I better put in in bold too) than Utah does


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Give them a chance to hunt mature bulls with a realistic chance of being successful, or at least likely to see legal animals, and you will increase the odds of that youth from being a lifetime dedicated hunter, which bodes well for ALL hunters.


That's great but most kids are going to want to hunt not waiting to draw. Get them hunting for any thing not waiting and that will keep them interested.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Arizona gives more hunters the opportunity to hunt *BIG BULLS *(I put that in caps for you, wait I better put in in bold too) than Utah does


I am just glad you wrote it...last time you left that important bit of information out. Or, probably more likely, you changed what you wanted to say when you found out you were wrong!

Of course, I could point out that you are still wrong because Utah still offers more opportunity to hunt BIG BULLS if you include any-bull areas. If you wanted to be correct, you would have put LE opportunity...

And, of course, the ENTIRE state of Arizona is LE for elk....which I hope Utah never resorts to.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Is this really the right thread to be discussing this?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Nice try Wyo2ut, but for an english teacher I hope you can read better


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Wyo2ut, if you look at the chart listed in the article then it shows that from 2000 to 2006 then 48 record bulls were killed in Utah and 39 in Arizona. Utah is only ahead by 9 bulls. *Look at the amount of big bull permits that Arizona gives compared to Utah. They give out double the number of tags, but yet they are only 9 bulls behind. *YES Utah is a great state for producing big bulls but dont discredit Arizona that much. If Arizona gave out as many tags as Utah then what would the chart look like for Arizona? Arizona gives way more tags than Utah, but yet they are killing about just as many record bulls. WHY??? Because they dont hunt them with a rifle during the rut.
> *Last edited by coyoteslayer on Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.*


*I hope this helps in your reading. Wyo2ut todays assignment is to not take everything so serious that if a word is left out then you totally miss the point. You have 30 mins to complete the assignment before I grade you.*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

1)Arizona has *half* the number of elk, yet have only killed 9 fewer 'book' bulls, if we are truly doing something right shouldn't we have close to *twice* the entries into the 'books'? You say "dumb I400", that is such a solid argument. :roll: If you tripled the number of tags, how would this affect the 'quality' less than I400? If you keep killing spikes, hunt with rifles in the middle of the rut, give 60% of the tags to rifle hunters, how can you "offer almost 3 times more tags" w/o hurting quality significantly ? Your math is fuzzy.

2)The tags/hunter ratio for *MATURE* bulls is better in Arizona than Utah. Again, I don't see spike tags as much of an 'opportunity', add in the extremely low success rate, and one might as well not buy a tag and just go hiking, since that is what most spike hunters end up doing anyways.

3)Really? I had no idea I could hunt mature bulls *every year*. :roll: I believe you yourself mentioned a few months back that you don't hunt the any-bull areas because of the crowds, low success rates, and low elk numbers. So, if it isn't appealing to you, why do you believe that it should be 'good enough' for others?

4)I am NOT advocating taking away ALL OTC 'opportunities', but todays kids are all about the here and now, if they go on a hunt and see no legal animals while hiking for 2+ miles, how many years are they going to keep doing it? This is a different time than when you/I were kids carrying weapons in the hills. I said nothing about the need to provide youth with 'trophy' hunts, I said 'opportunities' to hunt MATURE bulls with a reasonable chance of being successful.

5)Agreed, the bull/cow ratios are better on the spike units, but I say you could have the same ratios w/o killing spikes. To say otherwise dismisses the *FACT* other states are able to still provide high quality mature bull hunting with reasonable bull/cow ratios *WITHOUT* issuing spike tags. As has been mentioned many times, by lowering the bull/cow ratios, more cow tags can be issued, on some units to the point of being nearly otc. Then by moving the rifle hunt out of the easiest time to kill mature bulls, and lowering the percentage of rifle tags, you can utilize the 'resources' more wisely. Giving 60% of the LE tags to those who kill at a 90% rate is NOT utilizing the 'resource' wisely IMHO. This reduces the 'lost' opportunity to just hunt, yet increase dramatically the opportunity to hunt mature bulls with a good shot at success.

You say I400 is dumb, I say advocating keeping the rifle hunt in September, issuing 60% of the tags to the rifle hunters, killing spikes, all the while saying we could issue nearly *3* times as many tags as currently issued is beyond dumb.

PRO


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

It cool to see are state on top for the big boys. It just means we can grow them like nobody around us can. Let just keep growing them bigger so when i draw i can kill me one.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I say advocating keeping the rifle hunt in September, issuing 60% of the tags to the rifle hunters, killing spikes, all the while saying we could issue nearly 3 times as many tags as currently issued is beyond dumb.


 *()* *()* I agree well almost.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It cool to see are state on top for the big boys. It just means we can grow them like nobody around us can. Let just keep growing them bigger so when i draw i can kill me one.


Yeah it awesome we are on top, but its because we dont allow many hunters to hunt *LE big bulls* (for Wyo2ut) so many people will never draw an elk tag there whole lifetime.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut wrote:


> With my first hunts, I didn't care whether the animal was a trophy or not...in fact, I still don't.


I am calling bunk on this comment. If this is true, why did you apply/draw for a *LIMITED* entry archery tag when you could have just bought an otc spike tag on the *same* unit for alot less money? Anyone who says it is just as exciting hunting spikes as *mature* bulls, is either retarded, a liar, or has *never* had the pleasure of having a mature bull come into your calls. It is a whole lot different than shooting a yearling elk out of your tree stand. You can say you enjoy 'just hunting', but to say you "don't care whether the animal is a trophy or not" is a stretch don't you think?

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

1) Not necessarily...Arizona gives out 3 times more LE tags than Utah does. Shouldn't they be killing more big bulls if their state grows so many...or are there just fewer of these trophy bulls to be shot? Also, Utah could give out many more tags than they currently do and, therefore, kill many more record book bulls without significantly hurting the quality. Exactly how many more could we give? I don't know...

2) The tags/hunter ratio for "mature" bulls may be better in Arizona (I don't know; I haven't figured out the math). But, I would gladly sacrifice "mature" opportunity for the chance to hunt. You seem to think hunting is just about killing; I don't. I don't care what the success rates are...to me hunting is about the chance to get out and chase a male animal with the opportunity to kill it. Not about killing. I strongly believe that if you looked at the time when Utah severly reduced deer hunting tags and the time hunter numbers began dropping in this state you would find a significant correlation...I don't believe this is a coincidence; if you take hunter opportunity away, you lose hunters. What that tells me is that people want to do more than just hike in the woods...which is evidenced by the fact that these spike tags are sold. If people didn't want to hunt them, they wouldn't buy the tags.

3) You can hunt mature bulls every year...it is NOT good enough for me because of several reasons: 1) my favorite hunting areas are spike only and spikes are good enough for me 2) too far to drive to open areas that I don't know as well...I don't have the time or money to learn them well enough to avoid the crowds 3) private property. In truth, I still hunt the any-bull area on Cedar Mountain some, but not as much as the spike units. My reasons for hunting the spike units over the any-bull units, though, has nothing to do with elk numbers or low hunter success rates. Just because these areas don't appeal to me as much does not mean they do not appeal to others.

4) If kids are given the opportunity to hunt, whether successfull or not, I believe they are much more likely to continue if they see animals--legal or not. If they are not allowed to hunt, they will NOT begin hunting down the road. I believe that the single biggest threat to the average joe's hunting opportunity is LE hunting and the need for trophy animals. I think this changes hunting to a rich man's sport and will slowly erode the number of hunters...I am very afraid that hunting in Utah will eventually become similar to the hunting opportunity in Europe. This scares me. And, every time we reduce opportunity and the price of tags go up because of reduced opportunity, we move closer and closer to this ultimate ending...

5) I agree that there other possibilities to lower bull/cow ratios--like issuing more tags. My point was that we have spike hunts to manage bull/cow ratios not to manage hunter numbers...giving more opportunity while managing bull/cow ratios is just a side benefit. Also, I don't have a problem with the 90% success rate on LE hunts...I believe that people like hunting elk during the rut and, after waiting for a significant amount of time, most people like a high success rated hunt. And, with the number of helpers, spotters, locaters, callers, etc. that most LE hunters employ, the success rate is going to be high regardless of when the hunt is held. Changing the dates of the hunt will not, in my opinion, significantly change the number of animals being killed. But, in truth, I don't really care if the dates are changed or if more tags are given to archery hunters...these things may increase opportunity slightly. To me, we should maximize opportunity without eliminating all quality. I believe our current elk management practices are on the right track to do this. I believe our plan/strategy is far closer to doing this than Arizona's.

6) I400 is dumb because it complicates the solution to the problems we currently face: elevated bull/cow ratios and increased applicants for LE hunts. I believe we can improve and alleviate those problems best through a simple solution: issue more LE tags. By issuing more LE tags we can decrease bull/cow ratios, increase the number of applicants who draw, and increase cow tags because cow numbers will increase.


----------



## pickaspot (Sep 19, 2007)

If there could still be OTC tags, open bull units, LE tags that could be drawn every 3-5 years and premium units to get a trophy...and still not effect the quality of the herds...why would this be bad?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

wyo2ut, I sometimes believe that you dont like to hunt period because when you were with a friend on Monroe mtn hunting big bulls then you got bored from seeing all those bulls and went home. You talk about the areas and the hunts that you like but that is NOT what the majority of hunters want


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyo2ut wrote:
> 
> 
> > With my first hunts, I didn't care whether the animal was a trophy or not...in fact, I still don't.
> ...


"Bunk" only to a certain extent. ON my first elk hunts, I would have been pumped with a spike, I was shooting the first animal I saw with horns. Obviously, I would have been even more excited with a large bull, but a spike would have been thrilling....a "trophy" to me is not measured in inches like it is for many--a spike that first year would have been a trophy. When I had my "trophy" tag, I didn't care whether the bull was a raghorn 3-point or a 400 class 6-point...I was shooting the first bull that gave me the opportunity (probably even a spike). I would love to shoot a monster 400 class bull...I won't deny that. But, I would have been very happy with a dinky raghorn too. That extra money on the LE tag just gave me the additional opportunity to shoot any bull...not just a spike. Most of the time I am deer hunting, I shoot the first buck that makes itself available...

The first bull I ever called in was a "yearling" spike...It bugled several times before running right to me. That experience was more exciting and more memorable than the many big bulls I have called in since...probably because it was the first. Almost every time my best friend and I get together to hunt, we talk about that experience.

I don't deny that I would love to have more opportunities to shoot "mature" bulls...I would like that more than spike hunting. BUT, I don't want to sacrifice my yearly spike hunting opportunity for a chance at shooting a bigger bull every 5-8 years.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> wyo2ut, I sometimes believe that you dont like to hunt period because when you were with a friend on Monroe mtn hunting big bulls then you got bored from seeing all those bulls and went home. You talk about the areas and the hunts that you like but that is NOT what the majority of hunters want


I wasn't hunting; I didn't have a tag. I see big bulls all the time. Hunting to me, is the chance for me to shoot something.

I disagree; I think the majority of hunters want something similar to me...the opportunity to hunt.


----------



## pickaspot (Sep 19, 2007)

Doesn't I400 have spike/cow units as well as some open bull units that are OTC?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes and I400 will be great for hunters and the elk herd here in utah


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

1)They don't kill 3 times more book bulls because they don't grow 10 mature bulls for every tag issued, thus they are utilizing the 'resource' more wisely than we are.* Every* time the UDWR tries to raise tag numbers, those with several points rise up in fierce oppostion, how do *you* propose the UDWR increase tags up to "3 times as many" as currently issued? You make great bumpersticker comments, yet I have seen no solutions or means to accomplish what you advocate.

2)I do *not* equate hunting with killing. If I did would I be pushing for *LOWER* success rates? Think about it. :roll: Hunter numbers are decreasing nationwide, you are over-simplifiing the cause(s) of the decline in huinter numbers. The state sells fewer and fewer spike tags every year, and at a slower pace every year, this tells me the demand/appeal of them is decreasing yearly. Of course we have covered this numerous times already.

3)The any-bull areas do *not* sell out, yet the LE applicants rises *every* year, so the appeal must be fairly low to a large segment of the hunting population. Low success rates *is* one of the main reasons for the lack of appeal to many hunters.

4)Who is advocating taking away opportunity? Not me, the any-bull areas do not sell out, many cow hunts go under-subscribed, and we are not proposing eliminating ALL spike tags, so where do you get this non-sense? Another example of hyperboyle, "I am very afraid that hunting in Utah will eventually become similar to the hunting opportunity in Europe". I have been hearing this since before I was old enough to hunt. I see it as a scare tactic and nothing more. Utah is nowhere closer to being 'Europeanized' than it was 20 years ago. Just another bumpersticker slogan.

5)You can manage the bull/cow ratios to levels the EMP desires without issuing a single spike tag while maintaining good 'quality', this has been proven in many states and even in parts of Utah. I400 follows the EMP 100%, so I am still at a lose as to why you keep referring to I400 as a radical change to the EMP. To issue spike tags on units with desired bull/cow ratios tells me the spike atgs on these units are being issued to manage both elk and hunters, but hunters more than elk.

6) I400 is dumb because it complicates the solution to the problems we currently face: elevated bull/cow ratios and increased applicants for LE hunts. I believe we can improve and alleviate those problems best through a simple solution: issue more LE tags. By issuing more LE tags we can decrease bull/cow ratios, increase the number of applicants who draw, and increase cow tags because cow numbers will increase. How does I400 "complicate the solution"? As I said earlier, how are *you* going to get more tags issued? I want specifics, not fluff. Please. :wink: Lowering the success rates will allow for *more* tags to be issued, while getting the bull/cow ratios in line, while leaving several high-end quality LE units for those obsessed with killing a book bull or even a good chance of killing a 400 class bull.

pickaspot wrote:


> If there could still be OTC tags, open bull units, LE tags that could be drawn every 3-5 years and premium units to get a trophy...and still not effect the quality of the herds...why would this be bad?


Good question!

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

1) Simple...educate the hunters. If hunters understand why there is a "need" to lower bull/cow ratios and that lowering these ratios won't eliminate quality, they will support the change. This is what I have "advocated" all along...your solutions to increasing the numbers of tags are just "fluff" too...

2) I am not simplifying the cause of the decline...the cause is simple--decreased opportunity. Look at every state in the west and what do you find? Decreased opportunity and decreased numbers of hunters...that is not coincidence.

Also, the state does NOT sale fewer and fewer spike tags every year...in fact, in 2004 they sold around 14,000. A year later, they lowered the spike tag allotment and have been selling them out since. Talk about hyperboles, your statement is flat false. Regardless of how many times we have went over this, you still must not get it.

3) I don't believe I400 follows the EMP 100% and I have shown you time and again why...you just refuse to listen. I don't need to explain that again.

4) Pickaspot, the idea of drawing every 3-5 years is a pipe dream. The only way that is possible is to give enough tags out that bull/cow ratios drop to levels similar to general season hunts...if we give that many tags out, we should simply open these units up to general season hunting and offer more opportunity. Like I have said a million times, by giving spike tags we can actually offer more opportunity to hunters...even if we reduce the number of spike tags we give.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

pickaspot said:


> If there could still be OTC tags, open bull units, LE tags that could be drawn every 3-5 years and premium units to get a trophy...and still not effect the quality of the herds...why would this be bad?


If we could increase OTC opportunity, increase LE opportunity, increase cow tags, and still not effect the quality of the herds...why would this be bad?


----------



## pickaspot (Sep 19, 2007)

As I sit and think about it...in the beginning it probably wouldn't be 3-5 years to draw an LE tag but after a couple years things would even out and there would be some that decide they want to just put in for a premium hunt instead of just an LE tag. The waiting time to draw a premium tag would probably lower as well since some hunters would want to just put in for the LE tags because they just want a chance at hunting something bigger than a spike but don't want to wait the extra years to get a premium tag. So the way I see it if I400 was started after a couple years the numbers would even out and there would be some that would draw premium tags (and eventually could possibly be drawn after 7-10 points instead of 15-20) and there would be some that would draw LE tags (which would probably be drawn on average with 3-5 points). There would be less people hunting the OTC tags because there would be a good number hunting LE units and a small number hunting premium units. There would be a lower success rate since the rifle hunt would move out of the rut (which was insanity in the first place), and if you didn't draw a premium or LE tag (whichever you are putting in for) you would still be able to hunt each year with an OTC tag.

If I have this right I don't understand what the argument is.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> "I am very afraid that hunting in Utah will eventually become similar to the hunting opportunity in Europe". I have been hearing this since before I was old enough to hunt. I see it as a scare tactic and nothing more. Utah is nowhere closer to being 'Europeanized' than it was 20 years ago. Just another bumpersticker slogan.


It isn't? I see examples of how Utah is becoming more and more similar to Europe all the time. Do you want some examples? How about these: 1) private property is becoming increasingly more difficult to access and hunt...many private landowners are selling hunting rights at exorbitant rates 2) hunting tags are becoming more and more costly and are often sold to the highest bidders with some sportsman tags auctioning for over 100 thousand dollars 3) privatized hunting operations are becoming more and more common and more and more costly 4) hunting opportunity is gradually decreasing 5) management practices are focusing more and more towards trophy animals 6) gradually the number of hunters continues to decline because of lack of opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

pickaspot said:


> If I have this right I don't understand what the argument is.


For me the argument is simple: the above is a pipe dream. We will never be able to draw an LE permit every 3-5 years without lowering quality to levels similar to open-bull areas.

We could increase OTC tags, increase LE tags, and increase cow tags all at the same time and still not destroy quality...to me, that makes much more sense.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> pickaspot said:
> 
> 
> > If there could still be OTC tags, open bull units, LE tags that could be drawn every 3-5 years and premium units to get a trophy...and still not effect the quality of the herds...why would this be bad?
> ...


You have just described I400! *()* *()* *()* *()* *()* *()*

1)Fluff, fluff, and more fluff. How are *you* going to "educate" the hunters? 'My' solutions are* not* "just "fluff"", we have been out there meeting with the DWR biologists, meeting with sportsmen groups, holding meetings with 'average joe sportsman', talking with biologists and game managers from other states, reading articles, talking with sportsmen from other states. I do NOT consider that "fluff".

How about educating me on how you can increase tag numbers by 3 times w/o affecting quality. I see no realistic way to triple the number of bulls killed on a unit w/o affecting quality, I will go out on a limb and say that is *not possible*.

2)Southern states and eastern states are experiencing declines in hunter numbers as well, where hunters can kill multiple deer each year. How do you explain this? It is because the American culture is changing. Video games and computers(yes I see the irony) and numerous other distractions contribute to the decline in hunter numbers. Add in the 'urbanization' of more communities, where kids are much less likely to be introduced to hunting, and how when I was a kid all the schools in Utah were closed for the deer opener, what schools in Utah do that today? Like I said, over-simplifaction of the causes of hunter numbers.

The state used to issue 19,00 spike tags, when they stopped selling out they reduced the number of tags. Look at this year, they are only issuing 11,000, yet there are spike tags *still* available. The demand for spike tags *has* decreased over the last several years, that is fact.

3)I'll make this easy for you, I assume you can read the EMP. Find *ONE* example and post it here where I400 deviates from the current EMP. Are you up to the challenge? Or just more bumpersticker fluff?

4)I'll agree for the first few years, drawing every 3-5 years is a little high, but giving time to get into top gear, I don't think it is far fetched. I400 will not reduce the number of over-all tags in Utah by one. How does this reduce opportunity? Spike tags will stay at 11,000, any-bull areas will stay as is, cow tags will *increase*, mature bull tags will *increase*. Yeap, sounds like a bad deal to me as well. :roll: How ironic is it that it is *you* that is advocating a *reduction* in spike tags? :?

PRO


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Pro,

Do *you* really have to type *every* other *word* in *bold* to get your *thick-headed* poit accross to *thin* skined people who *don't* have a *clue* what they are *talking about.* :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > "I am very afraid that hunting in Utah will eventually become similar to the hunting opportunity in Europe". I have been hearing this since before I was old enough to hunt. I see it as a scare tactic and nothing more. Utah is nowhere closer to being 'Europeanized' than it was 20 years ago. Just another bumpersticker slogan.
> ...


1)This is unique to Utah? Or is this common across the land, even in states where 'trophy hunting' is non-exiestent, or minimal? 2)The price of those sportsman tags is* lowering* the cost for the 'common man' to hunt, not increase his costs. 3) Again, is this unique to Utah? Or is this a 'world-wide' "problem"? 4)Opportunity is decreasing because of increased developement, not Utah focusing on 'trophy hunting'. 5)You are one of the guilty ones on this, you want to keep Utah at the top of the heap for book bulls, yet complain about the focusing of managing for trophys. Huh? 6) Another instance where you are dismissing the main issues/causes of hunter numbers declining.

Tex, *yes* I *do* for *those* who *only* read *parts* of *a* post. :twisted: :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> wyoming2utah wrote:
> pickaspot wrote:
> If there could still be OTC tags, open bull units, LE tags that could be drawn every 3-5 years and premium units to get a trophy...and still not effect the quality of the herds...why would this be bad?
> 
> ...


Am I missing where you have incressed OTC opportunity for all in all areas of the state?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I must of missed where someone said, "where you have incressed OTC opportunity for all in all areas of the state." I don't think Lake Powell will ever have OTC opportunity. :wink: 

I am saying I400 will not decrease OTC opportunities, yet WILL increase cow tags and mature bull tags while maintaining many LE units that offer world-class trophy hunting opportunities.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Sure it would. It might not take away the number of OTC tags but it reduces the amount of area you can hunt. That to me is loss of opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Sure it would. It might not take away the number of OTC tags but it reduces the amount of area you can hunt. That to me is loss of opportunity.


How so? :?

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut wrote


> 1) private property is becoming increasingly more difficult to access and hunt...many private landowners are selling hunting rights at exorbitant rates 2) hunting tags are becoming more and more costly and are often sold to the highest bidders with some sportsman tags auctioning for over 100 thousand dollars 3) privatized hunting operations are becoming more and more common and more and more costly


Wyo2ut you post an article an brag about how Utah is killing more BC record bulls than any other state, and that its great to have trophy hunting, but you also talk about how its a problem in your post above. You are a Liberal in your thoughts. You say one thing and then in the next breathe you say something against your first statement.

You do this on many issues so i think you better find out where you really stand before you go posting again.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > pickaspot said:
> ...


1) And you still have the same problem...hunters don't want more elk tags given out. Fluff....pure fluff. I read this very thought on Monstermuleys just yesterday.

2) Southern states and Eastern states are just like Europe right now...the problem is that there is too much private property that people cannot access. It is the whole problem...no opportunity to hunt despite available tags. To access private ground, sportsmen must pay top dollar...the opportunity doesn't exist for the average joes...no opportunity; no recruitment. How can a kid ever become a hunter if he has no chance to hunt.

3) No, the demand has NOT decreased; the tags continue to sell out. And, I bet they sell out again this year. The demand has NOT changed; that is fact. How can you say the demand has decreased when they sell the same amount?

4) Do I really have to do this again? Easy...the plan states: "Recommend limited entry bull permits on each unit to allow age class objectives to be met. If units fall below the objective, permits will be reduced. If units are consistently above objective, permits will be increased." The plan gives no allowance within its management strategies to change season dates, eliminate or add spike tags, and to change point systems. To reach objective the EMP clearly states that "if we are above objective" more LE permits should be issued. You can't honestly say that is all you are doing...

5) Not only for the first few years is this a pipe dream, but forever. Do you honestly think that the number of people applying for tags will level off and not increase?

6) Pro, you say: " I400 will not decrease OTC opportunities, yet WILL increase cow tags and mature bull tags while maintaining many LE units that offer world-class trophy hunting opportunities." But, we can do this without changing everything; in fact, we can do it and actually increase OTC opportunity...we don't have to change season dates; we don't have to eliminate spike hunts on some units and put it on other units. Keep everything the same!

7) You keep bringing up the number "3 times"...I used that example because we give out 3 times less tags than Arizona; that was hyperbole. But, on many units we could double and almost triple the number of tags without ruining the quality and without getting lower than objective. Of course, these units don't have spike hunting. Take Monroe, for example...in 2005 58 bulls were killed. If we increased that number by 2.5 times, 145 bulls would have been killed. Seems like a lot until you look at the big picture. The units population estimate was 900 total elk with a bull/cow ratio of 43/100...that means of the 900 elk, 387 were bulls. So, if you killed 145 bulls, you would still be left with 242 bulls (not including spikes) to recruit into the classes the following year. IF you added spikes to the equation, the post-hunt bull total would be around 367 bulls. Quality would surely go down...but, we would be closer to objective and the quality would still be higher than the general season areas. Bottom line is that quality will have to go down in order to meet objectives.

8) The problems of limited access, increased costs, and limited opportunity is happening all across the country; not just Utah. The question is why should we hurry up the process? Why should we rid ourselves of opportunity and keep allowing fewer and fewer new hunters to be recruited when we can keep opportunity high or even increase it? The way to ensure future hunting is to get people out hunting...not by reducing it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> When I had my "trophy" tag, I didn't care whether the bull was a raghorn 3-point or a 400 class 6-point...I was shooting the first bull that gave me the opportunity (probably even a spike). I would love to shoot a monster 400 class bull...I won't deny that. But, I would have been very happy with a dinky raghorn too. That extra money on the LE tag just gave me the additional opportunity to shoot any bull...not just a spike. Most of the time I am deer hunting, I shoot the first buck that makes itself available...


Wyo2ut here is another example of you saying one thing and then you say the total opposite. You would have been happy just killing a raghorn or even a spike on a LE unit, but you argue until you are blue in the face and spitting angry that I400 will ruin the quality on the LE units. It sounds to me that you dont care about quality from your post above or you are pouting out total BS



> Take Monroe, for example...in 2005 58 bulls were killed. If we increased that number by 2.5 times, 145 bulls would have been killed. Seems like a lot until you look at the big picture. The units population estimate was 900 total elk with a bull/cow ratio of 43/100...that means of the 900 elk, 387 were bulls. So, if you killed 145 bulls, you would still be left with 242 bulls (not including spikes) to recruit into the classes the following year. IF you added spikes to the equation, the post-hunt bull total would be around 367 bulls. Quality would surely go down...but, we would be closer to objective and the quality would still be higher than the general season areas. Bottom line is that quality will have to go down in order to meet objectives.


We have used these type of examples with I400 and you argued against it because you said we would hurt the quality and yet you give the same examples :roll: :roll: :lol:

Talk about being entertaining *()* *()*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut, you talk in circles better than anyone I know. Well done.

1)I dare say increasing the tag numbers on *five* units as opposed to all *28* is much easier to accomplish, and much more likely to be implemented. No fluff!

2)You originally blamed the decline on lost opportunity due to managing for trophy animals, remember? Now all of a sudden you are restating what I have been saying all along. What gives? Private property is NOT an issue in Utah, there is lots of public land with access, the issue is limited tags, I400 is addressing this issue.

3)If the DWR issued 19,000 tags like they did originally, are you saying they would all get sold? I don't think so cowboy.

4)Nice try, but wrong!!!! Let's break this down. You qouted the EMP with,


> Recommend limited entry bull permits on each unit to allow age class objectives to be met. If units fall below the objective, permits will be reduced. If units are consistently above objective, permits will be increased.


I400 follows this to the letter, so no issues here. 
You state,


> The plan gives no allowance within its management strategies to change season dates, eliminate or add spike tags, and to change point systems


 Where exactly does it say you can't do this? Are you saying the EMP prohibits the DWR from changing season dates, reduce/add spike tags year to year, and adjust the draw system? Where in the EMP does it state that? 
You then state,


> To reach objective the EMP clearly states that "if we are above objective" more LE permits should be issued. You can't honestly say that is all you are doing...


 Again where in the EMP does it say how more permits should be issued and season dates and weapon tag allotments can't be adjusted? I just reread it, and I can't seem to find it anywhere in the actual EMP. Maybe you have a different version that you follow. Like I have said many many times, I400 follows the current EMP better that the current management plan in play today. Try harder.

5)No, but as I400 gets fully up to speed more tags can be issued and the demand for more units to be included with go up, thus increasing the number of mature bull tags available to the general public.

6)Here is a prime example of how you talk in circles. You claim


> But, we can do this without changing everything; in fact, we can do it and actually increase OTC opportunity...we don't have to change season dates; we don't have to eliminate spike hunts on some units and put it on other units.


 How?? You earlier *today* mentioned reducing the number of spike tags, WTH?

7)Atleast you admit to using hyperbole, that is a start. You said


> Bottom line is that quality will have to go down in order to meet objectives


 Isn't this one of the very reasons why you originally opposed I400, the reduction in quality? I say 'your' plan would lower quality much more than I400 will, which is one of many reasons your 'plan' has a snowballs chance in hell of ever being implemented.

8]I say I400 is reversing the direction of "lost opportunities and lost hunter numbers". Many hunters are flat out tired of having pi$$ poor options for hunting elk in Utah while hearing about all the big bulls here, with little/no chance of ever benefitting from it, but being told "just be happy with your spike tag, atleast you get to hunt every year". Big freakin whop.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> How so?


Correct me if I am wrong but you are turning some of the most popular OTC hunting units in the state into LE units. Yes you will have cow tags on them but there is no way you can give out as many tags for them as there are hunters on them now. Dont get me wrong Pro I want to believe in I400 but I am just not there yet.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)I dare say increasing the tag numbers on *five* units as opposed to all *28* is much easier to accomplish, and much more likely to be implemented. No fluff!


1) I disagree; it will be equally has hard to convince the hunters of those units to increase tags...fluff.



proutdoors said:


> 2)You originally blamed the decline on lost opportunity due to managing for trophy animals, remember? Now all of a sudden you are restating what I have been saying all along. What gives? Private property is NOT an issue in Utah, there is lots of public land with access, the issue is limited tags, I400 is addressing this issue.


Huh? Private property is NOT an issue? ARe you kidding? Then, why in the heck does the DWR work so hard at gaining access to private land? Have you ever hunted the Cedar Mountain open-bull unit? Have you looked at which units the DWR has not sold out the cow tags? BS...private property is an issue; especially when you consider how much private land ownders are selling hunting rights for...this Europe to a tea!



proutdoors said:


> 3)If the DWR issued 19,000 tags like they did originally, are you saying they would all get sold? I don't think so cowboy.


The DWR has NEVER sold 19,000 tags! The highest number the DWR ever sold was 14,000...the next year the DWR lowered the number of possible spike tags to 11,000...since then the DWR has sold at least 11,000 every year! The demand has not changed...



proutdoors said:


> You state,
> 
> 
> > The plan gives no allowance within its management strategies to change season dates, eliminate or add spike tags, and to change point systems
> ...


 Again where in the EMP does it say how more permits should be issued and season dates and weapon tag allotments can't be adjusted? [/quote:f56e3]

4) The EMP clearly outlines its "objective" and its "strategies" for achieving "objectives." NONE of the strategies listed included the things you are trying to implement. The DWR should implement the strategies they have outlined in their plan BEFORE coming up with new ones. To me, that is undoubtedly going against the plan. If they don't follow the strategies listed first, what is the point of the plan?



proutdoors said:


> 5)No, but as I400 gets fully up to speed more tags can be issued and the demand for more units to be included with go up, thus increasing the number of mature bull tags available to the general public.


I400 will NEVER get fully up to speed, because it will NEVER be implemented. But, even if it did, the increase of the number of mature bull permits would NEVER keep up with the increase in demand. You are extremely optimistic in your 3-5 year evaluation.



proutdoors said:


> 6)Here is a prime example of how you talk in circles. You claim
> 
> 
> > But, we can do this without changing everything; in fact, we can do it and actually increase OTC opportunity...we don't have to change season dates; we don't have to eliminate spike hunts on some units and put it on other units.
> ...


6) Here is a prime example when you post 100% lies. I did NOT say earlier today anything about reducing spike tags. Go back and reread if you want. The only time I have ever mentioned reducing spike tags was when YOU were suggesting to eliminate them. I suggested that as means to comprimise...something you have NEVER been willing to do.

IF we increased LE tags (as the EMP states we should), if we reduced the bull/cow ratios on units where they are too high, we could increase cow tags and increase OTC opportunity. It is really simple...which is why I don't get all this other nonsense you keep pushing for.



proutdoors said:


> 7)Atleast you admit to using hyperbole, that is a start. You said
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is that quality will have to go down in order to meet objectives
> ...


1) Oh hell, Pro, what's the use...you don't read a **** thing I say and then you try to put words in my mouth...I admit to using hyperbole; you don't...but do it well! I have opposed I400 because you want to reduce to the quality to a level similar to general season areas...which is stupid. If you lower the quality that much, you might as well make those I400 areas general season OTC areas. As far as I am concerned the DWR could turn the whole state into a general season open-bull hunt; that would be my choice.

The funny thing is that "my" plan is being implemented right now...and each year it is implemented more and more. You must be blind to reality. What is the DWR doing? Each year they are increasing LE tags...if they keep doing it, they will meet objectives. I just wish they would increase LE tags more and speed up the process of reaching objective.



proutdoors said:


> 8]I say I400 is reversing the direction of "lost opportunities and lost hunter numbers". Many hunters are flat out tired of having pi$$ poor options for hunting elk in Utah while hearing about all the big bulls here, with little/no chance of ever benefitting from it, but being told "just be happy with your spike tag, atleast you get to hunt every year". Big freakin whop.


I say I400 isn't doing a **** thing...and never will! If many hunters are so "flat out tired of having pi$$ poor options for hunting elk in Utah", why then are our numbers not changing? Why are we still selling the same number of tags? Why are our LE hunt applicants getting higher and higher? Why are hunters fighting the increase in LE tags?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > How so?
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but you are turning some of the most popular OTC hunting units in the state into LE units. Yes you will have cow tags on them but there is no way you can give out as many tags for them as there are hunters on them now. Dont get me wrong Pro I want to believe in I400 but I am just not there yet.


I400 is *NOT* doing anything to the any-bull open areas, NOTHING. We are working with five LE units; N Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fishlake, and LaSal, no OTC any-bull areas are on the radar.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

I understand. I am not talking any bull units I am talking spike units. I am willing to bet that 3 of your spike units are some of the most popular units in the state. If you turn them into a LE/cow hunt only that is taking away a lot of oppernuity. Yes granted you are giving it other places for those will and able to do so.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> 1) I disagree; it will be equally has hard to convince the hunters of those units to increase tags...fluff.


 How is it just as hard to change 5 units as 28 units? That is nonsensical.



> Huh? Private property is NOT an issue? ARe you kidding? Then, why in the heck does the DWR work so hard at gaining access to private land? Have you ever hunted the Cedar Mountain open-bull unit? Have you looked at which units the DWR has not sold out the cow tags? BS...private property is an issue; especially when you consider how much private land ownders are selling hunting rights for...this Europe to a tea!


Try and follow along, I said there is ample public land and public access in Utah. To say otherwise is hyperbole.



> The DWR has NEVER sold 19,000 tags! The highest number the DWR ever sold was 14,000...the next year the DWR lowered the number of possible spike tags to 11,000...since then the DWR has sold at least 11,000 every year! The demand has not changed...


You may want to recheck your numbers again.



> The EMP clearly outlines its "objective" and its "strategies" for achieving "objectives." NONE of the strategies listed included the things you are trying to implement. The DWR should implement the strategies they have outlined in their plan BEFORE coming up with new ones. To me, that is undoubtedly going against the plan. If they don't follow the strategies listed first, what is the point of the plan?


 There is plenty of room for the strategies to still be followed and have I400 implemented. Funny how the DWR Big Game Coordinator and several of the authors of the EMP say I400 is in compliance with the EMP, kind of odd don't you think?



> I400 will NEVER get fully up to speed, because it will NEVER be implemented. But, even if it did, the increase of the number of mature bull permits would NEVER keep up with the increase in demand. You are extremely optimistic in your 3-5 year evaluation.


 Shoot for the stars and hit the moon baby!



> 6) Here is a prime example when you post 100% lies. I did NOT say earlier today anything about reducing spike tags. Go back and reread if you want. The only time I have ever mentioned reducing spike tags was when YOU were suggesting to eliminate them. I suggested that as means to comprimise...something you have NEVER been willing to do.
> 
> IF we increased LE tags (as the EMP states we should), if we reduced the bull/cow ratios on units where they are too high, we could increase cow tags and increase OTC opportunity. It is really simple...which is why I don't get all this other nonsense you keep pushing for.


 You did state this yesterday(was today yesterday), when I get a moment I will paste and post *YOUR* post saying such. How is lying? I have compromised dozen*s* of issues and points regarding I400, more hyperbole.

Again, how are you going to, "IF we increased LE tags (as the EMP states we should), if we reduced the bull/cow ratios on units where they are too high, we could increase cow tags and increase OTC opportunity. It is really simple"? Talk is cheap, and efforts to do what you are saying have been shot down hard and fast. What magic potion do you have to get it done now?



> 1) Oh hell, Pro, what's the use...you don't read a **** thing I say and then you try to put words in my mouth...I admit to using hyperbole; you don't...but do it well! I have opposed I400 because you want to reduce to the quality to a level similar to general season areas...which is stupid. If you lower the quality that much, you might as well make those I400 areas general season OTC areas. As far as I am concerned the DWR could turn the whole state into a general season open-bull hunt; that would be my choice.
> 
> The funny thing is that "my" plan is being implemented right now...and each year it is implemented more and more. You must be blind to reality. What is the DWR doing? Each year they are increasing LE tags...if they keep doing it, they will meet objectives. I just wish they would increase LE tags more and speed up the process of reaching objective.


 I read your posts, they are good cheap entertainment. To make the *assinine* assertion that I400 will reduce 'quality' to a level similar to general season areas....is very *stupid* and an intentional mis-leading comment by someone who knows better. We will still have harvest age objectives of 3-5 yr old bulls and 30+ bull/cow ratios, what general season area is anywhere near that?

"Your" plan is allowing many LE units to have bull/cow ratios approaching 100/100, good plan. :roll: It is also seeing the odds of drawing a tag get worse every year, good plan. :roll: Every year the harvest age averages *increase* even with the 'small' increases in tag numbers, to where every LE is at/above objective with several way above objective(a sign of too many older bulls in the herd), good plan. :roll: Sounds to me like "your" plan needs some help, I400 is just the medicine to cure "your" plans illnesses.



> I say I400 isn't doing a **** thing...and never will! If many hunters are so "flat out tired of having pi$$ poor options for hunting elk in Utah", why then are our numbers not changing? Why are we still selling the same number of tags? Why are our LE hunt applicants getting higher and higher? Why are hunters fighting the increase in LE tags?


 What numbers are you talking about? You just mentioned how we are getting fewer hunters every year, now you say the numbers aren't changing, which is it? The LE applicants are increasing because the hunters don't have any other 'real' options to hunt mature bulls in Utah, pretty simple. Hunters are fighting the increase in tag numbers because they are being told an increase with destroy the quality.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 1) Oh hell, Pro, what's the use...you don't read a **** thing I say and then you try to put words in my mouth...I admit to using hyperbole; you don't...but do it well! I have opposed I400 because you want to reduce to the quality to a level similar to general season areas...which is stupid. If you lower the quality that much, you might as well make those I400 areas general season OTC areas. As far as I am concerned the DWR could turn the whole state into a general season open-bull hunt; that would be my choice.


Wyo2ut, all you do is talk around in circles so its pretty hard to read when you cant even keep your own thoughts straight.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > 1) I disagree; it will be equally has hard to convince the hunters of those units to increase tags...fluff.
> 
> 
> How is it just as hard to change 5 units as 28 units? That is nonsensical.


No it's not...the problem is the same regardless of how many you want to change. If you don't solve the problem, it still exists.



proutdoors said:


> Try and follow along, I said there is ample public land and public access in Utah. To say otherwise is hyperbole.


Ample doesn't mean that it isn't decreasing...that is the point. We are losing opportunity because we are losing the amount of area we can hunt. The more land we lose the more opportunity we lose...and the more like Europe we become. That was and still is the original point...sorry you struggle so much!



> The DWR has NEVER sold 19,000 tags! The highest number the DWR ever sold was 14,000...the next year the DWR lowered the number of possible spike tags to 11,000...since then the DWR has sold at least 11,000 every year! The demand has not changed...


.

I still stand by this quote...show me where it says otherwise.



proutdoors said:


> There is plenty of room for the strategies to still be followed and have I400 implemented.


So, we should change the rules in the middle of the game? Again, let's follow the strategies outlined in the plan FIRST before changing.



proutdoors said:


> Shoot for the stars and hit the moon baby!


Exactly, so we should shoot for many more tags and hopefully we will get a good increase!



> 6) Here is a prime example when you post 100% lies. I did NOT say earlier today anything about reducing spike tags. Go back and reread if you want. The only time I have ever mentioned reducing spike tags was when YOU were suggesting to eliminate them. I suggested that as means to comprimise...something you have NEVER been willing to do.
> 
> IF we increased LE tags (as the EMP states we should), if we reduced the bull/cow ratios on units where they are too high, we could increase cow tags and increase OTC opportunity. It is really simple...which is why I don't get all this other nonsense you keep pushing for.





proutdoors said:


> You did state this yesterday(was today yesterday), when I get a moment I will paste and post *YOUR* post saying such. How is lying? I have compromised dozen*s* of issues and points regarding I400, more hyperbole.


Hyperbole? Where in the hell did I say anything about reducing spike tags yesterday? I didn't. That is a lie...my quote says NOTHING about reducing spike tags.



proutdoors said:


> Again, how are you going to, "IF we increased LE tags (as the EMP states we should), if we reduced the bull/cow ratios on units where they are too high, we could increase cow tags and increase OTC opportunity. It is really simple"? Talk is cheap, and efforts to do what you are saying have been shot down hard and fast. What magic potion do you have to get it done now?


How am I going to get it done now? It ALREADY is being done now...the DWR has increased the number of LE tags several years in a row...if they keep doing it, eventually objectives will be met. I don't need to talk...it is already taking place.



proutdoors said:


> I read your posts, they are good cheap entertainment. To make the *assinine* assertion that I400 will reduce 'quality' to a level similar to general season areas....is very *stupid* and an intentional mis-leading comment by someone who knows better. We will still have harvest age objectives of 3-5 yr old bulls and 30+ bull/cow ratios, what general season area is anywhere near that?
> 
> "Your" plan is allowing many LE units to have bull/cow ratios approaching 100/100, good plan. :roll: It is also seeing the odds of drawing a tag get worse every year, good plan. :roll: Every year the harvest age averages *increase* even with the 'small' increases in tag numbers, to where every LE is at/above objective with several way above objective(a sign of too many older bulls in the herd), good plan. :roll: Sounds to me like "your" plan needs some help, I400 is just the medicine to cure "your" plans illnesses.


1) You obviously don't read what I post or you wouldn't be making up lies.
2) You have said that I400 will reduce bull/cow ratios to 25-30 bulls/100 cows...our general areas are around 25 bulls/100 cows (it's funny how you are now changing that). Seems pretty similar to me!
3) NO, my plan--read carefully--is to continue giving out more LE tags until we reach objective. That is the plan that is currently being followed and the plan that the EMP specifically states we should follow if we are not at objective. I just wish we were giving out more tags. I400 is a joke; I can't wait until it gets shot down!



proutdoors said:


> What numbers are you talking about? You just mentioned how we are getting fewer hunters every year, now you say the numbers aren't changing, which is it? The LE applicants are increasing because the hunters don't have any other 'real' options to hunt mature bulls in Utah, pretty simple. Hunters are fighting the increase in tag numbers because they are being told an increase with destroy the quality.


1) FEWER OVERALL HUNTERS! That doesn't mean we aren't selling the same number of spike tags. 
2) Hunters are being "told" that an increase in tag numbers will "increase" or "destroy" quality? By whom?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> We are working with five LE units; N Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fishlake, and LaSal, no OTC any-bull areas are on the radar.


Huh? The last summary proposal I read included this comment as well: "We propose introducing spike tags to the following five units(2): San Juan, Monroe, Pahvant, Pansagaunt, and SW Desert."

Seems to me like you are using hyperbole here...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here we go, round and round we go, whee.......



> No it's not...the problem is the same regardless of how many you want to change. If you don't solve the problem, it still exists.


 To say that tweaking 5 units is the same as tweaking 28 units is silly. I guess you would say the difficulty of getting elected mayor of Monroe is as hard as getting elecetd Governor. :roll:



> Ample doesn't mean that it isn't decreasing...that is the point. We are losing opportunity because we are losing the amount of area we can hunt. The more land we lose the more opportunity we lose...and the more like Europe we become. That was and still is the original point...sorry you struggle so much!


 Where in Utah is 'public hunting land' being made private? I struggle with your posts because they go in circles and are nonsensicle. Sorry you struggle with making a lucid post.

As for the 19,000 spike tags, I can't find the numbers for the first few years the spike tags were issued, however I was told 19,000 by the DWR. Regardless of the 19,000 being fact or "hyperbole", lets look at some numbers I pulled from the DWR website. In 2001 there were 13,600 rifle spike tags issued while there were 10,981 general rifle tags issued, in 2002 there were 10,745 rifle spike tags issued while there were 11,152 general rifle tags issued, in 2003 there were 10,634 rifle spike tags issued while there were 12,337 general rifle tags issued, in 2003 there were 10,910 rifle spike tags issued while there were 10,626 general rifle tags issued, in 2005(last year I could find data for) there were 9,582 rifle spike tags issued while there were 10,163 general rifle tags issued. The number of rifle spike tags sold has decreased from 13,600 to 9,582(-3,507) in 5 years while general rifle tags have decreased from 10,981 to 10,163(-818) in the same time frame. To date(August 17th,2007) 3,951 rifle/muzzy spike tags out of 11,000 have been sold. The demand is exteremly high for these spike tags isn't it? Meanwhile, the number of new applicants for LE tags is 5,000+ each year.



> So, we should change the rules in the middle of the game? Again, let's follow the strategies outlined in the plan FIRST before changing.


 No rules are being changed. I have said it before, but I'll repeat it for you, the DWR game managers have said I400 complies with the current EMP, the authors of the EMP I have talked with say I400 complies with the current EMP, yet you say otherwise. Who should we believe, those who WROTE it, or a wannabe biologist?



> Exactly, so we should shoot for many more tags and hopefully we will get a good increase!


 The problem with this is as long as the bulk of the tags go to rifle hunters who enjoy 90% success rates, the increases will be minimal each year, not to mention even with the very small increases each year the harvest ages go UP, they are already well over objective which is NOT following the current EMP!



> Hyperbole? Where in the hell did I say anything about reducing spike tags yesterday? I didn't. That is a lie...my quote says NOTHING about reducing spike tags.


 Why are you denying what you said so strongly? You DID say it. Not that it really matters, I doubt you hold that opinion now since you flip-flop more than John Kerry.



> How am I going to get it done now? It ALREADY is being done now...the DWR has increased the number of LE tags several years in a row...if they keep doing it, eventually objectives will be met. I don't need to talk...it is already taking place


. Really? I see the harvest age averages go up each year, the bull/cow ratios on many of the units get higher and higher every year, how is that "taking place"?



> 1) You obviously don't read what I post or you wouldn't be making up lies.
> 2) You have said that I400 will reduce bull/cow ratios to 25-30 bulls/100 cows...our general areas are around 25 bulls/100 cows (it's funny how you are now changing that). Seems pretty similar to me!
> 3) NO, my plan--read carefully--is to continue giving out more LE tags until we reach objective. That is the plan that is currently being followed and the plan that the EMP specifically states we should follow if we are not at objective. I just wish we were giving out more tags. I400 is a joke; I can't wait until it gets shot down!


 Classic wyo2ut BS! 1)NO lies from this side. 2) What is the average harvest age of bulls killed on general season areas? Is there ONE that has numbers anywhere near 3-5 years old? We want bull/cow ratios of 30/100(have from the very beginning), what general season area has ratios that high? 3)What general season area has success rates anywhere close to what they will be on these five pilot areas? 4)The DWR has been SLOWLY increasing tag numbers, yet harvest age averages has continued to rise, so how is that working toward being at objective? The number of new applicants way outpaces the number of additional tags, sdo how does "your" plan address this?



> 1) FEWER OVERALL HUNTERS! That doesn't mean we aren't selling the same number of spike tags.
> 2) Hunters are being "told" that an increase in tag numbers will "increase" or "destroy" quality? By whom?


 1)Fewer hunters are buying a tag, that is true, but the number applying for a LE tag is increasing every year. This tells me the number of hunters tired of hunting spikes and general season areas is decreasing, but the number of those who desire to hunt mature bulls is increasing. 2)I here it daily on these forums.



> Huh? The last summary proposal I read included this comment as well: "We propose introducing spike tags to the following five units(2): San Juan, Monroe, Pahvant, Pansagaunt, and SW Desert."


 I know I explained this more than once for you, this is something we are kicking around, but it has *NOT* been voted on or agreed upon by those pushing I400. Did you get it this time?

PRO


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Page 4 of this thread wyo2ut, go back and reread what YOU posted about reducing spike tags.

PRO


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

News update, from the DWR site: "On Sept. 18, more than 3,800 any bull elk unit permits, and 3,900 spike bull only unit permits, were still available for the hunt." The demand fo rthese tags is incredible, we shoould increase the number of spike tags to keep up with the high demand. :? 

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

No it isn't Pro...I just went back and read it again. There is nothing on page 4 that says I recommend reducing spike tags. NOTHING. Why you keep trying to put these words in my mouth is beyond me...post it. Prove it. You can't because I didn't say that we should reduce spike tags!

As for the numbers of spike tags sold...you can't look at the DWR's big game reports and simply write down the numbers of hunters afield and think that equals spike tag sales. Scroll down your page and you will notice that the numbers of LE tags issued and the numbers of hunters afield is also not the same. In both 2005 and 2006 the DWR sold 11,000 spike tags; they sold out. In 2004, the DWR sold 13,600 spike tags.

Also, for the millionth time, the EMP clearly states that when we are over objective for harvest ages we should increase LE tags (which we are doing), if we are below harvest ages we should decrease LE tags (which we are NOT doing because we are NOT below). We are following the EMP and we don't need to reinvent the wheel by changing season dates, changing some units from premium to spike units, and changing point systems from bonus points to preference points. Doing so, would go against the current EMP because these are NOT strategies listed to meet objectives. Harvest ages of elk has only continued to rise on some units; other units it is remaining the same and on other units it IS going down. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that if LE tags are increased enough harvest ages will go down. So, why not stick with the plan?

The DWR doesn't publish any data (or gather from what I understand)showing the average ages of harvested elk for any-bull areas...BUT, if you look at the numbers of elk killed and the number of mature bulls counted on these units, it is very likely that the bulls do NOT average ages less than 3. So, I would be willing to bet big money that the average age of harvested bull elk on general season any-bull areas is around 3-4 years.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> News update, from the DWR site: "On Sept. 18, more than 3,800 any bull elk unit permits, and 3,900 spike bull only unit permits, were still available for the hunt." The demand fo rthese tags is incredible, we shoould increase the number of spike tags to keep up with the high demand. :?


But, they will sell out...there must be a demand. How is this that much different than deer tags...how come we have leftover deer tags that need to be sold OTC? Hmm...must not be any demand for them using your logic!


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Mods. Can we please get a couple of more smilies. The little dude eating popcorn would be very great in situations like this.

Thanks,
Fixed Blade :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > News update, from the DWR site: "On Sept. 18, more than 3,800 any bull elk unit permits, and 3,900 spike bull only unit permits, were still available for the hunt." The demand fo rthese tags is incredible, we shoould increase the number of spike tags to keep up with the high demand. :?
> ...


*ALL* the deer tags are sold out, even in the Northern Regions. The Southern, Central, and Southeastern had more applicants than tags(LE like if you will). The rifle deer hunt is *after* the rifle spike hunt, yet the spike tags haven't sold out still. Hmm....your logic is off AGAIN.



> Also, for the millionth time, the EMP clearly states that when we are over objective for harvest ages we should increase LE tags (which we are doing), if we are below harvest ages we should decrease LE tags (which we are NOT doing because we are NOT below). We are following the EMP and we don't need to reinvent the wheel by changing season dates, changing some units from premium to spike units, and changing point systems from bonus points to preference points. Doing so, would go against the current EMP because these are NOT strategies listed to meet objectives. Harvest ages of elk has only continued to rise on some units; other units it is remaining the same and on other units it IS going down. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that if LE tags are increased enough harvest ages will go down. So, why not stick with the plan?


 Millionth time? I believe it has only been a few hundred thousand times, don't over-state it. :wink: What LE units have consistently been seeing a steady lowering of harvest age averages? All the premium units are going up, some so high and so fast, that they, get this, went and changed the age objectives right in the middle of the EMP time frame instead of sticking hard-line with the recommended objectives, WTH?



> The DWR doesn't publish any data (or gather from what I understand)showing the average ages of harvested elk for any-bull areas...BUT, if you look at the numbers of elk killed and the number of mature bulls counted on these units, it is very likely that the bulls do NOT average ages less than 3. So, I would be willing to bet big money that the average age of harvested bull elk on general season any-bull areas is around 3-4 years.


I suppose since there is no hard data, you can spew any numbers you want to pull out your back-side....BUT, if you use some common sense, it is very likely that the 'quality' on open-bull areas is much lower than what I400 will achieve. You said we could come close to tripling the number of LE tags, even if it were only to be doubled while still issuing spike tags, what do you think the 'quality' would be? Are you saying it would be higher than under I400? If so, why/how is that possible?

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

oh boy...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

You said, "What LE units have consistently been seeing a steady lowering of harvest age averages? All the premium units are going up, some so high and so fast, that they, get this, went and changed the age objectives right in the middle of the EMP time frame instead of sticking hard-line with the recommended objectives, WTH?"


Let's look at the facts and what is happening with harvest ages:
Box Elder, Pilot mountain: 2001--7.0, 2002--6.7, 2003--5.5, 2004--7.0, 2005, 7.5
Box Elder, Grouse Creek: 2001--6.0, 2002--4.0, 2003--, 2004--5.0, 2005--
Cache, North--2001--3.4, 2002--4.4, 2003--4.0, 2004--3.8, 2005--4.7
Cache, South--2001--4.7, 2002--6.4, 2003--6.3, 2004--4.7, 2005--6.5
Cache, Meadowville: 2003--6.0, 2004--6.0, 2005--7.2
Northslope, three corners: 2001--3.1, 2002--4.3, 2003--4.6, 2004-5.1, 2005--5.1
Southslope, Diamond Mountain: 2001--4.2, 2002--4.4, 2003--5.7, 2004--5.2, 2005--5.5
Book Cliffs, Bitter creek: 2001--5.6, 2002--6.5, 2003--5.8, 2004--6.4, 2005--6.5
Book Cliffs, Little Creek: 2001--7.3, 2003--7.6, 2004--6.8, 2005--6.9
Nine Mile, Anthro: 2001--8.3, 2002--6.9, 2003--8.0, 2004--6.7, 2005--6.4
La Sal: 2001--4.2, 2002--5.8, 2003--6.3, 2004--5.7, 2005--5.7
San Juan: 2001--8.1, 2002--7.7, 2003--8.0, 2004--7.7, 2005--7.5
Central Mountains, Manti: 2001--5.9, 2002--7.0, 2003--7.1, 2004--6.7, 2005--6.9
Central Mountains, Nebo: 2001--5.6, 2002--6.0, 2003--6.3, 2004--6.3, 2005--6.6
Wasatch Mountains: 2001--6.0, 2002--6.1, 2003--6.4, 2004--6.8, 2005--7.1
Oquirrh-Stansbury: 2001--4.5, 2002--5.0, 2003--5.7, 2004--5.9, 2005--7.0
West Desert, Deep Creek: 2001--6.5, 2002--7.8, 2003--6.5, 2004--6.9, 2005--8.8
Southwest Desert, Indian Peaks: 2001--7.9, 2002--8.1, 2003--7.2, 2004--7.7, 2005--8.1
Fillmore, Oak Creek: 2001--5.0, 2002--5.8, 2003--4.5, 2004--4.8, 2005--5.3
Fillmore, Pahvant: 2001--8.2, 2002--7.6, 2003--7.1, 2004--7.5, 2005--8.5
Beaver: 2001--6.0, 2002--7.0, 2003--6.0, 2004--7.5, 2005--7.1
Monroe: 2001--6.0, 2002--7.5, 2003--7.1, 2004--7.2, 2005--7.8
Mount Dutton: 2001--5.7, 2002--6.5, 2003--5.9, 2004--6.2, 2005--6.7
Plateau, Fish Lake: 2001--7.2, 2002--7.2, 2003--6.8, 2004--6.3, 2005--6.4
Plateau, Boulder: 2001--5.5, 2002--6.0, 2003--5.9, 2004--7.2, 2005--7.0
Paunsaugunt: 2001--6.2, 2002--6.6, 2003--4.8, 2004--5.5, 2005--5.4
Panguitch Lake: 2001--6.6, 2002--6.3, 2003--7.1, 2004--6.1, 2005--7.0

So areas that have shown a downward trend? How about these: Paunsagunt, Fish Lake, San Juan, Nine Mile Anthro, Book Cliffs Little Creek, and Box Elder Grouse Creek. In truth, I don't see really any that are going up exceptionally fast...and many have shown drops--including one where the harvest age was changed.

A closer look shows that the 4-year average after 2001 dropped in harvest ages in these areas: Box Elder, Pilot Mountain (7.0 compared to 6.7), Southwest Desert, Indian Peaks (7.9 compared to 7.8), Fillmore Pahvant (8.2 compared to 7.7), and Panguitch Lake stayed the same (6.6). 

Again, the bottom line is that if tag numbers continue to increase, average ages will drop and objectives will met...

You said:
"I suppose since there is no hard data, you can spew any numbers you want to pull out your back-side....BUT, if you use some common sense, it is very likely that the 'quality' on open-bull areas is much lower than what I400 will achieve. You said we could come close to tripling the number of LE tags, even if it were only to be doubled while still issuing spike tags, what do you think the 'quality' would be? Are you saying it would be higher than under I400? If so, why/how is that possible?"


That's what I love about you Pro...you fire out crap without even thinking about it. I am not spewing out numbers based on nothing. I have looked at the aerial surveys and the reports on these areas...I have made a conclusion based on the best available information. Based on the fact that mature bull numbers exceed immature bull numbers on these units, I have a very hard time believing that most elk hunters on general hunts are shooting yearlings and two-year olds when they are NOT the most abundant animals. You, on the other hand, simply state, with no evidence, and fire out straight from "your back-side" that open-bull areas harvest elk averaging below 3-4 years. Aren't you calling the kettle black? "Common-sense" says that if you lower bull/cow ratios to levels similar to or even to open-bull units, the quality will also be similar.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes Wyo2ut if you increase the tags the average age of harvest will go down, but I400 is a perfect plan because we are moving the rifle hunt out of the rut which means that more tags can be issued because the success rate will be lower. If you simply increase tags with the success rate at 80% or higher then you are limited to the amount of tags you can give with that kind of success rate

Well Im done with work so im out of here. Keep the entertainment coming Wyo2ut . I cant wait to read what you write next.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You said, "What LE units have consistently been seeing a steady lowering of harvest age averages? All the premium units are going up, some so high and so fast, that they, get this, went and changed the age objectives right in the middle of the EMP time frame instead of sticking hard-line with the recommended objectives, WTH?"
> 
> Let's look at the facts and what is happening with harvest ages:
> Box Elder, Pilot mountain: 2001--7.0, 2002--6.7, 2003--5.5, 2004--7.0, 2005, 7.5
> ...


I have to admit I am very glad you are on this forum, it would be boring without you. 

Lets look at the areas with a 'downward trend'. Paunsagaunt, where the DWR is trying to eliminate the herd altogether. Fish Lake, where the herd was almost wiped out a few years back. San Juan, that went from 8.1>7.7>8.0>7.7>7.5, that is a heck of a 'decline'(well within the statisical margin of error of being basically the SAME). 9 mile Anthro, which has a fairly small herd where one or two animals can skew the averages alot. Book Cliffs, see San Juan. Box Elder, where they have less than 200 elk and borders TWO other states.

A closer look shows that the 4-year average after 2001 satewide is HIGHER now than then, even after increases in tag numbers for nearly every LE unit! Oddly the units that have recieved the smallest increases are the units you cite as examples of proof "your" plan is working on getting herds to objectives. How is the bull/cow ratios on these units? Better or worse than in 2001?

What general season any-bull unit has bull/cow ratios of 30/100 and has harvest ages anywhere near 5 years old? Even those with mostly private land are nowhere near these numbers. True or false, *most *(not all) bulls killed on any-bull areas are raghorns? I say those are 2-3 year old bulls similar to what Colorado pumps out on their otc units. I guided in the San Juan National Forest for many years, the biggest bull killed by ant of the over 200 hundred hunters I guided was 280", it was a *3 year old bull*. Don't try and spin this to I400 being a raghorn paradise, it simply is not true. For one, the DWR has no desire for such to happen, yet they say I400 is feasible, SFW surely does NOT want this, yet they like I400. How is this possible? Are you that much smarter than the biologists(whom I thought where above question by you), and dozens of sportsmen who eat/drink/breath wildlife, many of whom helped write the EMP?



> "Common-sense" says that if you lower bull/cow ratios to levels similar to or even to open-bull units, the quality will also be similar.


 Like I said "for the millionth time", what open-bull unit has ratios 'similar to or even to I400 objectives'?

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, I dont how you are going to get out of this hole, but its getting deeper and deeper.

Wyo2ut, you are wrong again the numbers arent going down because you forgot to post the 2006 numbers

BOX ELDER, GROUSE CREEK 2005 na, 2006 6.4

BOOK CLIFFS LITTLE CREEK 2005 6.8, 2006 7.8

NINE MILE ANTHRO 2005 6.9, 2006 6.6

SAN JUAN 2005 7.6, 2006 7.6

FISH LAKE 2005 6.4, 2006 7.6

PAUNSAGUNT 2005 5.3, 2006 6.0

It looks like to me the number are going up and not down like you claim on those units. Wyo2ut there isnt a any-bull unit in this state that has a bull/cow ratio of 30/100 or a 5 year ave age of harvest. I dont know what world you are living in but its definately not Utah

Wyo2ut you also have to look at ALL the factors involved with these units. Like Pro said the Box Elder, Grouse is also hunted by two other states. The Nine Mile, Anthro has a lot of private property. There could even be small errors in the tooth sampling because they have made mistakes with that before. EXample mountain lion tooth sampling) The weather plays a factor, hunting pressure, the terrain of the unit. These are all factors involved in these units so you cant just look at numbers alone, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS ARE RISING NOT FALLING.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

I have learned so much listening to you guys. Keep up the good work. o-||


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> I have learned so much listening to you guys. Keep up the good work. o-||


 *OOO*

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wyo2ut, you are wrong again the numbers arent going down because you forgot to post the 2006 numbers
> 
> BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS ARE RISING NOT FALLING.


Oh, Coyote...you have much to learn:

If you were to JUST look at 2006 numbers you would find that these units are dropping:
Box Elder, Pilot Mtn.
Nine Mile, Anthro
Nine Mile, Range Creek
La Sal
Oquirrh-Stansbury
West Desert, Deep Creek
Southwest Desert, Indian Peaks
Fillmore, Oak Creek
Fillmore, Pahvant
Beaver

and...these units are staying the same:
Cache, Meadowville
San Juan
Mount Dutton
Panguitch Lake

So, if you were to look at those numbers, you would see that exactly half of all LE units are either dropping in number or are staying the same...and these numbers don't even include the units that had exceptionally minimal gains like--South Slope, Diamond Mtn; Book Cliffs, Bitter Creek; Central Mountains, Manti; and Monroe.

The funny thing is that you guys are almost asserting that increasing LE tags will NOT reduce the average ages of harvested elk. Now that is a lauger. You can't really think that a continued increase in LE tags will NOT bring average ages down, can you? And, Pro, it is not only logical but expected that smaller units with fewer elk see progress first because it will take less elk being shot for numbers to go down.

The stupidest comments made, though, have to go to Pro this time. Pro claimed that 1) the DWR is trying to eliminate the paunsugaunt herd 2) the Fish Lake herd was "almost wiped out". A quick look at the Pauns herd objective shows that the objective has NOT changed in 7 years and that the DWR has tried to actually INCREASE this herd's numbers because they are BELOW objective. Your comment is pure BS. The second comment is pure hyperbole: the Fish Lake unit was nowhere near being wiped out back when the DWR closed the unit down because of overharvest. The unit still had a large population of elk; it was just below objective and worries about recruitment arose when too few cow elk were counted.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> The stupidest comments made, though, have to go to Pro this time. Pro claimed that 1) the DWR is trying to eliminate the paunsugaunt herd 2) the Fish Lake herd was "almost wiped out". A quick look at the Pauns herd objective shows that the objective has NOT changed in 7 years and that the DWR has tried to actually INCREASE this herd's numbers because they are BELOW objective. Your comment is pure BS. The second comment is pure hyperbole: the Fish Lake unit was nowhere near being wiped out back when the DWR closed the unit down because of overharvest. The unit still had a large population of elk; it was just below objective and worries about recruitment arose when too few cow elk were counted.


You are becoming funnier and more entertaining by the day.

First, the DWR isn't even hiding the fact that they and the two major conservation groups would love to see a elk population on the Pauns similar to that on the Henries, which is nearly zero.

Second, the Fish Lake WAS devastated and maybe not nearly wiped out(slight hyperbole), but was most certainly affected in a NEGATIVE way, which DID have an impact on bull quality. An example of this is the harvest age average for 2006, which *INCREASED* by a significant amount over the previous 3 years.

In order to get an accurate assesment of harvest age averages, a three aveage must be used at a minimum, otherwise a spike +/- will skew the actual age data.



> The funny thing is that you guys are almost asserting that increasing LE tags will NOT reduce the average ages of harvested elk. Now that is a lauger. You can't really think that a continued increase in LE tags will NOT bring average ages down, can you? And, Pro, it is not only logical but expected that smaller units with fewer elk see progress first because it will take less elk being shot for numbers to go down.


You assume to much. I say the SMALL increases in tag numbers has not been enough to reduce harvest ages. Anis Auide, whom I assume is 'educated' enough for you, stated at the meeting he had with us, "the state could double the tags across the board for five years before age objectives would be met." So, apparently, the Big Game Coordinator, a biologist, believes the SMALL increases are not enough to make a dent in harvest ages. The reasons are many, but a major one is that there are excess bulls on these units, so by killing a few more than last year doesn't equal the number of new "older" bulls being recruited into the herd. In otherwords, the number of older bulls killed on the Monroe this year will be lower the the number of older bulls replacing them next year. Same for the other 27 LE units. Anis also said every year they age bulls at older ages, meaning they age killed bulls at older ages each year, a few years ago a 12 year old bull in Utah was almost unheard of, now it is becoming more common. Add a few 12+ year old animals into the mix, and the harvest age will be higher than normal.

One of my major complaints with the harvest age averages is it only one small part of the story. I live in the Oquirrh-Stansbury unit, but spend each hunting season on the Dutton unit. According to the age averages, the Oquirrh has older bulls than Dutton, which I dispute adamantly. I watched a 'herd bull' on the Oquirrh just yesterday afternoon, he was a 320 class 4-5 year old bull with 20 cows. You will not find a 380 class 7 year old bull that can keep 20 cows on the Dutton. The Oquirrhs have had 100% success for ALL weapon types two years in a row, meaning access to the 'older' animals is high, so the 'older' bulls get killed at a higher percentage on this unit than the Dutton, where the escapement percentage of 'older' bulls in quite high, making the data a little mis-leading.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Oh Wyo2ut you have so much to learn and you're very entertaining. Once again Wyo2ut you can't just focus on the numbers without looking at everything else involved with the units.

You're the famous internet biologist


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> First, the DWR isn't even hiding the fact that they and the two major conservation groups would love to see a elk population on the Pauns similar to that on the Henries, which is nearly zero.
> 
> Second, the Fish Lake WAS devastated and maybe not nearly wiped out(slight hyperbole), but was most certainly affected in a NEGATIVE way, which DID have an impact on bull quality. An example of this is the harvest age average for 2006, which *INCREASED* by a significant amount over the previous 3 years.
> 
> In order to get an accurate assesment of harvest age averages, a three aveage must be used at a minimum, otherwise a spike +/- will skew the actual age data.


1) I don't believe this. According to the DWR's own assessment of the Pauns elk herd: "The target managment plan objective has been established at 200 head. As demonstrated in these data, elk population numbers have increased from the 2001 head count...and remained at that level through 2004. It has been the strategy of the Division and the Dixie National Forest to maintain elk numbers below the objective over the past few years due to severe drought conditions and the reduced availability of forage on the Paunsaugunt Unit. As a result elk numbers have remained constant. However, in 2004 and 2005 vegetation has begun to increase in response to an increase in percipitation. The population is now going to be managed so that slight increases will occur. This will be accomplished in part by not offering any cow tags..."

2) Major hyberbole. Again according to the DWR in regards to the "slaughter": "We conducted an aerial survey of the area a few months ago and found an average of 30 bulls per 100 cows, so there's still a good bull elk population in the area but drought conditions have reduced the number of elk calves," says Steve Cranney, big game coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Resources. "Not hunting spikes in the area this fall will help assure that sufficient spike bulls make it to a mature age."

3) Agreed...three-year averages should be used. And, if averages don't come down, more tags should be issued.



proutdoors said:


> You assume to much. I say the SMALL increases in tag numbers has not been enough to reduce harvest ages. Anis Auide, whom I assume is 'educated' enough for you, stated at the meeting he had with us, "the state could double the tags across the board for five years before age objectives would be met." So, apparently, the Big Game Coordinator, a biologist, believes the SMALL increases are not enough to make a dent in harvest ages. The reasons are many, but a major one is that there are excess bulls on these units, so by killing a few more than last year doesn't equal the number of new "older" bulls being recruited into the herd. In otherwords, the number of older bulls killed on the Monroe this year will be lower the the number of older bulls replacing them next year. Same for the other 27 LE units. Anis also said every year they age bulls at older ages, meaning they age killed bulls at older ages each year, a few years ago a 12 year old bull in Utah was almost unheard of, now it is becoming more common. Add a few 12+ year old animals into the mix, and the harvest age will be higher than normal.
> 
> One of my major complaints with the harvest age averages is it only one small part of the story. I live in the Oquirrh-Stansbury unit, but spend each hunting season on the Dutton unit. According to the age averages, the Oquirrh has older bulls than Dutton, which I dispute adamantly. I watched a 'herd bull' on the Oquirrh just yesterday afternoon, he was a 320 class 4-5 year old bull with 20 cows. You will not find a 380 class 7 year old bull that can keep 20 cows on the Dutton. The Oquirrhs have had 100% success for ALL weapon types two years in a row, meaning access to the 'older' animals is high, so the 'older' bulls get killed at a higher percentage on this unit than the Dutton, where the escapement percentage of 'older' bulls in quite high, making the data a little mis-leading.


1) I have been waiting for you to say this; small increases are NOT enough. I have said this all along; we should be getting larger increases. Anis said that we could "double" the number of tags...I said that on some units we could almost "triple" the tags and you said I was crazy. I agree with what you are saying, but this is what I have been condoning all along--a significant increase in LE tags.

Nevertheless, since 2001 we have increased LE tag numbers by 271% (from 805-2182). If we continue to increase at this rate, by 2013 we will be giving out 5913 tags. That is more than doubling the total tags...even if we continue to increase tag numbers at current levels, we will eventually reach objective.

2) Harvest-ages is only a part of the equation, but we do look into other factors. All decisions are not just made on harvest-ages. You dispute "adamantly" that the Oquirrh-stansbury unit has older bulls than the Dutton...I don't know what the ages of the bulls on either are or if the information is misleading or not. BUT, what I do know is this: 1) It is very difficult to tell how old a bull is without using tooth data to age it 2) size of an elk's rack or antlers is not necessarily indicative of its age--a 320 class bull on two different units could vary significantly in age 3) harem numbers are more an indicator in bull/cow ratios than ages and classes of bulls. Knowing these things, I find it very difficult to dispute the averages...so, if the averages are shown to be higher on one unit than another, I believe them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

1)Believe or dis-believe, I know what I was told face to face.

2)Your own statement shows there was a concern over the number of bulls being recruited into the herd, which would result in a 2-3 dip in harvest ages!

3)Here are some 3 year averages for you:

I will list them in three aves, starting with 2001-2003,2002-2004,2003-2005,2004-2006;
Pilot MT:6.4, 6.4, 6.7, 7.6
Anthro: 7.7, 7.2, 7.2, 6.2
LaSal: 5.4, 5.9, 5.9, 5.8
Oquirrrh: 5.1, 5.5, 6.2, 6.5
Deep Creek:6.9, 7.1, 7.4, 7.9
SW Desert: 7.7, 7.7, 7.7, 8.0
Oak Creek: 5.1, 5.0, 4.9, 5.0
Pahvant: 7.6, 7.4, 7.7, 7.9
Beaver: 6.3, 6.8, 6.9, 7.3
These are the units you said where declining in age averages. I see one(Anthro) that dropped -1.2, one(Oak Creek) that dropped -.1, the others ALL increased! Hmmm......

Meadowville:n/a, n/a, 6.4, 6.7
San Juan: 7.9, 7.8, 7.7, 7.6
Dutton: 6.0, 6.2, 6.3, 6.6
Panguitch: 6.7, 6.5, 6.7, 6.7
Diamond MT:4.8, 5.1, 5.5, 5.4
Manti: 6.7, 6.9, 6.9, 7.0
Monroe: 6.9, 7.3, 7.4, 7.7

I see exactly *three* units that dipped, two by less than .5. So, where is all this evidence that the tag increasements is working? Help me out, 3-28+what? That is the number of units that have either *increased* or stayed fairly flat while being *over* objectives!



> I have been waiting for you to say this; small increases are NOT enough. I have said this all along; we should be getting larger increases. Anis said that we could "double" the number of tags...I said that on some units we could almost "triple" the tags and you said I was crazy. I agree with what you are saying, but this is what I have been condoning all along--a significant increase in LE tags.


 I'll ask again, how do you propose to get increases anywhere near doubled, leave alone tripled? I did say you are crazy on tripling, which is 33% more than doubling, do the math. The main problem I have with doubling the tags under the current scheme is it would lower quality significantly. Having 60% of the doubled tags issued to rifle hunters in September would turn units into Diamond Mountain type quality of elk, not a good plan. I400 can handle double/triple the tags because the success rates will be lower, and primitive weapon hunters normally kill smaller animals, which will allow for a higher percentage of the top-end bulls to escape to the next year.

I may not be a biologist, but I can tell the difference between a 3-4 year old bull and a 6-7 year old bull, hint: I don't look at the antlers for this. Just as I can tell the difference between a young cow and an older lead cow even w/o any antlers present. The bull I saw last night was a 3-4 year old bull, a 3-4 year old bull on Dutton can't get with 200 yards of 20 cows little lone 'own' them, regardless of the size of his antlers.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> The bull I saw last night was a 3-4 year old bull


Was that bull on the extened hunt??? :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)Believe or dis-believe, I know what I was told face to face.


Prove it. Isn't that what you have told me when I said Moss's posse chases people away from animals? You comment is pure heresay; prove it! I don't care what you were told; it isn't true.



proutdoors said:


> 2)Your own statement shows there was a concern over the number of bulls being recruited into the herd, which would result in a 2-3 dip in harvest ages!


Recruitment of YOUNG bulls...yearlings, not mature bulls. Because YEARLINGS were not hunted, ages should have gone up--all spike bulls were recruited into the herd. The most interesting thing from my quote was that the bull/cow ratio was 30/100...and the DWR felt it was too low.



proutdoors said:


> II see exactly *three* units that dipped, two by less than .5. So, where is all this evidence that the tag increasements is working? Help me out, 3-28+what? That is the number of units that have either *increased* or stayed fairly flat while being *over* objectives!


Again, are you saying that if the DWR doesn't continue increasing tags that average ages will NOT go down? In 2001 the DWR issued 805 tags...in 2007 they issued 2,182 tags. That is a 271% increase...if we increase the number of tags by the same rate in the next 6 years, we will be giving out 5,913 tags in 2013.



proutdoors said:


> I'll ask again, how do you propose to get increases anywhere near doubled, leave alone tripled? I did say you are crazy on tripling, which is 33% more than doubling, do the math. The main problem I have with doubling the tags under the current scheme is it would lower quality significantly. Having 60% of the doubled tags issued to rifle hunters in September would turn units into Diamond Mountain type quality of elk, not a good plan. I400 can handle double/triple the tags because the success rates will be lower, and primitive weapon hunters normally kill smaller animals, which will allow for a higher percentage of the top-end bulls to escape to the next year.
> 
> I may not be a biologist, but I can tell the difference between a 3-4 year old bull and a 6-7 year old bull, hint: I don't look at the antlers for this. Just as I can tell the difference between a young cow and an older lead cow even w/o any antlers present. The bull I saw last night was a 3-4 year old bull, a 3-4 year old bull on Dutton can't get with 200 yards of 20 cows little lone 'own' them, regardless of the size of his antlers.


1) Just keep going at the same rate...if we keep increasing at rates similar to what we have been increasing, we will eventually meet objective. We don't have to do it all in one year!

2) I am sorry that my estimate of 33% was so far off the 27.1% number that the DWR has increased the tags already by. :roll:

3) No, you are not a biologist that is 100% obvious by some of these comments. It is absolutely ludicrous and exceptionally naive to think that you can age a mature bull with any kind of accuracy just by looking at it when biologists have a difficult time doing it with teeth. I, too, have been hunting elk my entire life...and I still can't age a mature elk down to the year. I am really impressed with your knowledge... :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> proutdoors wrote:
> 1)Believe or dis-believe, I know what I was told face to face.
> 
> Wyo2ut wrote
> Prove it. Isn't that what you have told me when I said Moss's posse chases people away from animals? You comment is pure heresay; prove it!


We have him saying it on a video


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...prove it. Post the video clip.

I find it totally ironic that the DWR would say they are eliminating cow tags to INCREASE the herd and you guys say that someone told you face to face on video that they are "eliminating" this herd.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Ok...prove it. Post the video clip.


 I don't know if it is on video or not, I stand by my statement regardless. Comparing this to assailing ones character is apples and oranges, but I get your point. We can move on for the Pauns, deal?



> Recruitment of YOUNG bulls...yearlings, not mature bulls. Because YEARLINGS were not hunted, ages should have gone up--all spike bulls were recruited into the herd. The most interesting thing from my quote was that the bull/cow ratio was 30/100...and the DWR felt it was too low.


 Your logic is seriously flawed here! Yearlings were not hunted because there weren't very many of them to BEGIN with, this would NOT result in higher recruitment, but LOWER recruitment! This would result in lower age averages.



> Again, are you saying that if the DWR doesn't continue increasing tags that average ages will NOT go down? In 2001 the DWR issued 805 tags...in 2007 they issued 2,182 tags. That is a 271% increase...if we increase the number of tags by the same rate in the next 6 years, we will be giving out 5,913 tags in 2013.


 Again, eventually the average ages will go down, but it will take 5+ years at double the tags, how long will it take with small increases?



> 1) Just keep going at the same rate...if we keep increasing at rates similar to what we have been increasing, we will eventually meet objective. We don't have to do it all in one year!
> 
> 2) I am sorry that my estimate of 33% was so far off the 27.1% number that the DWR has increased the tags already by.
> 
> 3) No, you are not a biologist that is 100% obvious by some of these comments. It is when biologists have a difficult time doing it with teeth. I, too, have been hunting elk my entire life...and I still can't age a mature elk down to the year. I am really impressed with your knowledge...


1)The DWR has increased the tag numbers by, per you, 271% yet the age averages have CONTINUED to go UP. So, how many years is it going to take to level off, how many years before we see a decline, how many years before we actually have MOST/all of the LE at/near objectives? More than a year I am guessing. :roll:

2)The difference is you are implying tripling the tags all at once, which would result is a disaster!

3)It is absolutely ludicrous and exceptionally naive to think that you can *not* age a mature bull with a reasonable amount of accuracy just by looking at it. I grew up on a farm and was in FFA thru high school where I did alot of 'judging' of animals, that may explain why I can tell the difference in a young bull and an old bull. I don't have to see a persons ID to have a good idea if he is in his early twentys instead of his forty's, how is this possible using your 'wizdom'? A older bull looks much different than a younger bull. While I can't profess to be able to tell the exact date and time of day the bull was born, I feel confident in being able to tell the difference with fairly high accuracy of a 3-4 year old bull and a 6-7 year old bull. If you can't, maybe you have been to busy admiring how freakin smart you are instead of observing the animals in the hills. I never claimed to be able to age a bull "down to the year" with 100% accuracy, but I can be pretty close to the age with a respectable percentage. I make it a habit to guess the age of all the bulls I field dress, then verifiy with what the DWR results say. Some folks are good and guessing the weight of fish w/o a scale because the have an 'educated' reference to start with, I say that is what I have in being able to come darn close to judging a bulls age. Sorry you haven't acquired this 'knowledge'/skill yourself, so that you fill the need to question someone who HAS!

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I don't know if it is on video or not, I stand by my statement regardless. Comparing this to assailing ones character is apples and oranges, but I get your point. We can move on for the Pauns, deal?


Not so fast...you are implying that the DWR are hypocrites because they say one thing and do another--isn't that an implication of character? Also, on another site and thread you said just a couple months ago, "word on the street is the Division and Sportsman groups want the elk off the pauns altogether, and have it like the Henries, basically elk free." I am interested in hearing how "word on the street" has now changed to the DWR...?



proutdoors said:


> Your logic is seriously flawed here! Yearlings were not hunted because there weren't very many of them to BEGIN with, this would NOT result in higher recruitment, but LOWER recruitment! This would result in lower age averages.


NO, spikes were not hunted because calve numbers were low. To assure that good numbers of bulls were recruited into the older age classes, spike tags were not given out. This could/would result in higher recruitment of young bulls into older age classes. IF it didn't result in higher recruitment, then why would the DWR end the spike hunts; afterall, their goal was to increase recruitment, to increase bull/cow ratios, and increase herd numbers.



proutdoors said:


> Again, eventually the average ages will go down, but it will take 5+ years at double the tags, how long will it take with small increases?


Yes, the averages would go down...



proutdoors said:


> 1)The DWR has increased the tag numbers by, per you, 271% yet the age averages have CONTINUED to go UP. So, how many years is it going to take to level off, how many years before we see a decline, how many years before we actually have MOST/all of the LE at/near objectives? More than a year I am guessing. :roll:
> 
> 2)The difference is you are implying tripling the tags all at once, which would result is a disaster!
> 
> 3)It is absolutely ludicrous and exceptionally naive to think that you can *not* age a mature bull with a reasonable amount of accuracy just by looking at it. I grew up on a farm and was in FFA thru high school where I did alot of 'judging' of animals, that may explain why I can tell the difference in a young bull and an old bull. I don't have to see a persons ID to have a good idea if he is in his early twentys instead of his forty's, how is this possible using your 'wizdom'? A older bull looks much different than a younger bull. While I can't profess to be able to tell the exact date and time of day the bull was born, I feel confident in being able to tell the difference with fairly high accuracy of a 3-4 year old bull and a 6-7 year old bull. If you can't, maybe you have been to busy admiring how freakin smart you are instead of observing the animals in the hills. I never claimed to be able to age a bull "down to the year" with 100% accuracy, but I can be pretty close to the age with a respectable percentage. I make it a habit to guess the age of all the bulls I field dress, then verifiy with what the DWR results say. Some folks are good and guessing the weight of fish w/o a scale because the have an 'educated' reference to start with, I say that is what I have in being able to come darn close to judging a bulls age. Sorry you haven't acquired this 'knowledge'/skill yourself, so that you fill the need to question someone who HAS!


1) Yes, exactly my point...it will take more than one year. People won't allow the DWR to try and do it all in one year. And, actually, the more I think about it, the better that thought is. It should be gradual...this guards against any "disasters" where too many animals are shot. The point is that eventually ages come down.

2) That's funny...you say that it would take double the tags for 5+ years before ages go down and then you say that tripling the tags in one year would be a disaster. Sorry, I don't buy it. What would happen if the DWR increased the tags by 271% in one year then? Would it have the same or a different effect than if it were held over a 6-year span?

3) I am 34 years old...I reached the drinking/gambling age 13 years ago. Yet, almost every time I purchase an r-rated movie at Walmart or go gambling in Vegas I am asked for ID. What does this tell me? Most people can't age within 13 years my actual age...what makes me think for one second you could age an elk within one year? Regardless, your ability to age an elk is not at all scientific or exact...and I question the accuracy.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> ) I am 34 years old...I reached the drinking/gambling age 13 years ago. Yet, almost every time I purchase an r-rated movie at Walmart or go gambling in Vegas I am asked for ID. What does this tell me? Most people can't age within 13 years my actual age...what makes me think for one second you could age an elk within one year? Regardless, your ability to age an elk is not at all scientific or exact...and I question the accuracy.


This is just hilarious. Im laughing so hard I cant breathe. HELP my stomach is hurting


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

This back and forth is truly high entertainment. It sort of reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch "Point/Counterpoint" with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin. When Coyoteslayer or Pro calls Wyo2 a name it sounds like Akroyd's "Jane, you ignorant ****" retort. And when Wyo2 responds I hear "Proyou sadistic, elitist, sexist, racist, pro-I400 pig”. 

I hope most of the conversation between the three is in good fun or at least not personal.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

BradN said:


> I hope most of the conversation between the three is in good fun or at least not personal.


I find these arguments entertaining. Although they do get heated, I take nothing personal...nor do I hold any grudges or have any personal vendettas.

In truth, I would really like to meet Pro one day.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Not so fast...you are implying that the DWR are hypocrites because they say one thing and do another--isn't that an implication of character? Also, on another site and thread you said just a couple months ago, "word on the street is the Division and Sportsman groups want the elk off the pauns altogether, and have it like the Henries, basically elk free." I am interested in hearing how "word on the street" has now changed to the DWR...?


 I am *NOT* implying the DWR are hypocrites, that is YOUR assesment of it. I hold the DWR's character in very high regard, and I challenge you to *prove* otherwise!

Do you even read your own posts? You said, "you said just a couple months ago, "*word on the street is the Division and Sportsman groups want the elk off the pauns altogether*, and have it like the Henries, basically elk free." I am interested in hearing how *"word on the street" has now changed to the DWR...? *" Huh? I said "word on the street is the DWR AND sportsmen groups want the elk gone, now I say the DWR AND sportsmen groups want the elk gone, where did my statement change exactly? :roll:



> NO, spikes were not hunted because calve numbers were low. To assure that good numbers of bulls were recruited into the older age classes, spike tags were not given out. This could/would result in higher recruitment of young bulls into older age classes. IF it didn't result in higher recruitment, then why would the DWR end the spike hunts; afterall, their goal was to increase recruitment, to increase bull/cow ratios, and increase herd numbers.


Help me out here professor. Calf numbers were low so they didn't issue spike tags, doesn't that mean bull calf numbers where low? Wouldn't this merely lessen the reduction of recruitment of mature bulls? Didn't they suspend the spike tags to maximize the recruitment of a low number of bull calves due to low cow numbers? If an over-abundance of cows were killed, why would they need to *increase* the bull/cow ratio by 'adding' more bulls? Wouldn't it already be high because of a low number of cows in the herd? Did the DWR during this same time raise or lower the number of LE tags? If they lowered it wouldn't that debunk your theory of the reason for the supposed decline in harvest age averages for this unit?



> proutdoors wrote:
> Again, eventually the average ages will go down, but it will take 5+ years at double the tags, how long will it take with small increases?
> 
> *Yes, the averages would go down...[/*


 You failed to answer the question, so I will repeat it. If it would take 5+ years to lower age averages, how long will it take under the small increase being issued currently?



> 1) Yes, exactly my point...it will take more than one year. People won't allow the DWR to try and do it all in one year. And, actually, the more I think about it, the better that thought is. It should be gradual...this guards against any "disasters" where too many animals are shot. *The point is that eventually ages come down*.


 Where is your evidence to support this claim? I already showed that the age averages have decreased on a whoping 3 of the 28 LE units, and remaned the same or increased on the other 25.



> 2) That's funny...you say that it would take double the tags for 5+ years before ages go down and then you say that tripling the tags in one year would be a disaster. Sorry, I don't buy it. What would happen if the DWR increased the tags by 271% in one year then? Would it have the same or a different effect than if it were held over a 6-year span?


 If the DWR increased the tags by 271% in one year, the days of 380+ bulls would be nothing but a memory. If you did it all in one year, very few, if any, top-end bulls would still be breathing in the aftermath. This would *DESTROY* quality overnight. That is what I meant by saying it would be a disaster. :?



> 3) I am 34 years old...I reached the drinking/gambling age 13 years ago. Yet, almost every time I purchase an r-rated movie at Walmart or go gambling in Vegas I am asked for ID. What does this tell me? Most people can't age within 13 years my actual age...what makes me think for one second you could age an elk within one year? Regardless, your ability to age an elk is not at all scientific or exact...and I question the accuracy.


 Nothing like reading a little extra into something. :roll: When did I *ever* claim to be able to age an elk within one year? Oh wait, *I DIDN'T*! But, if you can't tell the difference between a young bull and an older 6+ year old bull, then you need an eye exam. The body size, head size, the straightness of the back, etc., give many very obvious clues as to whether a bull is in the lower end of it's life-cycle or the tail-end of it. A bull elk life expectancy is roughly 15 years, a man is 70. So, using that as a reference a 3 year old bull elk would be the equvilent of a 15 year old *boy*, a 6 year old bull would be the equvilent of a 30 year old *man*, while you may be a young looking 34 year old *man*, I highly doubt to many folks with an IQ high enough to tie their own shoes would mistake you for a 15 year old *kid*. If you can't tell the difference in a young (2-4 year old) bull and a 'old'(6-8 year old) bull, then no amount of "science" will help you.

I am tired of this topic for today, have fun. I got to go see if that herd bull is 3-4 or 6-7, I will try and rope him and pull a tooth for a scientific age verification. 8)

PRO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Man are you mods quick, thanks again guys. o-|| o-|| o-|| :rotfl:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

o-||


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Do you even read your own posts? You said, "you said just a couple months ago, "*word on the street is the Division and Sportsman groups want the elk off the pauns altogether*, and have it like the Henries, basically elk free." I am interested in hearing how *"word on the street" has now changed to the DWR...? *" Huh? I said "word on the street is the DWR AND sportsmen groups want the elk gone, now I say the DWR AND sportsmen groups want the elk gone, where did my statement change exactly? :roll:


Where? From the point it went from a "rumor" on the street to a "fact" that when you heard from a DWR employee. Is this a "rumor" from the street, or is a DWR telling you one thing when, in fact, they are doing the opposite?



proutdoors said:


> Help me out here professor. Calf numbers were low so they didn't issue spike tags, doesn't that mean bull calf numbers where low? Wouldn't this merely lessen the reduction of recruitment of mature bulls? Didn't they suspend the spike tags to maximize the recruitment of a low number of bull calves due to low cow numbers? If an over-abundance of cows were killed, why would they need to *increase* the bull/cow ratio by 'adding' more bulls? Wouldn't it already be high because of a low number of cows in the herd? Did the DWR during this same time raise or lower the number of LE tags? If they lowered it wouldn't that debunk your theory of the reason for the supposed decline in harvest age averages for this unit?


To INCREASE the recruitment of older bulls into the population, the DWR did not issue spike tags. Because spike tags were eliminated and LE tags were increased, average ages should have gone up. It is simple; if there were fewer spike tags and ALL spikes were recruited into the herd, the bulls killed would have been more likely to be older than younger. They would need to add more bulls because they wanted a higher bull/cow ratio and recruitment was not high enough. The whole worry was that if spikes were killed, the bull portion of the herd would also be significantly lower than objective.



proutdoors said:


> You failed to answer the question, so I will repeat it. If it would take 5+ years to lower age averages, how long will it take under the small increase being issued currently?


My "yes" was to this part of the quote: "Again, eventually the average ages will go down". You misunderstood me. I don't think it would take 5+ years to lower age averages. With the "small" increases we are seeing now, we would have increased tag numbers by 271% in 6 years. At the rate of tag increases we are seeing now we will see the average ages go down within 6 years.[/quote]



proutdoors said:


> Where is your evidence to support this claim? I already showed that the age averages have decreased on a whoping 3 of the 28 LE units, and remaned the same or increased on the other 25.


Again, it sounds like you are saying that they won't go down. Do you really believe that if we continue to increase tag numbers the average ages won't go down? I have shown that from 2005-2006 ages on 14 units when down and on several other units they stayed the same. IF that trend continues we are already lowering them...we will have to wait and see for three more years.



proutdoors said:


> If the DWR increased the tags by 271% in one year, the days of 380+ bulls would be nothing but a memory. If you did it all in one year, very few, if any, top-end bulls would still be breathing in the aftermath. This would *DESTROY* quality overnight. That is what I meant by saying it would be a disaster. :?


Exactly...that is why the DWR is only giving minimal increases each year--to assure that they do NOT destroy quality.



proutdoors said:


> Nothing like reading a little extra into something. :roll: When did I *ever* claim to be able to age an elk within one year? Oh wait, *I DIDN'T*!





proutdoors said:


> I watched a 'herd bull' on the Oquirrh just yesterday afternoon, he was a 320 class 4-5 year old bull with 20 cows.


 It sounds to me like you are aging this bull to within one year...are you not?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

O|* :rotfl: *-HELP!-* o-|| *()* O|* O|* O|* O|*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, the small tag increases that occur every year isnt enough to lower the average age to objective. Because more bulls are recruited into the herd than the amount of extra tags. It will take longer with the small increases to reach the objectives. I400 is a perfect plan because we are moving the rifle hunt out of the rut and giving more opportunity to primative weapons. We are giving out more tags because the overall success rates will be lower.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wyo2ut, the small tag increases that occur every year isnt enough to lower the average age to objective. Because more bulls are recruited into the herd than the amount of extra tags. It will take longer with the small increases to reach the objectives. I400 is a perfect plan because we are moving the rifle hunt out of the rut and giving more opportunity to primative weapons. We are giving out more tags because the overall success rates will be lower.


I agree with the first part of your statement. We will never be close to objective with the limited harvest in place right now. However, to say that I400 is "perfect" or even close to it is a stretch of one's imagination.

I think we've heard enough propaganda and cheerleading. What we need is facts and proposals to get behind or in front of. I love the passion that is behind I400 and at times, the passion that wyo2ut shows in his opposition to it, but this has gone in circles long enough.

I don't think there is one person in here who hasn't heard coyoteslayer's side and the same goes for wyo2ut (and that mullet-crew feller that likes to type in bold at times. :wink: )

You guys quote your favorite lines from research papers, DWR documents and the like and carefully omit anything that may be contrary to the point you are trying so very hard to make. Reminds me of a religious discussion, AINT NOBODY MOVIN HERE!

So, I'll ask this question to get this moving in a more productive direction.

Of the following, who would win in a staring contest and Why?

-Buddha

-Joe Peschi (Carlin would have his money on Joe)

-Jesus

-Muhammed

-Ben Herr

-Alf

-


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> So, I'll ask this question to get this moving in a more productive direction.
> 
> Of the following, who would win in a staring contest and Why?
> 
> ...


Alf would win for sure with his beady black fake eyes. *(())* *()* *OOO*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fatbass said:


> proutdoors wrote:
> "I watched a 'herd bull' on the Oquirrh just yesterday afternoon, he was a 320 class 4-5 year old bull with 20 cows. "
> 
> Then wyoming2utah said, "sounds to me like you are aging this bull to within one year...are you not?"
> ...


You are right, I was/am saying a 4-5 year old bull as opposed to a 6-7 year old bull. If a 'hunter' can't tell the difference, I question his ability to find an elk at all.

The lack of mentioning 5-6 year old bulls is due to the problem out here of not having a 5-6 year old bull standing in the hayfield like the 4-5 year old bull that has been there for the last 3 days, I tried to rope him last night, my horse shied away at the last moment and I didn't record a time, and I didn't acquire a tooth for aging this bull thru scientific means. So, while this bulls exact age remainsa mystery, I am confident he is small enough to not be killed by any remaining muzzy hunters nor late rifle hunters, so maybe next year he can hit the 330" mark and be put on some lucky hunters wall and have the scientific tooth data report to verify the 'exact' age of this bull, then we will know if he is just a wimpy antlered 'older' bull, or a 4-5 year old bull! 8)

As for wyo2ut's last post, I have debated this enough, even with your incorrect of MANY points, I don't have the energy to play this game today, maybe tomorrow.

PRO

Oh, I say Alf, I don't believe he has eyelids!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I tried to rope him last night, my horse shied away at the last moment
> Oh, I say Alf, I don't believe he has eyelids!


So, you are saying that the difference between a 5 year old bull and a 6 year old bull is so obvious :roll: :roll: that any good hunter--like yourself--would know the difference. Isn't that one year? :roll: :roll: If you can't age a bull within one year, why are you putting years? Why not say a "youthful" bull or a "mature" bull?

1) Isn't that against the law? Should I call a CO and have him check into this?

2) You are way wrong...Jesus, with his omniscience, would win easily!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to rope him last night, my horse shied away at the last moment
> ...


Thanks for the compliment on being a good hunter, although I would prefer being called a "pro" hunter. *\-\*

1)It is only against the law if I get caught, otherwise it 'never' happened. 

2)My bad, I didn't see Jesus. I doubt I will see him on the other side either, since it will be very warm where I am headed. 

PRO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

What ever you do, pro don't tell him about your soon to be dog. //dog// *OOO* :wink: _/O You'll never win an arguement after that.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> What ever you do, pro don't tell him about your soon to be dog. //dog// *OOO* :wink: _/O You'll never win an arguement after that.


My wife says it will be her dog and her dog alone. I was going to deny knowing what you are talking about, but I figured you would rat me out anyhow. :evil: Rudi will be the toughest dog around, as long as he is in his pet porter!

PRO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

When you say pet porter you mean hamster cage right.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> When you say pet porter you mean hamster cage right.


 I am in favor of putting Rudi into that 'cage' in your house by the computer. :shock:

PRO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Now thats funny, I get it. :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> Now thats funny, I get it. :lol:


 //dog// <<--O/

PRO


----------

